Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Expanding "plot summaries" to other in-universe databases

I believe the section on "plot summaries" should be reworded to include all in-universe topics. A fiction article needs to describe more than the in-universe aspects; however, plot summaries are only one part of the picture. Lists of items and weapons (that do not already violate gameguide) should also fall into this category. As a general interest encyclopedia, we need to explain how the items and weapons were created, as well as how they were received in (counter)culture. Otherwise, it's just a database of items. — Deckiller 22:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like...

Fictional databases: Like plot summaries, Wikipedia articles on fictional terms or items should offer real-world context, and not be merely a list of common terms or items. Examples and descriptions of terms and items are appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

— Deckiller 22:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that those are all excellent things for fictional articles to contain, but your suggestions have nothing to do with "What Wikipedia is not". They're suggestions for how to make existing articles better. Try Wikipedia:Featured list criteria instead. --tjstrf talk 22:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
So it's fine for Wikipedia to contain numerous sprawling lists of items and other in-universe terms for every notable fiction topic? If that's a concept that should be addressed on our featured content criteria, we might as well remove the plot summaries section altogether and allow sole-plot summaries as articles, since it addresses the same thing (or, rather, one aspect of the concept). Reworded. — Deckiller 00:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeing what Deckiller is getting at. I think we can expand/word the plot summaries point to cover these other in-universe (but not exactly "plot") issues. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I came here looking for a definition of 'plot summary'. I find my position is that I do not like 'plot summary' of a length which simply repeats the story, I think this pointless, well before the point where i would judge it becomes an issue of copyright. However, I do support re-telling parts of a story where the objective is to illustrate and explain the story. Particularly, presenting the story information in a different way to that in which it was created, to illustrate a character's motivation, explain why certain things happened within the logic of the plot. Now, illustrating a character can be difficult within wiki without external sources already backing up the point being made, but I judge it is proper to draw together episodes from a plot which even handedly represent the character as portrayed in the larger work. I do not consider such a description as a 'plot summary', yet it has become apparent that others do, and argue for deletion of material on that ground. It seems to me that this hampers the encyclopedia. So, does anyone have a definition of what a plot summary is, and is not? Sandpiper 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A partial or complete account of what happens in a work of fiction (or series of works), no matter if it is retold in the order and form it happens in the original works or in a different form (like a timeline, or the account of what happens to one character only). A timeline that illustrates the order in which episodes / books / ..., like the Buffyverse chronology, may be acceptable (if adequately sourced to indicate that this chronology is of sufficient importance) since it describes an out-of-universe aspect: in which order should the works be read / seen: a timeline that just describes a number of actions and events from a fictional universe or history is a plot summary. User:Fram 05:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, well there is the difficulty. If the definition of plot sumary extends that far, then the policy in effect says wiki is not:literary criticism. Which I have to say I would oppose. What exactly is the purpose of this point in the policy, anyway? Sandpiper 09:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Since when is "literary criticism" equal to "an account of what happens in a work of fiction"? Literary criticism is what some readers / critics think about the story, the writing, the characters, the intertextualism, or whatever they want to discuss. It is not a summary of the novel, it is not written from an in-universe perspective. I don't see how you can equate the two, and it looks to me like a strawman argument. Please see some featured articles like The_Old_Man_and_the_Sea or A Tale of a Tub to notice the distinction between the (short, as it should be) plot summary, and the other sections, including "literary significance and criticism" and other out-of-universe sections. This is the kind of article we need to have on major or minor works of fiction, not the endless in-universe trivia and plot retellings we currently have (mostly for some popular or cult series). The pupose of this point in the policy is that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, relaying what secondary sources have written about primary subjects: we paraphrase and condense the out-of-universe info about and discussion of fiction (to restrict myself to articles about fiction here), and avoid (or reduce as much as possible) the in-universe aspects. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be a form of "Condensed books", the only purpose of plot summaries should be to help uninformed readers understand the out-of-universe articles about the fictional universe, not to describe all aspects, characters, events, ... from a particular piece of fiction.Fram 12:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I had a quick look at 'old man and the sea', and notice that it contains a large section 'symbolism of the character', which seems to be exactly what I am talking about. It contains no external references to justify the body of the text, except one broad introductory quote from the author. Otherwise it relies upon quotes from the primary source, the book, and frankly expresses quite a lot of opinions about the symbolism. I spend quite a lot of time on HP pages. In that situation there is one article discussing what would be the the first section here, essentially background, but for the series as a whole. Another discussing specific background and a short synopsis for each of the seven books. Another for each major character (there are some 2500 pages of HP by now, so quite a lot of page time for many characters). Separate pages for different concepts. As a whole these may make up something like the article you have presented as an example, but much bigger, and far too big to be one single article. So the upshot is individual articles which contain material similar to the section in your example which explains an individual character, by reference almost solely to the primary sources. Thus your example justifies their existence, but technically they are separate articles liable to fall foul of your previous arguments. How do you square this contradiction? It seems to me that frequently people overlook the fact that while analysis of a topic ought to be rounded, the nature of wiki articles means that it has to be subdivided into logical sections in separate articles. Sandpiper 08:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite follow you. There is a section in the old man and the sea which is badly sourced or unsourced, so it should get tagged or removed. I notice that this section was not included at the time this became a featured article[1]. But how does this section justify separate articles consisting of nothing but plot summary? And if they were good, straightforward plot summaries, I wouldn't object so much, but the articles people try to defend with the "part of a larger topic" sentence are often riddled with original research and are reworkings of the story from a particular viewpoint, making it incomprehensible for someone who hasn't read at least part of the series (or seen some of the movies, played some of the games, ...). A plot summary (whether in an article or a a separate article) should be kept only if it is useful to the understanding of the article(s) about the work of fiction, as that is its only purpose. When you read a summary of Harry Potter, you should be able to understand it on its own, and more importantly it should be a good help in understanding the articles about (aspects of) Hary Potter. But something like World of Greyhawk Timeline is incomprehensible and useless for everyone but the diehard fans, and does not help at all when reading an article like Greyhawk. To keep this anyway because it is sourced and because WP:NOT does not count when it is an aspect of a larger topic (well, any plot summary can be called an aspect of a larger topic if you want to take it too broad) is wrong. So perhaps we need to clarify / rewrite the "plot summary as an aspect of a larger topic) to make it more strict, so that it can't be misused as a blanket "keep" for all plot summaries. Otherwise we can create plot summary articles for all 5,000 or so episodes of Neighbours, since they would be an aapect of a larger topic as well. I don't think that is what Wikipedia wants or needs at all.Fram 09:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that your example of a good article is not quite what you thought? An example of wiki at work then, it has been 'improved'. Someone, or at least a few to judge by the history, feel that it has been improved by the addition of this extra section discussing the character (I dont remember the book, presumaby 'the old man'), unsourced except by reference to the book. I have noticed before articles given as examples which do not seem to support the argument being made, bit of a hazard here. I think your argument is essentially that information about stories, as a matter of principle, does not belong on wiki. I think I asked, somewhere above, but why?
As to the timeline of Greyhark. I have to say I know nothing about Greyhawk. However, I have from time to time read series of books which include their own timelines. An author setting novels in a created 'universe' may sometimes chart where books/characters fit into an extended spread of time. I find such things generally useful to an understanding of an extended story. Now, if readers find such things useful, I did so long before wiki was invented, why does wiki not agree? I thought the idea of wiki was to provide information to readers.
The point I was making is that while an ideal article about a book might contain various sections, one of which is the plot summary, and another might be a discussion of character 1, etc, in an extended topic this simply will not fit into one article. So it is inevitable that the article will be split and maybe plot ends up in one article, character 1 in another, and so on. Plot then stands at risk of being deleted. Character 1 may stand at risk of being deleted, since basically the article simply explains his biography and character as portrayed in the book. I'm afraid I do not see why he should so stand in jeopardy. I really don't see a reason for it except dislike of that kind of information. Sandpiper 20:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I still don't get your argument about the book, I think you are focusing to much on the one section that fits your argument and that was added after it was a FA. You also ignore the other example I gave. As for your points: a separate article about a character may well be deleted if the character is not notable. An article for Albus Dumbledore is no problem: an article about Professor Everard would be overkill. If a plot summary gets too big for an article, it can be split off. However, the unlimited creation of plot summaries is not automatically allowed by this exception, contrary to what some people seem to argue on AfD debates. A plot summary should only be as large as is needed for a basic understanding of the out-of-universe articles about the subject, and is not a goal in itself. If a timeline (to take that example) adds nothing significantly to the understanding of a work or a series of works compared to the "normal" plot summaries, then they are just overkill and then the WP:NOT for plot summaries becomes valid again. Plot summaries have to kept to a minimum, not a maximum. Fram 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This answer seems to avoid what has now become my question: why do plot summaries need to be kept to a minimum? What is the justification for having this rule at all? It seems to me that something which might have once been an obvious rule, that wiki should not simply re-tell story books, has instruction crept into a policy of reducing such information to an absolute minimum. I persist in discussing single characters since it seems to me that this is a specific role which wiki should cover. Yes, a short synopsis of the whole plot for a main article, but also a specific subset of plot as it relates for a chacter. I'm afraid that I do not see why an article which did its best in the absence of known secondary sources discussing the character, should not use the primary source to illustrate that character. Nor should examples from the primary text be left out as a matter of choice, even when secondary sources are available. Others here would regard an article based solely on the primary source as a deleteable plot summary, and it specifically should not be. What would justify such an exclusion from wiki? Furthermore, I regard re-organisation of plot material to illustrate the point in question as highly desireable and encyclopedic, yet others seems to argue that this should not happen. Your case in point, timelines: A timeline rearranges information to better present it. As such, it is to be welcomed. Timelines for books are equally as useful as timelines for kings and queens.

(As to Everard, I had to stop and think who he was. One reason I have noticed which specifically suggests the creation of very short articles is cataloging. A catalog is an index, but unless there is an article on that subject there can be no entry.) Sandpiper 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should we have an article on a character for which there are no secondary sources? If there are no secondary sources, then the character is non notable, no matter how notable the work of fiction is he or she or it appears in. We don't document everything that exists, but only that what is notable as indicated by verifiable reliable secondary sources. WP:ATT: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. " and WP:FICTION: "Plot summaries should be kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them." So we should only have the minimum of plot summaries needed to understand an article we may have on any character or work of fiction, and not add plot summaries just because they may somehow for someone be useful, even though there are no secondary sources to back this up. As to why we have to keep them to a minimum: because we are a tertiary source, describing those things that other reliable secondary sources have deemed noteworthy: we are not a fan wiki (genre Wookieepedia) to describe every aspect of a work of fiction in every detail, no matter if there are secondary sources or not. Wikipedia is not paper, but that does not mean that it doesn't have a quite clear line of what it aims to be and what is not its intention. Plot summaries, descriptions of primary sources, are not the goal of Wikipedia, but may be used sparingly as a means towards that goal where needed. Fram 05:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I fear you are arguing in circles. You are saying we have rule #6 against something because we also have rule #8 against something, missing the point that perhaps both should go. What you say about souces is untrue, as witness your own quote. The policy recommends the use of secondary sources wherever possible. It does not ban work based upon primary sources when secondary ones are missing, and certainly does not ban the use of primary sources additionally. An obvious case in point for referencing a primary source is when discussing a work of fiction. I have no problem with 'describing the work, not simply summarising it'. However, this can be done by quoting or paraphrasing a primary text. 'Fred is tall, has blue eyes and is king of Tahiti. He is prone to fits of temper.' So. describing the character by use of the primary source. Assuming Fred has some reasonably important part in the book, such description is reasonable, and I have to say expected by readers interested in the subject. And before you say, 'but I am not intetrested in fancruft', perhaps stop and think who is going to read this article? Virtually every hit will be from someone who is interested in fancruft. These very same people are the ones who have given wiki such a high hit rate and made it important. Notebility of a work obviously imputes noteability to the main characters which make up that work. How does it make sense to claim that a famous work consisting entirely of a converstaion between two characters could be noteable, yet the characters not so? Admittedly, it is likely there would be something written about the characters, but this would not necessarily be helpfull in explaining them in an article. Lots of rave reviews in the newspaper might not explain the work very well at all, despite it having vast popularity and noteability. Sandpiper 07:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that, as part of a broader article, a longish (500 word) plot summary can be appropriate. For an example, see Ulysses (novel). In general, if a piece of fiction is notable enough to have an article, there ought to be enough other material available that the article will consist of more than just a plot summary. So I don't see it as an issue of WP:NOT. CMummert · talk 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why it says: "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." An article can contain a plot summary as a background, a basic explanation of what the article discusses: an article shouldn't just (or mostly) be a plot summary though. Fram 14:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait, my actual suggestion above hasn't really been addressed. Does anyone have a problem with its inclusion (or something similar?). — Deckiller 05:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's been 2 and a half weeks; adding for now, although I think two of us agree that it can be merged into the plot summary number Then, we can expand WP:FICT and link. — Deckiller 12:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Is it ok to have an entry that is only a plot summary and an image? If no then take it to AFD? I have tried that with more then a dozen articles that are just plot summaries and the consensus is to "clean up". I don't think I could agree to this. They should be expanded into articles. Any thoughts? Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it depends. If, for example, you have a fictional timeline or summary that is referred to by several articles (different books, movies, etc.), it makes sense for the timeline to exist as a sub articles to those main articles. On the other hand, if you have a notable book, for example, it shouldn't be deleted just becuase it's overwhelmed by plot summary. If necessary, you can prune it back to a stub. Chunky Rice 19:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This is still puzzling to me here there is a consensus as described on the WP:NOT page saying one thing and yet there is a consensus saying something totally differant about plot summaries like this Forest of Secrets (Warriors) may be you can better educate me on this? Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 19:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any conflict. WP:NOT says that plot summaries should be part of a larger discussion of the material and told in a real-world context. I dont' think anybody disagrees with that. However, that rationale is not a valid reason for deletion. Reasons for deletion primarily include issues with notability or attribution. Looking at Forest of Secrets (Warriors), I see a notable book that needs cleanup, per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:FICT, but find no policy reason for deletion.Chunky Rice 20:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
For a comparable example, take a look at the WP:NOT bullet that says Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If someone inserted information into the article on Paris that was akin to a travel guide, you would be correct in removing it. It would be inappropriate, however, to take the article on Paris to AFD because of it.Chunky Rice 20:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Example categories of what not to delete

Concerning this section of the article:

This sentence below was removed with the edit summary, "revert. I don't think the addition of those 2 examples added enough to the readers' understanding to justify expanding a page that's already too large to easily read."

See: Category:Software comparisons and Category:Technology-related lists.

Here is the diff showing where I added the sentence.

Various editors had to suffer through 3 unnecessary AFD deletion reviews of this article: Comparison of wiki farms. See the links to the deletion reviews in the "article milestones" template at the top of the talk page: Talk:Comparison of wiki farms. The last deletion review ended up with a decision to keep the article.

My addition of the sentence in question is to prevent further problems in the future. See the last deletion review to understand why that single sentence will solve the problem:

An excerpt from the current policy article says
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example.
I want to add one sentence:
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. See: Category:Software comparisons and Category:Technology-related lists. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example.
Of course the added sentence would not be in bold text. --Timeshifter 10:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a better sentence to add: "This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables."--Timeshifter 04:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lists of victims of various killings/tragedies etc.

Following a query on my talk page I thought I'd come here to check on this. Although WP:NOT#MEMORIAL covers articles created about victims of such things, does it also apply to the inclusion of lists naming people in articles about the incidents themselves? For example, the Omagh bombing article does not include a list of victims (an article created containing the names was nominated and deleted here, and the content was therefore decided not to be worthy of inclusion in the article - see Talk:Omagh bombing) but other articles on incidents including the Columbine High School massacre and the Kent State shootings do. Is there a policy on this or is it simply the case that they should be included if they add substantial content to the article, and left out otherwise? Cheers. QmunkE 12:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it's probably a question of space and size whether or not to include a complete list of victims. If the number of victims is small enough to reasonably be included in the article about the incident, then it seems acceptable to include that data in the article itself. On the other hand, if you're talking about a bombing or such where a large number of people died then it's probably better to include that list as a data set in Wikisource, which is the project intended to house freely available reference data. I don't think a list of victims actually needs to be an article per se because it's not actually discussing anything in an encyclopedic way. But linking to it within Wikisource from the main article would provide a way for readers who actually want to see the list of names to still see it. Dugwiki 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I can think of a few articles where the names of the victims are listed: the Manchester FC airplane crash comes to mind. As Dugwiki said, it's mostly an issue of space, because the relevance of the victims to the incident is indisputable. I'd place an arbitrary limit between 30 and 50 on the length of such a list in an article. Anything longer than than detracts from the continuity of an article and should be linked to offwiki if possible, or some other solution should be found. YechielMan 01:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this solution; 30ish is a good limit without getting too indiscriminate, and we can link to other resources for larger lists. (It might be stretching it, but maybe Wikisource would be a suitable home for these lists, since they are "source documents" of a sort? Admittedly I'm not familiar enough with Wikisource to know for sure.) Krimpet (talk/review) 03:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I was involved in several discussions about this issue when I was working on some articles about IRA bombings last year. I believe that a list of those killed is quite important, interesting and encyclopaedic, and should always be included if possible. WP is not paper after all, and the names of the dead are relevant information. However, where the list would be too long and would consume the article, the general intention seems to be to create a seperate page with them on. At the Omagh bombing page, mentioned earlier, the consensus was to move the list to a subpage of the article talk where those interested could still view it without it consuming the article itself. This has also been used on a number of other articles, as well as similar ideas such as creating a page in the articles hitory and linking to it as an external jump in the articles main page.--Jackyd101 23:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah well, don't be too surprised if some of the "delete 'em all" faction that's been busy proposing AfDs on every list of victims of terrorist or violent acts heads your way. In the past two or three days, they've stared AfDs on List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre, and List of Charles Whitman's victims (Charles Whitman was the 1960s University of Texas clocktower sniper). The last two are articles of some long standing. They've also been going after any and all articles about individuals on the Virginia Tech massacre list regardless of their notability independent of the Virginia Tech massacre. All of this in the name of WP:NOT -- they seem to feel a victim list can be nothing other ever than a "memorial." Which I think is a misreading of what the policy is about. --Yksin 06:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone point me towards where the original consensus was formed for Wikipeida is not a memorial? There seems to be wildly varying interpretations of what this policy means. Some folks think that it only applies to individual bio pages, others think it applies to lists of people who died in notable events on standalone pages, and still others think that it means that such lists shouldn't even exist within the context of an article about a notable event that led to the deaths. I would just like to understand the ultimate goal of this policy so that I can apply it correctly. My feeling is that, while an event like the Virginia Tech shootings or other notable events does not confer individual notability on the individuals killed, they are notable as a group and therefore, at the very least, inclusion in the article about the event is merited. I am less certain about breaking out such a list into a sub-page, though I don't really understand why it would be inappropriate to create, if length of the original article became an issue.Chunky Rice 17:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It applies to nothing except to memorials. Our article on George Washington and Ronald Reagan and Nostradamus are about dead people. That does not make them memorials. We have articles on Cho Seung-hui and Charles Whitman and Thích Quảng Đức - these are not only dead people but they are notable primarily for the way their lives ended. That does not make those articles memorials.
It is a memorial is if it eulogizing people who are not at all notable. Just because my grandfather dies and his obituary appears in 2 or 3 newspapers that does not by itself justify an artile on my grand-father. This is the type of thing we are trying to prevent with the NOT:Memorial guideline.
On the other hand, there is no problem with having an article on a person or persons who happened to gain fame in the manner of their death. Johntex\talk 19:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
While that's true, if a person isn't notable beyond the manner of their death, and particularly if there's already an article covering the manner of their death, we probably don't need a separate article for the person. --Minderbinder 19:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If it is one person, probably not, but a list of all the victims is certainly reasonable if the main article is long and if there is sufficient information to make the list a worthwhile article. Johntex\talk 20:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Karrmann's new Statistic's bullet point?

I saw Karmann added a new bullet point talking about restricting statistics to infoboxes. (He placed it in WP:NOT#IINFO, but I moved it to the "Not a directory" section since the directory section talks about lists of loosely related facts. Seemed like a more appropriate section.)

However, it doesn't look like this Statistics point was discussed at all prior to adding it to the policy. Since this isn't a trivial change to the policy, I thought it might be prudent to see what you all think of his addition. Is there consensus for it, or does it need to be changed/removed? Personally I haven't really gotten my head around it enough to say yet whether I agree with having it in policy or not so I'm curious to see what you guys think. Dugwiki 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "infoboxes" sentence but couldn't disagree with the basic principle of the edit. Good catch to move it to the right section, though. Rossami (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I agree with the broad premise that an article shouldn't just be a string of datapoints. It should contain at least some encyclopedic text explanation that puts the data in context. If all you have is a large set of numbers, then Wikisource seems like a better place to put that data. After all, that's what Wikisource is supposed to be - a place that has freely available data that editors can use for reference when citing or writing about a topic. In fact, maybe Wikisource should be mentioned as an alternative as well. Dugwiki 19:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty of modifying the text to advise that articles have explanatory text and to mention Wikisource as above. Feel free to modify or revert or delete. Dugwiki 20:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Karrman moved the section back to WP:NOT#IINFO from the Directory section. Me, I think the other section is more appropriate, but since it's a pretty minor matter and just a question of personal taste I can live with it either way. The main thing is making sure people are generally ok with the language. Dugwiki 15:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this premise. Precisely because Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles., then, that information should be split out to its own article. Stand-alone articles like United States presidential election, 2004, in Alabama allow Wikipedia to present detail on events that would significantly clutter a single article about the whole election. Neier 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
But note that the article United States presidential election, 2004, in Alabama you mentioned could also be transwikied, for example, to Wikisource instead of being represented as an "encyclopedia style article" on Wikipedia. So it's not a question of whether the information in that article is useful or not. It's a question of whether "articles" that are just statistical tables would be better served appearing in Wikisource than here on Wikipedia (since the main purpose of Wikisource is to act as a source of viable references for Wiki authors). Dugwiki 17:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
An analogy would be that dictionary definitions for words are obviously useful, but an article which is solely a dictionary definitionn is better served by being in Wiktionary than as an "encyclopedia article" on Wikipedia. Dugwiki 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be renamed...

This page should be renamed from What Wikipedia is not to Wikipedia should not be. The majority of the things listed on this page of what Wikipedia is not happens every day, which goes against the title of this page. 70.118.89.142 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way, might I ask? bibliomaniac15 04:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, I once observed the same point as 70... on a blog post - there are blog pages and whatnot in Wikipedia, and I take it upon myself to find them and list them for deletion. And yes, Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information, in the sense that sublime articles on philosophy coexist with the latest episode from The Simpsons. But as for the name, it is proscriptive, not descriptive, i.e. Wikipedia is not a place where indiscriminate information (as defined in that section) is allowed. If it were descriptive, it wouldn't be policy. Its existence as policy, by definition, mandates us to shape the wiki to conform with the definitions laid out here. YechielMan 01:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is mandated, not "preferable"

Hi.

I saw this:

"In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them."

Wrong. It is mandated that others must have written about them before they can be included in Wikipedia. See WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:SPS etc. In the absence of independent sources (ie. those written by people other than the one(s) holding the opinion in question), notability can't even be established. mike4ty4 00:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is referring to the person himself writing about it on Wikipedia, not so much to the sources. Still, the wording needs to be stronger than "preferable". —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a product listing service

Could we also say that Wikipedia is also not a source for listing products, unless they are especially noteworthy? Take a look at Category:Quest Software, for example. — Loadmaster 22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say no to that, since Notability is a guideline, not policy. As a guideline it is not assumed to have demonstrated the same level of editorial consensus as a policy and therefore doesn't quite have the same level of enforcability. So while guidelines should refer to existing policies in their text, policies should almost never refer to guidelines for enforcement. Dugwiki 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Is removing comments that violate this policy from the talk page allowed?--Sefringle 00:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Talk pages are discussion pages, not articles, and therefore don't require references or citations. In fact, virtually everything on talk pages is going to be editorial opinion, questions and arguments back and forth. For example, I don't need to show that my reply to you is based on something previously published. So no, comments shouldn't be removed from talk pages based on being "original research". Dugwiki 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But talk pages of articles are there to discuss hoe to improve the article and not to publish original thought. If someone is using the talk page for a purpose other than to discuss how to improve the article, then, yes, those comments could and should be removed. DreamGuy 03:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: What we are also not

Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all of the internet

Wikipedia is not the internet

I bring these two up because of something I noticed: a tendency of internet users to pretty much assume that the internet is entirely composed off of a particular favorite site. My sister in law favors Yahoo, in this regard, for example, and figures that if you don't have a Yahoo email address, you probably don't exist on the 'net. Expand on this - in many AfD arguments, people will not only assume that this is a great place to dump data for hosting sake, are surprised when it lands in AfD, and will defend it to no end with all of the arguments found in WP:AADD as their rationale to keep the articles. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and religeous commands

Can we conclude from this official policy, that wikipedia is not a place to create pages with titles like "Islamic commands" where to list all Islamic religous commands, and things like that? (I don't mean to offend moslims here, this is just a fictional example.)huji—TALK 07:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Try Ten Commandments for a non-fictional example. Uncle G 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the example. My question is, shouldn't things like that be placed on Wikisource or Wikibooks? huji—TALK 21:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • If the article contains only the actual text, then it should go on Wikisource. However, in the case of Ten Commandments, that article contains quite a bit of historical background and academic analysis and thus is a fairly broad encyclopedic treatment of the commandments. So that article belongs here in Wikipedia. Similarly if Qur'an contained only the text of the Qu'ran then it should be in Wikisource or Wikibooks. But since the article contains a lot of historical and analytical information about the Qu'ran it belongs in Wikipedia as an encyclopedic treatment. Dugwiki 22:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
        • What if it is not the exact text, but not also including historical and other such information? Like page only full of several statements about Islamic laws about what to eat and how to pray, which more or less resembles a list of them, rather than giving information about them?huji—TALK 22:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dugwiki and Uncle G above. A mere copy of a religious text belongs on wikisource. An article with sourced analysis of what religious commands are or are not in a particular system, such as Mitzvah, cleary belongs. An article such as a hypothetical List of Mitzvot might belong if each entry were properly sourced, since that would be drawn from multiple sources and would present attributed vierws on which items belonged in and which out, but might be marginal. DES (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
So you think, except for the very fundumental and basic religious commands (like the Decalogue), the information does not belong to wikipedia, and can be moved to wikisource if this is a complete copy? What if this is neither a complete copy nor a set of fundumentals? For example, what if you face an article about "Islamic commands about how to hunt animals"? Do you request it to be deleted?huji—TALK 10:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a shock site

I think we need to follow "Wikipedia is not censored" with its counterpoint. Controversial images should only be included when they serve an encyclopedic purpose. We've all seen the prudes complaining that we're corrupting the youth and need to remove the paintings of naked ladies, but the other side of the coin is the people who put controversial images in an article where they don't really serve any informative purpose, and then defend them aggressively with a big stupid fight about how Wikipedia isn't censored and we shouldn't cater to the prudish Americans and blah blah. Wikipedia is not a mission for evangelizing the unwashed masses to our superior Western mores. Our purpose is not to proselytize to the world and convert their primitive minds to our free, uninhibited ways. It's to provide information in a neutral manner. When shocking or controversial images are important to the topic of an article, by all means include them, but don't be controversial just for the sake of being controversial. — Omegatron 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, but doesn't the text of "wikipedia is not censored" already say that such inappropriate content can/will/should be removed? — brighterorange (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that it's best to just clarify WP:NOT#CENSORED, to make it clear that offensive content should not be included just for the sake of it. -Amarkov moo! 18:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • While I agree that wikiopedia is not a shock site, and images should not be added just for shock value, I think that adding this as a separate heading would simply encourage those who do want to censor "inappropriate" or "indecent" images. If an image has value, even limited value, in an article it should most often remain. The text already says "While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies" and I think this makes the point well enough, wihtout any further clarification. I would be oppsoed to any significant expansion of this, and more opposed to making it a separate sub-heading. DES (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I concur with DES. Note that language that says offensive content may be inappropriate can and will be used against our articles on e.g. sex positions. >Radiant< 09:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I concur with Omegatron. We need to make it more clear that shocking or overly-titalating images should not be included just simply because we can include them. There is no reason, for example, to include photos of sexual positions when less titilating line drawings give plenty of information. Johntex\talk 18:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking to add a sentence or two to clarify WP:MEMORIAL

In thinking about the recent afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre I realized that it might be helpful to add a sentence or two to the WP:MEMORIAL section to clarify the difference between an individual memorial or obituary and summary information about victims of tragedies.

WP:MEMORIAL currently reads "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." This clearly excludes obituary and memorial for individuals who are not otherwise somehow notable.

However, where confusion comes up is whether or how this affects victim lists or other summary information about the victims of a tragedy that involves multiple deaths. My opinion, which seemed to be in the majority in the afd I mentioned above, is that the list of victims of a tragedy is an important part of the historical background of the event. In an informational way it performs a similar function to the cast list of a film or television series by providing very basic information on everyone involved. Therefore I think it's important to have that information easily available in some form to people interested in reading about the event that caused the deaths.

The main criteria is probably the size of the list and of the event's article. If the list of names can be comfortably included within the article, then that is the best option. If the list is fairly large, but not so large as to be unmanagable, and there is interesting or useful auxilliary information about the victims, then I think a list article supplementing the main article is the best option. Finally, if the list is particularly long, such as with an event that involves hundreds or thousands of deaths or more, then the list as a whole should probably be placed instead as an openly available source document at Wikisource that articles about the event can interlink to for reference.

So all that being said, I'd like to suggest the following rewording of WP:MEMORIAL -

"Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of individual encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. Information on dead individuals should be objective, free of overly emotional opinion, and from independently published reliable sources. In the special case of victims of notable tragedies, the victims' names should normally appear, space permitting, within the event's article. For tragic events with larger numbers of victims which will not fit comfortably within the space of the main article, the list of victims should be split off either onto Wikisource as a reference page or, if there is sufficient encyclopedic treatment of the list entries, as a list article supplementing the main article."

So what do you guys think? Feel free to agree or disagree or critique my proposed wording. Thanks! Dugwiki 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it, mostly. I might change the term "tragedy" to the less pov "incident" or "event." Just so we don't get into disputes over what qualifies as a tragedy (I can definitely see that happening). I might add that biographical information regarding the deceased should be limited to that which is relevant to the incident.Chunky Rice 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a great idea and I would like to see Chunky Rice's suggestion to be included also. Johntex\talk 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I pretty much agree that the information should be relevant to the event. I would, though, be open to the suggestion that very brief information that isn't directly relevant to the event but that gives insight into the cross section of people involved would be ok. For instance, I'm ok with a list including names, occupations and ages of victims to give the reader a little bit of a sense of who was involved beyond just a name itself, even if the occupation and age aren't directly relevant to the event itself (that's assuming this information is all previously published). Detailed exposition on the victims' lives isn't normally necessary, though. Dugwiki 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I mean, if their occupation had something to do with why they were there, then sure. Take the recent Virginia Tech list. It's relevant for us to know there who were professors and who were students. But if one of the students had a late night fast-food shift, do we really need to include that? I'm not too hung up on this point, I guess, but I think it's important to draw as sharp a line as possible, to make judgment calls easier.Chunky Rice 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I said I'm open to the suggestion of it. The acceptability of occupational info would probably depend on the context of the specific article and list. Dugwiki 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't tell if we're on the same page or not. My feeling is that bio information should only be included if it is relevant to the event. A certain base level of info is inherently relevant. Name, age, how/where they died, etc. Some things, like occupation, may or may not be, depending on the incident. But without commenting on specifics like occupation, hobbies, etc., we can draw a line in the sand at relevance. That's my opinion, anyway.Chunky Rice 23:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we're on the same page. The main grey area would be determining when specific information is "relevant" to studying an event, and that would have to be hashed out case by case. Dugwiki 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia be used as a bibliographical reference or footnote in students' reports?

This is a somewhat long comment, but I simply have to point out something that has bothered me for a few years now. I did not find a comment like this yet, but if I am repeating a previous comment please forgive me...

I think Wikipedia is a great forum for sharing informatation and providing a starting point for students to further investigate subjects on their own. However, I would like to make the case that Wikipedia is not suitable to be used as a bibliographical reference or footnote in essays, papers, articles, etc., under most circumstances. I am starting to see a lot of footnotes and or bibliographical references to Wikipedia in my students' reports, and I have instructed my students that citing Wikipedia as a reference is not a good practice for a couple of reasons.

First, since the content of a given article can change at any time, simply citing a Wikipedia article will not allow the reader (i.e. in this case, I am the reader) to refer back to the original material being cited. Afterall, citations aren't simply used to show that you did some actual reading and didn't just pull your material out of thin air. Citations are actually intended to allow the reader to go back to your referenced material to investigate for themselves. As a scientist, I often do this myself when reading research reports or articles. One remedy to this is to cite the date and time of the Wiki article being cited, but this seems quite cumbersome. If a book or journal article is referenced within a Wiki article, they should go to that original source if they want to reference something.

Second, the content of a given article has only been reviewed by the people who happen to have read the article. These people may or may not be well-informed on the subject, and there is no guarantee that a well-informed person has had a chance to correct any errors whenever you just happen to be looking at the article. For the most part, the articles I've seen on Wikipedia are pretty well-written, and articles in my area of expertise seem more-or-less accurate, but not always. We are probably all aware that some articles require serious editing, or some "vandal" has come along and intentionally inserted inaccurate information. Sometimes articles are simply deleted by the Wikipedia staff because they are very problematic for some reason.

On the positive side, I do encourage my students to read Wikipedia articles in subject areas that they are familiar with or have recently researched, so that they may contribute to the discussion or help to edit of the article. This is a good excercise in having a peaceful intellectual debate about a topic they have researched in the past. Furthermore, the international aspect of the user communtity is a great way to remind students that it's a big (or small) world.

One final comment/story: A colleague of mine is taking a graduate course in biogeochemistry at a "well-reputed" institution, and one of the instructors was listing important numbers that they should all know. One of these was the total volume of the Earth's oceans. My colleague noted to a classmate later that the number didn't look right, and indeed their text book listed a number several orders of magnitude greater. Other text books also suggested the instructor's number was way off. When my colleague searched the internet, the only citation that came up with a number close to what the professor used was Wikipedia - in fact it was the exact same number. So obviously the instructor did not even use her own text book to get this number - and obviously no one had corrected the number on the Wikipedia page yet. So I'd also like to suggest that university professors should at least refer to their own text books when providing information to students. But please feel free to contribute or edit content on Wikipedia :).

Thanks for "listening"

Beth Rogers 23:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Beth Rogers

Note that it is possible, with the "cite this page" link that is on every article, to get a link that will always link to the exact version that was read at a given time, and that is what should be provided in a citation. See Citing Wikipedia for more details. Your second point is correct, but errors can and do happen in any publication. Dis you see the report in Science that a detailed expert review of a selection of articles from Wikipedia and from the Encyclopedia Britannica found essentially identical error rates (differences not statistically significant). No single source should ever be uncritically copied on a fact, that is how errors sometimes propagate from textbook to text book (and I can cite sources on this, if you are interested), over generations. Whether you wish to allow students in your classes to cite wikiepedia is of course up to you. Wikipedia doesn't recommend doing or not doing so, but it does recommend verifying references. DES (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not under WP:NOT, but under Wikipedia's own policies, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Chunky Rice 00:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a tertiary source, like all other non-specialized encyclopedias, and was not really meant to be a super duper hyped up multi-use resource. But where in WP:NOT does it say that Wikipedia isn't a credible source? bibliomaniac15 00:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to read my entry again, because I specifically said that it doesn't say it in WP:NOT. But WP:ATT and WP:RS make it clear that Wikipedia, like any source based on user added content, is not reliable.Chunky Rice 04:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo says in this BusinessWeek article:
Do you think students and researchers should cite Wikipedia?

No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either -- the error rate there isn't very good. People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be solid enough to give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level. And really, it's more reliable to read Wikipedia for background than to read random Web pages on the Internet.

Well-written Wikipedia articles will always include a list of references, though, so finding reliable sources to cite one's work should in theory not be much of a problem. Krimpet (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Contributor's name in image title: self-promotion?

Is there a policy on image-naming conventions that would settle whether it's permissible to include the name of the author and contributor of an image in the image's filename? The author/contributor in question is also a Wikipedia editor who uses his real name as his userid, and includes this name in the image's filename, so that the filename for a picture of a Corvette, for example, would be Corvette_by_[User's]_[Name].jpg .

I AGF, but also wonder if the purpose might not be self-promotion: a Google search on the editor's real name returns hits for the image files on Wikipedia precisely because the author has included his name in the image's filename. I note that in several articles the editor has without explanation substituted his own work for perfectly adequate images. Doing so has not appreciably improved the articles, but it has, of course, replaced the file with one bearing the editor's name and increased his visibility on the web.

In fact, on other websites the user advertises his work as a photographer by inviting people to view his work at Wikipedia -- and to visit his Wikipedia userpage, which raises the possibility that the userpage itself may be being used for self-promotion, contrary to WP:NOT#USER.

I have hunted around without much success for relevant policies, and while I suspect WP:NOT#SOAP is probably applicable, I'm wondering if there are other more precisely on point. Is there a policy on claiming authorship that might be applicable? --Rrburke(talk) 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Replacing other people's images with images that aren't any better (though there can be a lot of reason why an image is better: license and resolution being common subtle ones) is a bit rude, in my opinion. But I can't see any reason why naming images with the author name is wrong; several licenses that we use require attribution, in fact, so there is a strong sense in which the picture taker is connected to the image itself. It may be the case that contributing to wikipedia improves this user's reputation in the community at large, but I think that is a positive side effect and one of the reasons that some people spend so much time contributing to Wikipedia. (I will say that putting the author's name inside the image or in the caption when it appears on a page is bad style, and I often remove this. The proper place for attribution is the image page.) — brighterorange (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "The proper place for attribution is the image page"
Which is why it seems to me inappropriate that, as happens in this case, a user's name should appear on the occasion of every mouse-hover over the images, when the filename gets displayed as the alt-text (or any time a user views the edit history, since the user also inserts his authorship claim in the edit summaries). The Information template works just fine for ensuring attribution. Naming all your images after yourself, talking your photographic work up around the web and then inviting people to go have a look at your WP userpage and image contributions I imagine having a different purpose.
I note from this AfD discussion that bureaucrats have recently begun taking an especially dim view of new users wanting "their usernames to be their real names so that their promo page has high google rankings." In my view, that's quite possibly what's going on here -- his real name is also his username. The user also incorporates the URL of his WP userpage into his various contributions elsewhere on the web, presumably with the goal of driving traffic to what an uncharitable person could mistake for file storage for his photographic portfolio. --Rrburke(talk) 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that in This pump thread a number of people thoguht this was perfectly acceptable. Note also that a user can specify one of the CC licenses which mandates attribution in a specifeid form, which could include requireing "photo by X" in the caption. This is not an un-free license, and is IMO perfectly appropriate. DES (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I apologize for multiposting. Now that I read the policy, I realize I should have posted once and then linked from other pages if necessary. This wasn't an attempt at canvassing: I just didn't know the best place to ask the question. --Rrburke(talk) 00:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem, jsut wanted the comemtns in the othe thread noted. DES (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that {{Cc-by-2.0}} is on the list of acceptabel free licenses at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses, but it includes a requirement that "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". The same is true for {{Cc-by-2.5}} which actually has a parameter to specify how the attribution should be done. This is also true of {{Cc-by-sa}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, and {{cc-by-sa-2.5-in}}. Any of these could be used with a specifiaction that 'This image may only be used if the text 'Photo by John Doe' appears immedaitely adjacent to the image." Indeed it could also require a link to the creator's web site. Given this, I don't think that quibbling over file names is worth while -- it will only incline more image creators to sue this sort of license, which would mandate a credit in the caption. DES (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but surely those conditions can't trump policy: if the condition the user places on the use of the photograph is at variance with policy -- like insisting that the image can only be used if the user's commercial website address is displayed in the caption -- then surely all that means is that the image is not suitable for use on Wikipedia. --Rrburke(talk) 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And where is the policy that says that such conditions make the image unsuitable? The fact that all those licenses are listed in the official and recently reviewed list of free content licenses says to me that such conditions do not violate policy. Also, where is it specified that "The proper place for attribution is the image page". That is our default, but nothing about it is graven in stone, and many (indeed most) publications include photographer credits in a caption, perhaps in small type. If someone is disruptively replacing images with other images so as to self-promote, that is disruption and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But a legit content provider, who is willing to provide freely reusable content but wants attribution to be clear and to be sure to follow the image is, it seems to me, the sort of thing we should encourage. DES (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And where is the policy that says that such conditions make the image unsuitable?
For example, I think the condition that a contributor's image must be accompanied by a display of the web address of his business would make his image unsuitable per WP:NOT#SOAP, and that WP:LOGO -- specifically, "avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something" -- would tend to make an image that is usable only on condition that the contributor's business's logo also appears unsuitable. Admin Brighterorange asserts above that he "often" removes images containing the user's name either on the image or in the caption, and I assume he's doing so in conformity with an existing policy. I don't presume to put words in his mouth, but I imagine it's WP:NOT#SOAP.
Most publications do indeed display caption-credits for photographers. But these same publications also display bylines and allow writers to claim credit for authorship, something nobody at Wikipedia gets to do, except in pretty limited ways. It seems to me the practices of commercial publications are of limited usefulness in trying to sort out how such matters ought to be handled on Wikipedia. --Rrburke(talk) 02:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, print publications don't allow the reader to click on something to see its history! We have that option on a Wiki and so we should use it to hide information that doesn't add to the article. I can't justify this with a specific policy, but we clearly don't allow signing of text within an article (see WP:SIG) so the extension to image captions seems straightforward. (And BTW, I agree with DES that some extreme circumstances might legally require a caption in or below the image, but that would be a strong reason to prefer another image.) — brighterorange (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I will agree that if someone is upl;oading images purely to promote himself (or herself) to to promote or enhance his/her reputation as a photogrtapher (or as a whatever) that goes counter to WP:SOAP and those images should be disfavored at least. i also agree that when soemoen is repalcing perfectly good images with ones that are different but no better that server to promote their creatior, that strongly implies improper self-promotion. I do thank that when an uplaoded image is under a free license, and clearly improves the project (is a useful image we didn't have before, or repalces a non-free iamge with an equally good or better free one, or replaces a poor image with a good one), but the contributior also wants clear attribution, this is not a problem. i ahve seen lots of very good iamges tha tinclude the contributor's name as part of the file name. For example, i was constructing a CD for off-line use of butterfly related images and articles from Wikipedia. There are lots of such images, and some of the better ones included the creator's name in the file name, partly to create distinctive and unique names among many similarly named iamges. These creators did not appaer to be professional photogs, and at any rate did not seem to be engagign in significant self-promotion. If soemoen has ads all over the the web saying "Look what great pics I take! See them on Wikipedia!" that is a problem. If soemoen quietly takes a useful picture, say a better shot of a particular species of animal or plant than we have avaialbable ans uplaoads "Genus-species-JohnDoe.jpg" I don't really see a problem. in short this needs to be handled case by case, and promotion can't be inferred solely from the fiel name, IMO. DES (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the user in this case has indeed replaced several perfectly adequate images with new ones created by him that include his name, and he doesn't offer a rationale for the substitution: the edit summary consists only of the name of the image and, well, his own name. In most cases I don't see any improvement or any benefit to Wikipedia from the substitutions. In some cases the articles didn't previously have images, but usually they did, and there doesn't appear to my untrained eye to have been anything wrong with them. And it's not as if he has replaced the existing ones with freer ones either, as use of his images is conditional on attribution. I'd have to check this, but I think that in least one case he replaced a free image with his conditionally-licensed one.
Unlike the creators you mention, this one does indeed list his profession as photographer (and writer). I agree with you that "if someone has ads all over the the web saying 'Look what great pics I take! See them on Wikipedia!' that is a problem." That's precisely what this user does: a presumably self-authored blurb on him on the web, which lists his profession as photographer and writer, reads: "He has created a large body of photographic images...These images are found on Wikipedia..." The blurb then provides a link to his Wikipedia userpage, which itself includes a section entitled "These pages have my photographs". --Rrburke(talk) 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. a potentially relevant policy I knew I had read somewhere but couldn't find is WP:OWN#Do not sign what you do not own. --Rrburke(talk) 16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes i understood that from all the facts you cite, this particualr case does look like soapboxing, and measures hould be taken. My point is that we should not over-generalize from this and conclude either that all users who put thier user names in image file names are self-promoters, or that all uploaders who required attribution in the image caption are self-promoters and their images should be disfavored. In this case it looks like there is someone who is tryiong to use the project to promote himself. His edits to tht end can be reverted, and if he persists, he can be blocked for disruptiuon, and I'll be glad to help with that. But this was asked above as a general question, and it is the general answer that i've been concerned with. DES (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth are we fussing about filenames? If anything, having the photographer's name in the filename helps reusers figure out who to contact for details on reuse, something we regularly get questions about. There is no reason to discourage this that helps the project, and if someone has edited some policy to suggest that it shouldn't happen, that needs to be fixed. Jkelly 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose to me it depends on what the user's purpose is. If, as it appears to me to be in this case, it's one of a number of actions that together suggest the user is using (and advertising) his contributions and userpage to burnish his professional credentials and promote his work as a photographer, then I genuinely feel it violates at least the spirit of both WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:OWN#Do not sign what you do not own. I'll leave it to more experienced Wikipedians to decide whether my feeling is consistent with the way these policies are customarily applied, which is why I haven't reverted any of this editor's changes or approached him with my concerns without first asking more experienced contributors what they think. --Rrburke(talk) 20:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we should be creating more, not less, reasons for people to donate their images to wikipedia. If all they are getting for their valuable time and their sometimes expensive equipment is attribution, I am all for putting that attribution on the image, and in the filename. When the images are then used by others outside wikipedia, which they oftentimes are, then the attribution is clear. I want to encourage people to put the attribution on the image itself. In small print of course. That way, no matter who ends up using it, the photographer gets credit. Images, both free and copyrighted, are often taken by webmasters and blog writers and used on their web pages and blogs. Photographers are often keenly aware of this, and hate having their images ripped off without so much as a "thank you" or an attribution. We are talking about free art here in many cases. The authors of that art deserve credit. --Timeshifter 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
But by the same token we could probably attract more professional writers and experts in given subject areas to make contributions Wikipedia, and thereby greatly improve the quality of large numbers of articles, if we allowed contributors to sign their work and claim authorship of it. But nobody gets to do that and no one's proposing it -- presumably because it's rather at odds with the wiki model. I tend to think that, as far as is practicable, a common set of principles ought to apply, mutatis mutandis, to both text contributions and media contributions alike. The principles I chiefly have in mind are free content and collaborative writing and editing.
If artists want credit for their art, their are plenty avenues open to them to get it, like getting their work displayed in commercial publications or galleries, just as professional writers can submit their work to newspapers, magazines or publishing houses that offer bylines and authorship credits if obtaining credit for their work is essential to them. I don't feel Wikipedia is a place you go if your purpose is to receive credit for your work: it's just a different kind of animal. --Rrburke(talk) 20:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand the GFDL and other free licenses. Almost all of them mandate, or permit the licensor optionally to mandate, proper attribution (which is simply another name for credit) for work freely contributed. In the Open Source community (out of which both the GPL and the GFDL came) it is very common for an entire work or program to be primaility the work of one person, and for that person to be very promonently credited. There is nothing un-wiki or un-free about wantign proper credit, or even about expecting that contributing to a free project such as Wikipedia can help to bost one's own reputation. There is a good deal wrong if edits that do not help the project (much less hurt it) arfe made apparenlty for the purpose of self-promotion. But when valuable positive contributions are made by people who also want proper and public credit for diong so, that is IMO a very good thing, not a bad one. Thsi is NOT about the details of one particualr case -- I presuem from the commetns abov that in thsi case the editor is not acting properly -- but about the general principle. DES (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Question.

A user continuously suggests that Bob Dylan be removed from the List of notable converts to Christianity. He either does not understand or simply chooses to ignore the fact that the criterion for inclusion on the list is highlighted in the introductory paragraph:

"The following is a list of people who have at one time converted to Christianity.
Important note: This list is known to include some individuals whose initial conversion experience may have since lapsed or reverted. Inclusion on this list is not necessarily an assertion that an individual continued to practice as a Christian throughout his life after his conversion."

The list is simply a record of notable conversions, not a listing for continued belief. Many people have continued in their faith, and some have surely lost interest or left the religion. The list notes such a change in a person's entry.

As we have 12 or so sources which say that Dylan did convert, 3 or so which explicitly say that he was baptized and describe the people and circumstances surrounding it (2 of which are widely-known, published sources), and since the opposing party has shown no sources which deny this conversion (nor have they shown sources for anything), the fact that he converted is no longer up for debate, by Wikipedia's standards.

However, this user consistently claims that including Dylan on the list violates WP:SOAPBOX. He continues to claim that we are using the article to insidiously proselytize by 'sneaking in' non-Christians. As I have said, despite being told the criterion for inclusion numerous times, the user continues to assume that one must currently be a Christian to be on this list.

Let's assume we can forget the fact that the article has, for quite some time before this argument initiated, included people who the article explicitly claimed 'have left Christianity'.

The user claims Dylan's inclusion on the list is an attempt to "endorse/advocate Christianity". We continuously explain the purpose of the list, and the criterion for inclusion- we include anyone whose conversion can be verified by reliable sources (the list needs work, and needs citations, but we're working on it). Also, the question remains- how can one be endorsing Christianity by showing someone who has left the faith? (Let's pretend that the other side of the argument will verify Dylan's return to Judaism with sources)

The list is simply a list. It is not a tool for proselytizing. It intends to show notable people who have converted to Christianity at some point in their lives. There is no deception- the intro paragraph makes the criterion clear and notes that not everyone on the list has continued in the faith, and the individual listings make it quite clear that the person listed later left the faith. This list is not being used to proselytize. It is being used as a reference hub.

It's also worth noting that the user constantly incorporates religion into the argument. Yes, the article is about religious conversion, but the user will continuously use the historical and theological relationship of Judaism and Christianity as a part of his argument. He continues to make it into a very personal issue, and makes it seem as if we are 'insulting Judaism'.

I will present a list of his quotes, for full understanding. I have not taken these statements out of context (although it should be noted that although several of these quotes came before published sources were added, and he therefore denied the veracity of the online sources, he has still expressed these same views, even now):

"All the disclaimers in the world do not counteract putting a Jew on a list of Christians."

(I noted the apparent bias here, and he stood behind this statement.)

"Christianity considers it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christianity. Judaism does not proselytize, but Christianity does."
"I don't think we should be pushing the untenable point of view that Christianity has won a victory over a Jew as concerns the world to come or any such nonsense (my opinion)."
"Dylan is a Jew. Stop pretending he converted to Christianity. That is advocacy."

The only person who continues to pretend in the light of sources is this user. He has offered zero sources to support his statements. Additionally, he ignores everything which is explained to him, and he continues in his argument. He appears to be biased in favor of Judaism, and his argument seems to be largely driven by personal belief. He feels that it is advocacy to have a list that considers only conversion, not continued belief. However, he is not seen complaining about the List of vegans article, which lists anyone who has ever committed to veganism, despite their current status. I doubt we'll see him on that talk page crying 'advocacy!' once this discussion is over. (And this is a list which I have mentioned to him several times.)

This user wants to remove a person who converted to Christianity from a list of people who have converted to Christianity. Who is violating WP:SOAPBOX?

Please share your comments on this. Those on my side of the fence are constantly accused of violating WP:SOAPBOX, and I for one am injecting no religious bias into this discussion. --C.Logan 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you were to change the title from "List of notable converts to Christianity."

to "List of notable people who have at some time converted to Christianity"

would not the problem go away? NB. This is not the first article I have seen where the name of the article does not seem to be in perfect harmony with the definition just below. DanielDemaret 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, the above title was a compromise. The fact is, the list records conversions of notable people- likewise, notable conversions. The fact that Dylan may have later left the faith (which has not been proven by evidence, despite the opposing party saying things like "its clear" and "it's indisputable") does not remove the fact that he's a notable convert to Christianity. Being an entertainer, his change of music (he stopped playing pre-conversion tunes altogether), his stage speech proselytizing, his personal statements, the outrage of his fans and the panning of his new material by critics- this is a very notable period in the man's life. It faded, but a book can be written (and has, I believe; a documentary was made as well) about this period alone, all of which stemmed from his conversion.
Additionally, the title shouldn't get too complicated. List of vegans contains people who are and were once vegans, and nobody is complaining fervently about that. I believe that people should be able to read introductions in special articles so that they don't become confused about the contents.--C.Logan 20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal ball

Would it be OK to add that, with regard to future books, recordings, films, etc., the subject should have a definite (confirmed and verifiable) name, and be due for publication/release in the current year? There's been a number of additions of the form So-and-so's third album, or of albums to be released some time in 2008 (after other not-yet-released albums). Some articles are moved three or four times before their subjects are finally released.

These articles on future items are often real pains, being fought over by fans concerning their contents, nature, names, etc. I'd rather see a policy to the effect that we should only have articles on things that exist and events that have occurred; future things and events can be mentioned and discussed in other articles (such as articles on writers, actors, or singers). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

censorship

It seems that it is not true anymore that wikipedia is not censored. In particular the hex number [hex removed as unnecessary] is screened for. I don't know when/who/how this changed and I don't think it is a change for the better. --MarSch 14:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out the official policy, WP:COPYVIO. It is not censorship, it's protecting copyright laws and preventing legal action from being brought against Wikipedia. dposse 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, in that case you won't mind if I paraphrase? Oh you do? Then it is not copyright. --MarSch 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I personally suggest you bring the matter up with WP:OFFICE somehow or other. With the demise of the general counsel, perhaps in one of the mailing lists? This is a complex legal issue. AFAIK we have not received a takedown notice yet. However it would probably be best to avoid receiving one unless the foundation indicates they feel any notice would be without merit and they would be willing to fight it (which I doubt, but who knows) as such I recommend the number be left out for now Nil Einne 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I know see the page has alreayd been protected awaiting office action. I suggest you just leave it at that. If office rules unfavourably, then there's really nothing you can do. I highly doubt they will change their mind on a legal issue such as this one because of any editor backlash. Unless of course your happen to have say $10 million or more and you're willing to use it to help defend the foundation in any legal case Nil Einne 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Say, not to get too far off-topic, but I just noticed that user Wimt, a non-admin, just reverted someone else's text in this thread apparently without their permission. Now I can understand if an admin or higher-up deletes or alters text on an article talk page, but it seems a little less kosher for a non-admin to do it. I didn't un-revert the change, since it's possible an admin would agree with the deletion, but I just wanted to post this as a general thought on who should or shouldn't alter otherwise apparently good-faith text (ie not obvious vandalism). Dugwiki 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether it was a legitimate alteration depends on the individual statement modified it doesnt depend on whether the editor was an admin or not, you seem to be misunderstanding what admins are, they are not higherr up people, and it is either kosher or not to do it, it is never less kosher merely because the person doing it isnt an admin, SqueakBox 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That would conform to my understanding, as well. If there's a violation of policy on the talk page, any editor can remove it. Now, whether or not this particular instance was a violation of policy, I'm not sure. I don't think so, but I don't really understand what the nature of the hex-code is.Chunky Rice 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The illegal numbers at illegal prime aren't being censored. Is the hd-dvd key number somehow more special than those? --MarSch 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For Chrystal ball

We should add to the chrystal ball section that the arguement "it has potential" should be invalid, because it hasn't happened yet.--Sefringle 06:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean that's not obvious? Seems obvious. DreamGuy 03:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Social networking

Wikipedia is being abused, as if it were a social networking site like myspace. Many people have begun to use wikipedia as such, due to the fact that it is not blocked on institutional servers (e.g. schools). I've had issues with social networkers and harassment, recently. I would request that someone take this issue seriously. If this is allowed to continue, wikipedia's servers may be put at risk. These people are wasting bandwidth and server space, only to use wikipedia as if 'twere myspace. Please, someone, take this seriously! Respond to me on my talk page. There are numerous users who are using wikipedia as a social networking site, and this is clearly against policy WP:not#socialnet. Not to mention, a few of these people have been harassing me, as I've said. I want to keep this strictly encyclopedic, and being attacked by a couple of kids makes me want to quit wikipedia for good. Fuzzform 07:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any examples you can present? I'd be very amused to see what the kids construct to get around the school's block. --C.Logan 07:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
They register accounts and use userpages. See User:MER-C/Spam#Pages to watch, Template:Spamsearch#Wikipedia is not a free web host and User:Calton/Userfied pages to watch. MER-C 12:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a sales catalogue or price guide

See also: here and here.

It might seem unbelievable that people are putting product prices in Wikipedia, but see here. What part of WP:NOT covers this, and if nothing explicitly covers this, what is the best way to add something to reinforce the view that this is decidely not what Wikipedia is for? With the caveat that it is possible to discuss price wars, changing economic prices over decades of inflation, and such matters, in an encyclopedic fashion, but simply listings and comparisons of prices are not acceptable. Carcharoth 23:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in the instances here. There can sometimes be value in the use of prices for comparisons, but not in the sales catalogue/price guide/bargain hunting sense. Flyguy649talkcontribs 12:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I took a somewhat neutral stance on the latter of the two related discussions, but there is a lot of points being raised, and I would suggest reading those discussions. If WP:NOT changes, then my stance will too, but at this point I see no concrete evidence either way regarding the invlovement of policy, and it's slightly disturbing.--Clyde (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as a thin end of the wedge' problem. How long before a dispute over whether motor vehicle prices are listed, and then how long until the dispute over whether it's the list price that's listed or the average drive away price. That will be followed by a request for the average resale value to be added. Wii and MS points are just another bit of cruft that will open the door to comparative cash prices for video games and then items other than video games, to be listed with a price. It needs stopping before it gets out of hand and becomes an indiscriminate collection of prices. - X201 08:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In general prices are trivia. It may be worth stating in excessive cases (e.g. Black Lotus). >Radiant< 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That is a good example of an exception. A verifiable source reporting on a high price being paid for a collector's item (a rare trading card, a rare signed first edition book, a rare artwork, the world's most expensive diamond, and so on) is fine, especially as that is trading happening on the private market (trading between individuals). In the majority of these cases, a reliable news source will pick up on this and we can report what they say, and give a date. But just giving prices (without indicating a date) for bog-standard items that are purchased from a corporate organisation smack of advertising. Do we really want people to think that we are a review site where people come to read about computer games and then look at the prices and decide which one to buy? Carcharoth 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not yet convinced that including verifiable MSRP information in an article about a product isn't relevant to the article. It seems pretty likely to me, in fact, that an average person reading an article about a product would be curious as to the suggested retail price of the product. So assuming the information is verified and referenced, I have no problem with MSRPs appearing in the article (the best place probably being in the info-box synopsis on the side that also includes information about the product's company, original release date, etc). Dugwiki 17:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't be price guide. There is websites on the internet that list/compare prices already, Wikipedia shouldn't be used for this purpose. I can understand discussing price changes (when needed), but listing them is turning the articles into unencyclopedic price guides. A comment: (from the talk page of an original discussion/poll of this matter): It's handy for people like me that want the know the price before I go to the Wii Shop channel to download the game. Also because when I'm at work my internet is extremely filtered. Why is this even an issue?? People shouldn't be using Wikipedia to find out prices for things, that's what the many price websites out there are for. Encyclopedia and price guide don't mix, period. RobJ1981 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Not every that can be verifiable needs to (or should) go in Wikipedia. The thinking should not be: "If it's verifiable, let's put it in"; it should be (1) "do we want/need this information here?" and (2) "can we supply a source for the information so the reader can verify what we have written?". (1) comes before (2) every time. Carcharoth 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Like anything else, it should be included if it is notable. If, for example, a product is notable in part because of the low cost (like the XO-1 (laptop)) and the cost can be sourced, it should be included. If there is nothing notable about the price, then it should not be indcluded. I don't think that a blanket WP:NOT policy is the way to go here.Chunky Rice 20:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I looked at Ford Model T, and that is not at all what I meant by a price guide. From that article:

"It was sold in the beginning at a price of $850 when competing cars often cost $2000-$3000. By the 1920s the price had fallen to $300 (about $3,300 in 2005 inflation-adjusted dollars)"

That is giving historical data (first prices, then 1920s prices), and comparing to today's figures, and noting that it was cheap at the time. This is an example of encyclopedic treatment of prices. The sort of thing I am talking about is a list of computer games released in 2007 and their current retail prices obtained from god-alone-knows-where. See this edit where I removed a whole list of US and European prices for a list of computer games. I would trust competent editors to understand the difference between a current price guide and a carefully sourced discussion of historical prices. The exact wording would have to be thrashed out, but this is such a blatant example of what Wikipedia should not be, that I feel something should be added. What is the best way to proceed from here? Carcharoth 20:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
To reply to some of the comments above, I would agree that you don't need a compartive price list for a product within the article (ie listing multiple prices from various different retailers for the same product). On the other hand, I would say that including the verified MSRP for a product is an encyclopedic piece of data that average readers would be interested in seeing. So including a single, verifiable data point that represents the standard suggested retail price for the product is, in my opinion, worth including. Dugwiki 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Another way to put this is that a product is significantly defined by its retail price. Two products that are otherwise identical but that have differing prices are going to normally be received differently by the public. Therefore from the point of view of describing the fundamental aspects of what a product is, knowing how much it sells for is an important part of that knowledge alongside knowing what the product actually does, who makes it, if it's still in production and how the product is critically received and how well or poorly it sells. Dugwiki 21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. For example, I happened to look up the B.I.O. Bug -- a robot toy from 2001 -- after coming across a reference to it. No price is given. So how do I know if this was a wildly expensive premium product like AIBO, or a mass market toy? Clicking through to a source reveals that it had an MSRP of US$39.99, which tells me a lot about what kind of product it was. The article needs that information.
Some types of products have fairly standardized prices, and the minor variations aren't very important. Still, better to have a few unnecessary prices here and there than to throw out those that are relevant. —Celithemis 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that prices should be held to the same notability and source guidelines any other information is. If a price has been noted elsewhere of being significant in some way (especially pricy or cheap) then it could be included. If the price is a 'meh' average retail for that type of product, then why would the information need to be included. As with any other information in Wikipedia, if it hasn't been noted somewhere else first, it shouldn't be noted here. (And by noted I mean 'noted as being special in some way', otherwise any price could be listed!) And I think that article might have been a bad choice, since it's a very poor article to begin with! DarkSaber2k 22:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
True, it's a poor article, but that doesn't change the point: price is a significant piece of information for that item. AIBO needs pricing information too.
I agree with you that prices should be treated like any other kind of information on Wikipedia. So why single them out for special scrutiny by including them in WP:NOT? —Celithemis 22:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Excatly. Existing policies already cover this quite handily, so there's really no reason to create more.Chunky Rice 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest only adding prices if it is somehow significant to the subject. The Ford Model T was famous for being affordable, the Lamborghini Murciélago is, in part, famous for being expensive. Note: I'm not suggesting only applying this to cars - that's just an easy example. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My 10 pence - I see listing prices as a subset of indiscriminate information. Unless the price is genuinely notable (as with the Model T example). To go with the cause of this discussion, the Wii points, each console has a different price for it's games, BUT that price remains the same in all but 2 examples. As I said elsewhere, listing 25 identical prices just because the 26th is different strikes me as completely ridiculous. Sentences stating 'N64 games cost 1000 points' etc can esaily be included in a genereal overview, and the 2 games that have different prices can easily have a sentence stating the different pricing in their individual articles. Allowing lists Wii points/XBox points/any other type of pricing in ANY form of currency just opens the door for a whole mess of other crap exists inclusions. So I think that not only should a new entry be added to allow removal of pricing information (of which I'm finding a lot of Browser-based game articles also list, which also smacks of advertising), but that it also specifically be worded to include prices in 'points'. The wording would definitly need to be as unambiguous as possible. After all, something is either a price or it isn't, there isn't much middle ground. If prices ARE notable for some reason, they would still need to have been recorded as notable in independent sources to stay in line with policies, otherwise people could just list any old price. DarkSaber2k 11:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with excluding lists of prices from all sorts of various retailers. But I would want to include the original suggested or average retail price for reference when the product was first launched. The original MSRP is a useful piece of information for most products, in my opinion. Dugwiki 22:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
MSRP where though? If we put up the price for an item in one country, we open a whole can of 'Why that country and not this country?' worms, surely. We can't just arbitrarily say 'Just the US price' or 'Just the UK price' DarkSaber2k 22:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure we can. You can either choose a country which appears to be the most significant intended original market for the product, or you can include a few key different prices for multiple countries for products which simultaneously launch in multiple countries. Just because Wikipedia is global doesn't mean you can't be discerning when deciding between what prices are the most relevant to the topic. Dugwiki 22:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Who chooses? You? Me? The company? The news sources? The shops? The online retailers? (Edit conflict) Choosing something because 'it appears to be the most significant intended original market for the product, or 'a few key different prices' is original research in my eyes, unless there are independent sources to back it up. (or maybe primary sources would be ok fr this, I'm not sure.)DarkSaber2k 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The editorial consensus of the article in question chooses. Dugwiki 22:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Editorial consensus can easily end up putting original research in. Our editors are decidely not infallible in this regard. In this case you have to have a reliable source for the information. Most reliable sources for "prices" tend to be either (1) a news story about this remarkably cheap/expensive object, (2) a history/economics book that compares prices over decades of inflation, (3) other examples I can't remember at the moment. What is not really acceptable is just quoting from a manufacturer's website or press release. That is just free advertising for them. We are supposed to add value and say why we are telling the reader the price. Just a list of prices fails to do that. So, in conclusion, single prices, with sources, and an encyclopedic (rather than commercial) reason for telling the reader the price, are OK, but lists of prices without commentary are not acceptable. Can I add something like this to the policy? Carcharoth 02:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you have consensus for that. For the record, I oppose for all of the reasons I've stated above.Chunky Rice 02:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was being hopeful there. :-) (I've tried suggesting changes to policy pages before - it is a real energy-drainer). What I'd really do is put up a draft wording, advertise it widely, and then see what consensus is. This is really the preliminary discussion. BTW, out of interest, following on from your "already covered by policy" comment, which parts of the policy would you quote at someone who is insistent that giving a list of prices is "not a violation of policy"? Carcharoth 02:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
At the most basic level, notability. For something more specific, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, the statistics section.Chunky Rice 02:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
So would that work here? (The example that got me started on all this in the first place). And do you agree with the opinions expressed here? I'm off now, but any more input there or here would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth 02:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I certainly think it's a reasonable argument. But most of the people in that discussion aren't really arguing based on policy, in my opinion. I think that an RFC to get a broader section of editors interested in policy to comment is probably your best bet.Chunky Rice 03:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to respond to the criticism that "editorial consensus can easily introduce original research". Of course any group has the possibility of introducing errors into an article, but that doesn't diminish the fact that editorial consensus is clearly what normally has final say over article content. I also disgree with your categorization of simply including a price as "original research". Including a price does not by itself insinuate original editorial opinion nor is it necessarily attempting to originally interpret data in a non-obvious way. Certain very basic statistics on topics are allowed to be included in articles based on primary sources.
An example of something that might be original research would be combining all sorts of different retail prices into a list in such as way as to show some possible pricing trend or to show some original analysis on how the prices compare. But simply including a single price by itself normally wouldn't be original research so long as the price is verifiable and reasonably relevant (eg MSRP would be relevant, but a price from a random vendor wouldn't be.) Dugwiki 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that based on the above, it would be fair to add a line to WP:NOT stating that in most cases, pricing information is not relevant to an article, because Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Note that the Foundation has told us to be wary against advertising information, and in many cases prices will be a part of that. >Radiant< 11:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I'd be ok with a statement that precludes "comparative price lists", but I wouldn't be ok with a blanket rule against price information like the MSRP of a product. How about something like this as a compromise?

"Wikipedia is not a comparative price list for products. How the price of a product varies by retailers and geographic regions is not normally relevant to an encyclopedic article about it due to the constant fluctuation of prices and currency rates both locally and globally. Price information should therefore either not normally be included in product article or be limited in scope to price information that could be considered relevant in a broad economic sense, such as the manufacturer's original recommended price which is more likely to be used for analytical purposes."

That would get the main thing that we all agree on (avoiding catalog pricing and price lists, etc) but would leave available things like the MSRP which a lot of readers probably are interested in. Dugwiki 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm against such a policy at all, as I stated above because I believe that current policy is adequate to handle the situation. It is simply my experience that people wield WP:NOT like a club against things they don't want without actually understanding the policy behind it. That said, if something must be added, here is my input. I strongly disagree with including languange like "in most cases" or anything like that. Each incident should be weighed on its own merits without bearing a presumption of guilt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chunky Rice (talk • contribs) 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
It sounds like you might be replying more to Radiant here since I didn't use the phrase "in most cases". As far as current policies and guideline, the closest thing that deals with price lists would be WP:NOT#DIR to say that Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated facts. WP:N doesn't apply because WP:N deals with article topics as a whole and not individual specific information within an article (ie it says that an article as a whole should have multiple independent references, not that every piece of information in the article needs multiple independent references.) Obviously any included prices in an article should be properly cited. So whether or not you think this is a good addition will probably depend on whether or not or how much you think WP:NOT#DIR applies.Dugwiki 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was directed towards Starblind's version. My apologies for the confusion. I actually think that WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is a better fit for this situation. And, obviously, I feel that it's adequate. I'm biased against new policy, in general, though. It's that libertarian streak in me. Why make two rules when one will do?Chunky Rice 17:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I don't think WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE currently applies. That section is very specific on the things it covers, it's not a general catch-all to handle "things that don't seem to apply" or "trivia" (although some editors try and use it that way). The WP:NOT#DIR section, though, might apply. Dugwiki 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I personally think that the current WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE isn't good enough for prices (although, as I said earlier, I think prices do fall under that). The fact that there is this much discussion over it kind of suggests to me that, while a whole new rule might not be required, there is defintily room for a little nipping and tucking of the existing policy. DarkSaber2k 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with this - seems like it will only result in removal of valid, appropriate encyclopaedia-worthy prices (like RRPs of consoles at launch or car prices) and to mention this specifically will only lead to edit warring. -Halo 08:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The future people might refer to an encyclopedia to discover relative costs of items. This is tricky for the present people because they have to decide whether to use USD, EUR, CNY, GBP, etc. (and they have a hard enough time with 'color' VS 'colour'), and they don't want to have to clean up all the prices put in by the yesterday people. How useful is a price from 2002 when comparing it to a price from 2007 or 2015? I don't see a problem if people are including sourced, verified, statements of price with dates. Dan Beale 16:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with "Virtual Console" Wii points is not that people are including price information, but that people are creating articles for EVERY SINGLE VIDEO GAME EVER MADE, and then probably creating articles for every character in those games. :-( Dan Beale 16:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the discussion has stalled a bit, let me try a new wording and see what people think:

"Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, therefore prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless there is a justified and sourced reason for mentioning the price. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. Everyday, street prices on the other hand are an example of ephemeral trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions. Therefore lists of products currently on sale should not quote prices."

How does that sound? Carcharoth 21:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm still against it, in general. As to this version, I think it's too narrow. I could maybe get behind something like this:
"Wikipedia is not a sales catalog or price guide. If pricing information is included in an article, it should be accompanied by critical discussion of its relevance." Chunky Rice 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think these ideas are too restrictive; at least, it disagrees with recent edits I've made to the Opium article, where I cited a price "equal to gold" in 1483 China, $1000/60 kg in 1800 India, and $800/kg in 2002 Afghanistan. My sources decided the price was worth mentioning, but mostly didn't bother to explain why. I could discuss the relevance myself, but it would be easy to start running afoul of WP:NOR; I could source socioeconomic commentary, but there'd probably be argument over whether that commentary by itself is sufficient without the price. I would say, generally, that to understand the role of an item in society you must know what economic classes have access to it (and how much of it) which means knowing how much it actually costs - vague statements that "it was a luxury of emperors" or "even rich peasants could buy it" are not nearly as informative, though complementary. I think it's far more important in encyclopedic terms to specify the price of opium than to say what color it is. Yes, there are other cases where listing prices sounds like advertisement, but those are usually cases where the entire article looks and reads like an ad. If I'd admit any reluctance to citing prices, they would only be the same considerations that apply to other facts: original research, verifiability, reliable sources, and stability. That last, where I agree with you, is perhaps most telling - I'd have much greater tolerance for an article that says a certain video game has sold for "$40 to $50 in the U.S. over the past three years" than one which says "is on sale for $24.95 at S-Mart until July 7th". Mike Serfas 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The opium example is an excellent one of using cited historical sources to give pricing context over time. There is obviously no problem with that, and my (non-exhaustive) list of three examples was meant to make clear that there is no problem with that sort of thing. The video game price "over the past three years" example, well, as long as a reliable source said something sensible about why our readers need to know that information, then fine, but otherwise people will do amateur original socio-economic research and end up looking silly (along with Wikipedia). And obviously the "at S-Mart until July 7th" is blatant advertising. It should be common sense, but I think a line or two to make clear that pricing information mustn't veer towards advertising, and should be encyclopedic, is needed. Carcharoth 01:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Sources often will not bother to explain why people need to know the price; they'll just present the information. If I look up an early personal computer like the VIC-20, one of the things I definitely want to know is how much it retailed for. That's basic information about the product and is encyclopedic by default. People shouldn't have to dig up a source specifically explaining the significance of the price in order to include it, any more than they do for the year of introduction or the amount of RAM installed. —Celithemis 02:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Historical prices, yes, those are fine. Especially where the product is no longer on the market. You have to be careful though. You need to explicitly state the date and country, otherwise the information is meaningless. Carcharoth 09:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't buy the "historical" distinction. Prices don't go from unencyclopedic to encyclopedic when a product goes off the market, or after x years.
Date and country should certainly be included when they're not clear from context. —Celithemis 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree and thing it'll only lead to problems, where people take on this policy to try and turn it into a hard and fast rule that prices should never be mentioned, even if it is appropriate. Whatsmore, your wording is, in my far too long-winded and if it has to be included should be a two sentence line in one of the current headings -Halo 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. Can you come up with a two sentence line that would discourage the sort of price listing seen here? Carcharoth 01:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but to me the prices aren't what jump out at me on that page - for example, the release dates seem more commercially relevant. It displeases me to some extent that the page exists at all, and more so that the articles in the left-hand column exist, but not to the extent that I'm ready to propose new policy to have them yanked out of Wikipedia. I do see the article as an ad for the Playstation platform - summarizable as "see, we have lots of cheap games coming out". But when Wikipedia has had so many infuriating fluff articles for individual commercial products featured on the front page... how can I get excited about this particular price list? I agree Wikipedia has a problem with advertising, but I doubt that ads without prices are a step forward. Apart from the feature ads, I think it might even be argued that collectively, by using Wikipedia for advertising, marketers are falling into a trap, making it too easy for consumers to compare features and prices. Mike Serfas 03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree absolutely that that page has other problems. I hadn't noticed the commercial nature of the release dates. Now you mention it, maybe a rewording of the WP:NOT advertising part of the policy might be in order. At the moment it is strangely put in the "not a soapbox" section. Carcharoth 09:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
To me the advertising policy seems weak to the point of irrelevance - it seems to say that as long as you follow WP:NPOV and your product is "third-party verifiable" (not necessarily a secondary or reliable source, or more than one, or independent), you can put it in. By comparison, consider the stringent criteria for WP:BIO that are imposed for human beings. After the Virginia Tech Massacre, there was a long and rather appalling discussion of which victims were "notable" enough to warrant Wikipedia pages. If they had been video game cartridges there would have been no hesitation at all. I see that there is a more general WP:NOTE policy, "multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject", which seems weaker than the criteria for people, but at least provides some cut-off. WP:NOT mentions the need for notability of a corporation, but not of a product. Perhaps what is needed is for someone to write a Notability (Video Games) policy, or in the more immediate term, to refer more extensively to WP:NOTE in the advertising section of WP:NOT. Mike Serfas 13:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated in the past: Wikipedia shouldn't be a price guide. The fact this issue was ignored for a while, is a bit disappointing. Lists of game downloads (examples include: Xbox, Wii and PlayStation) shouldn't have price listings, as no other video game articles have them (nor should they ever). People can find the prices on the actual site for the download, as well as many other sites. Remember: this is an encyclopedia, not a price guide. It shouldn't be turned into a price guide, due to a select few thinking it's helpful to come here instead of the official download source or what not. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a substitute for the official source in this case. RobJ1981 09:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut problem

I noticed that in the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" the shortcut says "WP:NOT#IINFO", with two I's. I changed it to "WP:NOT#INFO", but now "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#INFO" goes to the top of the page, whereas the misspelling, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#IINFO" goes to the relivent section. Kevin 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought IINFO stood for Indiscriminate INFOrmation. —Celithemis 02:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Didn't know that. Someone already restored the shortcut anyway, so nevermind :-X. Kevin 12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Shopping Guide?

In a recent AFD discussion, a user declared that the Wikipedia "is not a shopping guide." I can see arguments for and against that statement, and was wondering what you think. Is the Wikipedia a shopping guide ? If not, there's a lot more to be done than just delete Comparison of time tracking software - What's the next step if the bulk of this category of articles linked to here should be removed? Big if, but I'm curious - Not at all sure where I stand. MrZaiustalk 11:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The articles in that category do make me fall asleep, but then I hate those massive comparison magazines and sites and rarely use them before buying something. I think there is a place for restrained lists on Wikipedia, listing sourced, historical stuff that will be of interest in 10 years time, but not for stuff that would be used when deciding whether to buy or download something. Bascially, anything that will soon be out-of-date, leave out. But I agree, this is a tricky one. I suggest posting to the Village pump for wider input. Carcharoth 12:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to decide, but I'm inclined to allow them to stay if they are done properly without much linkspam to external sites, like Comparison of WYSIWYG HTML editors is right now. They allow readers to gain insightful information on these items without having to read each and every article. They do provide useful information. Review MeCASCADIAHowl/Trail 15:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
For me, the issue with comparison charts is one of verifiability and sourcing. The inclusion of entries with no wikipedia articles of their own, or any independent sources, is a general verifiability issue I felt applied to that afd debate. On the issue of what is a shopping guide as opposed to a mere comparison chart, the inclusion of unsourced statements such as "easy to use," "user friendly," etc. Without sourcing, these are, in my opinion, POV or spam statements in light of being so blatantly subjective, and call in to question the purpose for the article to exist. I have no issue with comparing the basic features of various programs in a wikipedia article, but when this involves subjective comparison of the quality of said programs, for me, it has become a shopping guide. You could though, simply bundle my objections into existing policies: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:POV. Someguy1221 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
We are in agreement about not including subjective info. We also are in agreement that the wikipedia chart should include features. Features are easily verifiable and easy to keep up to date. That is true if there is a citation/reference link back to the home page of the program. --Timeshifter 02:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Items on a list or comparison chart do not have to be notable in themselves. The topic of the list or chart has to be notable. See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The topic of the list or chart has to be specific. See again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. A link back to the home page of an item on the list or chart is allowed just as any citation/reference link is allowed. Where people get confused is when the list drifts over into subjective analysis and reviews. Then the list or comparison chart becomes advertising or negative advertising. Then it needs to be cleaned up to remove the advertising language, reviews, and hype. This chart, Comparison of wiki farms, went through 3 deletion attempts until all these issues were discussed and addressed. I urge people to read the last deletion discussion where it was finally decided to keep the chart. Jimbo Wales created Wikia.com, a wiki farm. I found it somewhat amusing that I had to explain to wikipedians that the topics of wiki software and wiki farms are notable. Not every wiki farm on the list is as notable as wikia.com, but lists and charts do not have to have all notable items on them. Otherwise, wikipedia lists and charts would become supporters of only the largest companies with the best advertising budgets. Freeware and open source software would be at a great disadvantage. See again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. That guideline says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." I am sure that many people will not have heard of many of the people on the Nixon Enemies List. It is the list topic that is notable, not necessarily all those people listed. Concerning software lists and charts: They are not shopping charts or advertising, because the charts do not discuss the relative merits of one feature versus another, nor do they discuss how well any particular program implements any particular feature. It would be impossible for wikipedia to fairly do such subjective analysis anyway. The feature columns in many charts do show the state of the art, and are thus encyclopedic in nature. Wikipedia has the necessary large numbers of WP:NPOV editors necessary to keep such charts and lists up to date, and free from advertising hyperbole. For many of these lists and charts there is nowhere else on the web that one can find such an NPOV list or chart. Few companies would want to maintain lists on their websites where they favorably discuss their competition. Few magazines have enough time or editors for maintaining such lists or charts. --Timeshifter 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Quadruple pasted comment at pump, NOT, AfD, and talk for 4 times the fun! Maybe we should create WP:NOT#COPY_AND_PASTED_DUPLICATE_TEXT? (Requestion 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): "Discussions older than 5 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 9 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 9 days the discussion can only be found through the page history." The discussion started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of time tracking software and moved up the chain of command concerning wikipedia policy discussions. Eventually it all ends up here since this is the discussion page for the policy in question, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Please stop trolling, and please stop the harassing remarks. You are bordering on wiki-stalking me. --Timeshifter 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, you claim I'm stalking you, try using a little logic for a second. How did I know that you did a quadruple paste of the exact same duplicate text? You lit up my watchlist with your duplicate posts. It's not my fault you posted the exact same comment to 4 places that I watch. I think you owe me an apology. (Requestion 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
Requestion, I said you were bordering on it. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of time tracking software you also wrote "You just spammed...". Can we cool down the rhetoric and assume good faith? I will do the same. --Timeshifter 03:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Your entire argument was somewhat irrelevent to the discussion. This discussion was not so much about the notability of the elements of the chart, but whether they constituted spam (which they did at the time) and as I believed, violations of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. The notability necessary for inclusion is besides the point if the entries violate five other policies/guidelins. However, the article in question has been cleaned up since then. Someguy1221 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
See this diff. The reason for the good-faith deletion of most of the chart by Mrzaius during the AfD discussion was "rm linkcruft/nonnotable members of the list. See WP:NOT's discussion of linkfarms." That is why I discussed the issue of notability. I agree with you that the chart needed improvement. The prices needed to be deleted, as well as the subjective comments in the chart. That has been done, and the chart is much better for it. The citation/reference links are not "spam." --Timeshifter 09:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In fact; the citation/reference links back to the home page for each entry in the chart are essential for verifying the features listed for each entry in the chart. --Timeshifter 09:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Then they should be formatted as proper references. External links are not references. Temporary use of external links as references is usually OK, but at some point they need tidying up to be proper refereces. See Wikipedia:References and {{citeweb}} for details. Carcharoth 09:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that in most cases footnoted references are the better way to create citation/references in wikipedia. But inline links are allowed as citation/references too. See WP:CITE#HOW and Wikipedia:Embedded citations. In comparison charts, I kind of prefer the inline links. See Comparison of wiki farms for an example of inline links used as citation/references for each entry in the chart. It would make the article a lot longer if all the home page URLs were listed in a column of reference URLs at the bottom of the article. Some comparison charts are already quite long. I have created hundreds of footnoted references in wikipedia articles, so I know how to create them, and I know they are much better than inline links in most cases. But home page URLs really do not need all that detail such as the home page title, since we already know what the software name is. --Timeshifter 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If a "mere collection of external links" in a list or a table is a linkfarm then does it make a difference if those exact same links are placed in a reference or a citation? Seems like a circumvention of WP:NOT#LINK to me. (Requestion 00:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC))
Requestion, I thought you came around to an understanding of the point I was making about the thousands of lists and comparison charts on wikipedia. I pointed out WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and that it allows them if they are tightly-focussed, and not loosely associated items. I think you are confused by the difference between external links and citation/reference links. A detailed reference table/chart/list on wikipedia is not a linkfarm, nor is it spamming. A single citation/reference link to the home page of software on a wikipedia software chart for example will have little effect on improving how high up that home page shows up on Google. Spamming is when someone spreads that home page link around to more pages on wikipedia. --Timeshifter 15:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a negative. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY doesn't state what is allowed, it has exceptions, and it states what is not allowed. WP:NOT#LINK on the other hand states that linkfarms are not allowed. Basic logic suggests that WP:NOT#LINK overrides here. (Requestion 16:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC))
To get back on topic, do we essentially have consensus that the lists & charts in the Category:software comparisons are worthy of retention, assuming they're kept clear of redlinks, and unnecessary external links? MrZaiustalk 17:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That depends a lot on how you define "unnecessary" but as long as it isn't a shapeshifted linkfarm and it follows the spirit of the other WP:NOT rules then I'll agree with you. (Requestion 21:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC))
Detailed lists and charts with citations/references are not linkfarms. Non-detailed software lists with links are linkfarms or directories, and I agree they should not be allowed on wikipedia. They duplicate other directories on the web, so they serve little purpose anyway. Detailed lists and charts serve many purposes and take thousands of hours to create and maintain. A task particularly suited to wikipedia where there are large numbers of people reading these detailed lists and charts. All of those readers can edit whether they are registered or not. It is almost the only way to maintain detailed, neutral lists and charts on the web. They show the state of the art, are encyclopedic and are a great help to users, historians, researchers, developers, and especially to freeware and open-source programmers who do not always have the vast resources of commercial ventures in finding and collating all this info. Redlinks serve no purpose and the brackets for them can be removed. They only encourage people to create unnecessary wikipedia pages for every item on a list. Since not every item on a list or chart needs to be notable, there is no need to artificially create notability by creating a bunch of stub pages. --Timeshifter 03:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The level of "detail" is not the issue here. Like I said above: WP:NOT#LINK overrides WP:NOT#DIRECTORY in this particular case. (Requestion 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
That section is referring to external links, not citation/reference links. WP:NOT#LINK prohibits "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories." The links in question are citation/reference links. See also: WP:CITE#HOW and Wikipedia:Embedded citations. --Timeshifter 18:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
External citation/reference links are external links! You don't think simply placing some <ref>'s around a "mere collection of external links" changes the nature of a linkfarm? (Requestion 22:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC))
As several editors have been pointing out to you at Wikipedia talk:External links Wikipedia guidelines use a different definition of external links than that used by "civilians." :)
People can learn more here: WP:External links. --Timeshifter 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I think people can learn more by looking at this [2] "mere collection of external links" that have been wrapped in <ref> tags. Is this a linkfarm? Does WP:NOT#LINK apply? (Requestion 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC))
The links are citation/reference links, not external links according to the wikipedia definition. See WP:EL. --Timeshifter 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
What does the WP:EL guideline have to do with anything? This is about the WP:NOT#LINK policy. The Wikipedia definition of external links seems clear to me. (Requestion 17:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC))
At Wikipedia:External links citation/reference links are not considered to be external links according to the specialized in-house wikipedia definition of external links. As you have stated on the talk page there you want to change the wikipedia guideline. --Timeshifter 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but guidelines don't get to dictate rules to policies. It works the other way around. (Requestion 18:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC))
The policy you refer to is not talking about citations/references.--Timeshifter 19:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
What is it about external links that you don't understand? Wrap it in refs, I don't care, this [3] is still a linkfarm. (Requestion 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC))
What is it about Wikipedia:External links that you don't understand? What is it about "Footnotes" that you don't understand? Citations/references/footnotes are not the same as external links. See WP:CITE. You may not care about the wikipedia guidelines and policies. But others do. I know you do not like the wikipedia guidelines and policies concerning this. --Timeshifter 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand that none of those are policies. Just like rock beats scissors, policy beats guideline, and WP:NOT beats WP:EL. (Requestion 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
The section you link to in WP:NOT does not deal with citation/reference links. No matter how much you try to say otherwise. --Timeshifter 18:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion found here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_sales_catalogue_or_price_guide, relates to this discussion. In my opinion, some people are using video game download lists as price guides (to see if they want to download the game). There is the official source, not to mention many video game sites out there for prices. Seeing as we don't list regular games prices, downloads shouldn't be an exception. The lists need cleanup, and as much as I want to be bold and remove the useless prices: I know it will just get reverted by certain editors. The fact some users ignore the discussion (because of a poll they think controls the article) is simply bad faith. Polls don't determine things forever on Wikipedia. Also: as I read some of the comments above- I think alot of the product comparision articles should go, as they are helping people shop (which shouldn't be what Wikipedia is used for). Why should Wikipedia serve the purpose of many other sites? An encyclopedia (paper or not), shouldn't just be full of things because they are useful to people (prices, comparision guides as 2 examples). RobJ1981 04:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Comparison of time tracking software does not have prices. Even if wikipedia decided to allow some prices, I don't think it is a good idea because it would be impossible to keep it accurate. Prices vary by region, rebate, type of user, etc.. Educational and student discounts, business and bulk discounts, etc., etc..--Timeshifter 18:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT transparent

Although it has been said that Wikipedia is WP:NOT#CENSORED, in reality the file $wgSpamRegex can be used to block the use of arbitrary phrases other than spam.[4] This spam block is imposed by the Developers[5], who are exempt from the need to form WP:Consensus. The list of phrases banned from Wikipedia under this mechanism is not public, and the identity of the offending blocked phrase will not be revealed to an editor when his edit is refused.[6] Phrases can be blocked by the developers on their own initiative in the absence of any policy or office action by the Wikimedia Foundation.[7] Community consensus to permit the use of a phrase on a particular page using the "Spam whitelist" mechanism is not sufficient to override this block, although administrators are free to appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation to order the repeal of a specific block if its nature is known.[8] The Developers act in a hierarchy that is largely independent of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, with a small number of people determining who is granted or loses authority and access by a process that is not subject to public vote or notification.[9]

Please - either add this to your policy, or make it not so. Thank you. Mike Serfas 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a very common misconception about that section which you seem to have succumbed to. The point of the section is, as I have suggested elsewhere, to explain that we can not guarantee that all content will comply with some standard of good taste, nor will we exclude content that some people find objectionable for moral reasons (encyclopaedic material about sex, for example). It doesn't mean "not censored" in the sense of being totally anarchic, with no controls over content. Indeed, look elsewhere on this page and you'll see "Wikipedia is not an anarchy". --bainer (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
As indicated in the subsection title, I am not suggesting a change to the "NOT#Censorship" or "NOT#Anarchy" titles. The issue I'm raising is one of glasnost - "openness", "transparency". There is considerable ground to argue that it is impossible for Wikipedia (or anyone) to exercise a strong freedom of speech under current laws. But I think it has not yet been determined that the organization must have a secret list of things to be censored in order to be viable. There is certainly some evidence in that direction - look at any Terms Of Service on the Internet and it always ends "etcetera" - but if that's a Core Principle of Wikipedia I don't think it's been proclaimed very loudly. Mike Serfas 05:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No, we are not transparent with respect to items which are censored. In fact, we censor discussion of whether some things should be censored, because to discuss them is to publish them. Fred Bauder 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
So, to be clear, this is truly necessary? There is no other way Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wiki____ can possibly work, other than to have someone in the background quietly removing material without telling anyone what it is? If you read that timid backroom officials at the Chinese Wikipedia were quietly removing and burying information frowned on by their government, maybe Tibetan Buddhism or pollution in the water, you would be willing to stand up for them and say they're right, those are the best practices possible, and that's the way Wikipedia works and always will work in every country? Mike Serfas 01:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Section WP:NOT#DIRECTORY

I'm involved in an active discussion here over whether this section forbids all contact info from Wikipedia or whether an article can have a phone number and address (in this case a school article). I would appreciate some admin/community input as I am not absolutely solid on this particular policy. Adam McCormick 01:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The relevant section would be bullet point number 3: "...For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. (bolding added for emphasis) The gist of that is that contact numbers and addresses are not normally necessary for articles. My advice would be to remove such information from articles and instead simply provide an external link to the article subject's official website, etc, that presumably has the information needed to contact them. Dugwiki 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Phone numbers for a radio station are promotional, the same cannot be said for schools. The discussion on the topic page seems to agree that this information is relevant. Adam McCormick 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The policy doesn't say that phone numbers are left out because they're "promotional". It says that the purpose of the article isn't to help the subject of the article conduct business, but rather to provide general encyclopedic information. To that end knowing contact phone numbers for an organization aren't necessary, regardless of whether it's the phone number for a school or for a radio station or for a professional individual. Dugwiki 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't phone numbers seem a bit like trivia? Why would an encyclopedia care at all about a phone number? Except for 867-5309 of course. (: (Requestion 05:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
A print encyclopedia wouldn't care at all about phone numbers because by the time they are read the number is likely useless. The same might be said of a lot of the stub articles out there but that's not the issue. The arguments we're having in our project is about all directory-type information about a school: Address, past names, former locations, names of principles/headmasters, links to the school's website, and yes phone numbers, all of which "Help a school conduct bussiness" but are also some of the most valuable information about most schools. When it comes down to it if we are going to say that "No directory information is allowed" we have to remove links to school (and school district) web pages, GPS coordinates, maps, descriptions, and any other information which might be useful in actually locating the school, and I don't think that anyone would advocate for that.
Given that we can't exclude ALL directory information why exclude something as essential as an address (Web or otherwise), or a contact number (or email adress for that matter). I'm not advocating for Wikipedia to include a phone book (Which is specifically what WP:NOT#DIRECTORY forbids) but excluding simple, unobtrusive (Read "Stuff found on a leatterhead") information should not violate this policy. Adam McCormick 23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't a link to the school's website sufficient? If you really need the phone number then click on the link. If the phone number isn't posted on the website then maybe it's a privacy issue and Wikipedia doesn't want to get involved in that sort of mess. I can also envision all the potential pranks posted phone numbers would enable. (Requestion 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC))
And what about schools without websites? And what is the argument for a website over a phone number? The only argument I've seen for this is that Wiki isn't supposed to be used for conducting bussiness, but a school's webpage is far more of an advertisement of the school than an address or a phone number. Adam McCormick 05:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If you need the phone number and the school doesn't have a website, well that is what Google is for. I think the rational for favoring websites over phone numbers on Wikipedia is that a website can be clicked on for more information. If school articles get to have phone numbers then every company article should get one too and so on. We'll also need to create the WP:PHONENUMBER guideline and what about all the potential privacy problems? (Requestion 16:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Clarification

Recently, myself and few other editors have instigated a cleanup of images and galleries in the Wikiproject Dog articles after reaching consensus that they needed monitoring. We agreed that per WP:NOT, galleries were causing more harm than aid as many articles constantly need policing against anons and users treating them as places to upload images of their pets willy-nilly. So far the cleanup has been successful, but it is still an uphill battle. I would like to propose adding a small sentence to WP:NOT specifically addressing this application of image policy to make dealing with this easier in the future. Maybe an addition to the fourth point of Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files section such as, "Wikipedia is not a gallery for personal images of you, your family, friends, pets or possessions ." Maybe with a point of explanantion similar to, "Just as a traditional paper encyclopedia refrains from illustrations of it's editors in its entries, personal images contributed to articles must have encyclopedic merit". There should also be some sort of qualifier to keep this from being used to prevent simply uploading self-related images, which of course does not violate policy and is done on a vast scale. VanTucky 22:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me, from your description, why the current policy is insufficient.Chunky Rice 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I admit that what the above says is already partly covered by the current language, but the current policy only states, "...Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context." In other words, it expressly discourages only articles that are pure galleries, not the misuse of otherwise good encyclopedic articles as galleries (not that I'm advocating the banning of the gallery as a tool within the proper context). VanTucky 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I mean, are people disputing your removal of these galleries from dog articles? And yes, my username comes from Good-bye, Chunky Rice. Chunky Rice 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had some grumbling from people who like having their pet's pictures up on the page (even if they recognize it's unencyclopedic), but no one has really started a serious edit war over them. I just noticed in the course of our discussions that the current policy only technically applies to creating articles that contain only galleries. To most experienced users it's pretty obvious that the section warns against galleries without encyclopedic merit placed inside good articles; for those who don't already understand/follow the policy it is not black and white enough. The real problem is not anons or established users, but new users who sign in for the express purpose of uploading pet photos. I've personally encountered at least ten such users in the last week alone. They tend to have very little understanding of Wikipedia policy, and if there isn't a clear reference to the fact that Wikipedia is not a gallery for their pet photos then they either argue around the language or say they can simply ignore it (as it isn't literal). It seems to me that all the regular users who've become involved have consented to the interpretation of the policy, so for those who don't get it I'd like to see some more explicit language. VanTucky 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned at the idea of modifying policy for the purpose of clarifying something that's basically an edge case. It would be too easy to push the line a little too far against inclusion of images. Personal photographs are a good source of free images, and the project needs more good free images in general. Rephrasing this policy may prevent somebody posting a photograph that is a suitable, higher-quality replacement for one that is currently in use, or which illustrates a point in the article that currently does not have an associated photograph. Yes, I'm aware of the problems with pet photographs (I have a picture that I've been thinking about contributing to Maine Coon for several months now; IMO it illustrates the distinctive shape of the breed's ears in a way better than any of the other current pictures, but the article is already picture heavy and I don't see it replacing any of the existing pictures). Perhaps a comment in a guideline somewhere would be more appropriate. What is the guideline on image inclusion? I can't seem to find one... JulesH 10:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree about being careful not to discourage uploading self-made images, they are vital. I want to include some language that basically says, "don't place personal images of...in articles simply for any purpose other than highlighting/explaining/as encyclopedic content." in other words, if it's not justified/necessitated by the text, then don't add it. This applies irregardless of source, but the specific problem is personal images so clarification of that is needed. This pretty much covers creating superflous gallery sections, but still allows for gallery sections of say, artist's works or geography. Maybe the spot you're thinking of is this. VanTucky 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, now that I've instigated a similar cleanup of the cat breed articles, I have encountered significant dispute over whether WP:NOT policy supports preventing collections of unencyclopedic images. One more reason for a clarification somewhere VanTucky 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Gallery? You could revive that if you like and remove the historical tag if you want and try and get it more widely known. I'm still not clear why that (and other guidelines) were marked inactive. It was part of large batch of inactivations carried out by User:Radiant, but I don't think anyone followed half of them up. Carcharoth 16:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention of all the old discussion on this, seems I'm definitely not the first to propose something along these lines. I believe WP:Gallery was deemed inactive because most of its clout was to be based upon a rewording of WP:NOT images to ban unencyclopedic collections of images in the same way as my suggestion. The poll conducted shows no conclusion (supports/opposes were pretty neck and neck) other than that obviously the changes did not happen. I'm not usre where to go from here, as it seems to me there is a serious hole in image policy concerning galleries. Could we even just tone down my addition? Maybe just something suggesting that large galleries without clear parameters for the type/purpose of the images to be included should probably be redirected to Commons? VanTucky 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about the general case, but we could discuss two specific cases where I've used galleries, and see what opinon is on those. Try La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial for one example, and Frodo Baggins#Adaptations for a photogallery of different adaptations of a character from a book. What do you think of those examples? Carcharoth 14:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In response to Carcharoth above, I should point out that the page was never a guideline. Rather, it was a proposal for a guideline, for which debate had died down with no obvious consensus. Inactive proposals are generally marked as such to indicate that, well, they're inactive. This should not prevent people from reinvigorating discussion and/or drawing in more feedback by advertising it. >Radiant< 21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying that, Radiant. Apologies if I misrepresented what happened. If someone does decide to push the galleries proposal further, I would certainly support it. I'll watch this space. Carcharoth 23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Censored

The point is that Wikipedia is not censored period. Not for kids, nor for adults, not for good taste, not for poor taste, not for anything. >Radiant< 11:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the logic that saying something extra (which leaves the impression that while wikipedia is not censored for good taste, implies it could easily be censored for political or other reasons) is pointless when it is fine the way it is now. Has some conflict sparked up from trying to censor wikipedia because of the way the sentence is worded or something? DarkSaber2k 11:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The latest reason for re-adding the words all sorts of content are removed. we just do so based on our policies or on laws and not based on religious or other morality. I've requested he come and discuss it here instead of edit warring, but just his last reason, I feel to see anything in there that has anything to do with adding 'for good taste' after 'Wikipedia is not censored' DarkSaber2k 12:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a charter for wikilawyering. People could easily claim to remove, say, purportedly obscene images by saying that yes, they're good taste, but no, think of teh childrne!!! >Radiant< 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind what wording is used, but putting nothing more than "Wikipedia is not censored" does actually convey the wrong impression to people who aren't familiar with the history of the paragraph. It implies that there are no controls at all over content, when in fact there are many, in our own policies and in the laws (of Florida and the US) to which the projects are subject. It is intended to convey the message that content is not governed by any particular social or religious norms. --bainer (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The policies are nothing to do with censorship, they are there to prevent anyone from adding any old thing to wikipedia (although they still try). Not censored means just that, Wikipedia refuses to remove relevent information from an article (if it is sourced) just because one particular political group/religion/parent group/whatever finds something the encyclopedia contains offensive. Example: Evolution would not be removed just because Creationists say it is offensive to their beliefs. (That might work in kansas, but it wont over the internet!) That means Wikipedia is not censored for religious nutballs to enjoy browsing, which is nothing to do with good taste. As for law and the internet, I don't know how it applies, due to it being one hell of aminefield, but why do you think Wikipedia has to answer to the laws of Florida specifically? (I edit Wikipedia in the UK, does that mean I have to obey their laws too? I obey Wikipedias policies, not another countries laws.) And what the heck has that got to do with adding the words 'for good taste' to 'Wikipedia is not censored'? DarkSaber2k 12:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is censored and often even discussion about exactly what is censored is censored. To discuss really gross, libelous, dangerous or illegal material in detail is to publish it. To give an example that will be readily evident, we don't permit messages from pedophiles soliciting sex with children or discuss the details of such messages in a public forum. Fred Bauder 14:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a legal rather than censorship issue. Or if you will, it's censored because it's illegal. (Plus it's a no-brainer). And how the hell is everyone manage to miss the issue that's actually under discussion. The whole reason we are here is because we want to know why Thebainer keeps insisting 'Wikipedia is not censored for good taste' is a better choice than 'Wikipedia is not censored'. The actual issue of censorship is a different discussion for a different place. DarkSaber2k 14:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Occam's razor would dictate that the simple prohibition against any censorship is better. An explanation of the legal versus the ethical reasons for no censorship is gone into with detail elsewhere (in several places I think). VanTucky 19:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Here I am. I hate this policy with all my heart. I've tried to explain why, but you hide behind legal reasons. "The policy says its not censored." Here I am trying to tell you that this policy MUST BE CHANGED! Look at this [10]. Now you say what's the point? Well, people can't handle this, America is immature. Pornography is so immature, and we've stooped down. Your policy is not helping. People who were addicted to child porn, confessed that they started with little things, such as what you show. Lingerie probably started the first cravings. Don't tell me about natural physical attraction. I didn't start with the hormones. I started out by seeing those dirty Victoria's Secret magazines. I desired more. So, when the internet came around, I, ashamedly, looked at pornography. I started talking dirtier, I had less respect for women. In this same way, our youth is being poisoned by filth. Please, for everyone's sake, remove this policy. -Yancyfry 02:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not the forum to discuss doing away with a fundamental precept of Wikipedia laid down by Jimbo himself. VanTucky 02:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I started a subtopic above about transparency, because even if it's illegal to have an uncensored encyclopedia, there's still a question of procedure. If you don't want to leave some filthy comment about a child in the History, that's not a big deal - that's Oversight. But oversight should be done by a known mechanism, known people, known policies, with logs that give at least an overall idea of what was done, and why, and how often. Every other thing is logged here! When there's a legal decision to be made there should be someone known to make that decision - even if you can't afford a lawyer on call all the time we should know who has been chosen to play one on Wikipedia. And it should not be a secret that this is going on - we shouldn't be told it's a "spam filter" in action. It should not run by a "loose hierarchy of devs", in the absence of any stated policy by the Wikimedia foundation. I think it's not merely wrong, but also ineffective to rely on that kind of secret censorship, because it is ultimately a kind of security through obscurity. Your filter could get divulged and become famous and then where would you be? Meanwhile, people posting the AACS code worked out half a dozen loopholes in the scheme in hours to days. You prevent little and allow much to go wrong by using it. Mike Serfas 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored for good taste, but this doesn't mean that adding inappropriate rubbish to pages isn't going to get deleted, particularly where there's massive legal issues. There's a world of difference, and imposing your personal moral judgements isn't going to change that. -Halo 04:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The other issue here that I'm getting from the comments of those with concerns is that you're not differentiating between simple obscene nonsense (in whatever form) that is normally deleted as unencyclopedic, and content that could be considered obscene but has clear merit as encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is unequivocally not censored for decency or anything other than the policies for inclusion relating to encyclopedic merit and notabilty. You also might want to read the article concerning Obscenity#United_States obscenity law. To be criminally obscene Wikipedia has to pass the "Miller test". In other words obscenity is only when, "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." To paraphrase Jimbo, Wikipedia could show mainstream porn on the main page 24/7 and still not be obscene. As long as Wikipedia has at least one article that has serious informative value, it cannot be convicted of obscenity. Besides all that, this is not the place to discuss changing fundamental censorship policy on Wikipedia. This is the place to discuss improving the explanation of what policy already dictates Wikipedia is not. VanTucky 04:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could remember a time where people weren't immature. -Yancyfry

Here is an example of what I was saying. DON'T CLICK THE LINK ON THE PAGE![11] What have I told you? Pornography is one of the poisons of America. If you don't believe that, than think of it as one of the things people, teenagers, are too immature about. They shouldn't even see porn, but this is the days we live in. -Yancyfry

Page Protection

Is this really necessary at this time?--Sefringle 02:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Something really needs to be done...

With the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy. I have seen way too many film articles that have received "no consensus" on the grounds that "crystal ball" doesn't apply when you have "references", because of the part in the policy that says you cannot have "unverified" content. The problem that I see, is that CRYSTAL doesn't address that issue. Obviously you need verifiable content, but having 20 sources say the same thing "So-n-so company wants to make more films in this series" doesn't constitute the film coming out. The same could be said for television programs, and music. Just because a studio says they want to make more doesn't mean that it is going to happen. There are a lot of associated factors that tie-in with the production of another product. My case examples is Spider-Man 4. Sony announced that they were going to make more films, 4, 5, and 6. No one has a contract beyond 3, and no one has said anything other than "if they have a good story, and everyone is brought back...then I'd do it". This seems like something best reserved for another articles (say Spider-Man film series). But, the current AfD on it includes constant votes of "keep" on the grounds that "it has a lot of verifiable sources". They're right, it has 12 sources, all doing nothing more than suggesting what might be if they do make more films. It seems to me that speculation is still speculation, even when it's sourced, and speculation is nothing more than a big guess in the dark.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • An anticipated event/film/etc. doesn't actually need to occur/be made/etc. for it to be notable and encyclopedic. As always, reliable sources are our best yardstick. — brighterorange (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • A generic franchise film is notable just for being talked about? If we created an article for every film just because they talked about it, we'd be overrun with stubbed articles that never develop into full articles for years. If we took that stand with Superman, we'd have to have half a dozen articles, or more, for every proposed Superman film for the past 20 years (see Canceled Superman films). The same goes for Batman, and Spider-Man for that matter since Spider-Man spent 20 years of its own in development hell.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • No, not necessarily. I'm just saying that I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies when we can attribute speculation/forethought to a reliable source. That is independent from the organization of encyclopedic content into individual articles or umbrella ones. — brighterorange (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        • And if a film never gets made? Sony says they want to make Spider-Man 4, but let's say they never actually start the process, and officially say that they aren't going to make the film for whatever reasons? That's their choice, and there isn't anything notable about changing your mind. Nothing says they have to make another movie, let alone 5 and 6. It wouldn't be the same if Warner Brothers said "sorry, we aren't going to be making any more Harry Potter films", because there are 7 books, and it would be notable to say that the film series will not be finished. Sony says they want to make a Spider-Man 4, 5, and 6....so since they said that, I guess we should create a page for 5 and 6, right?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Another element people have to think about is how notable a project is to have its own article. Spider-Man 4 is currently well-served in two paragraphs on the film series page. Alientraveller 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

          • Like I said, WP:CRYSTAL only applies to unverifiable speculation. I don't see what this has to do with whether the film will ultimately be made. It also doesn't have anything to do with the editorial dispute over where (if anywhere) that information should go, whether in its own article or as part of the Spider Man 3 article, or into an umbrella article. — brighterorange (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

But see, it shouldn't just be about "unverified" information. The purpose of the analogy is that Wikipedia cannot predict the future, and citing sources that don't even predict the future for us doesn't change that. I can have a source, reliable, that says a company wants to put out a film, but that source isn't predicting the film will be released, it's just stating people want to make it. If the purpose of Crystal ball isn't about whether something will or will not be made, then made that needs to be corrected in the article, as most people see it as that. As for it not being about where the information lies, well why does it initially go on to talk about whether future information "merits its own article" and then later doesn't explain if the "discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced" merits its own article, or should be merged into a more comprehensive one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • If Spider-Man 4 never gets made, merge it back in to Spider-Man films (an overview article) or to Spider-Man 3. If separate never-made Superman film articles had been made, they would eventually have been merged back into Cancelled Superman films. Merging, when done correctly, is an efficient way to avoid AfD or PROD. Carcharoth 15:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It seems like we are allowing things to get ahead of themselves with the idea that "oh we can fix it later". That's how article never get fixed. It's just as easy to say "merge it now, if the film actually goes into production then create an article for it". Otherwise, there will be a fight of "no, it's notable on its own for not being made..it should have its own article". Then we'll have to go through that fight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In some cases the fact that a planned sequwl never happens actually makes it more notabel than if it had happend. Consider The Last Dangerous Visions long promiesd but never delivered by Harlan Ellison. There are other simialr cases, albiet not many. DES (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Like I said, for instances like Harry Potter, where it's expected for them to make the rest of the film series, I can see it being notable that it isn't produced. But Spider-Man isn't based on any one particular book, just a set of ideas stemming from the comics. We can't say "oh...well this happened in the film, so at that point in his life he needs to do this next".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Granted, but where there is significant real=world discussion of a future film, boook, or event, so thst the expectaiton itself is notabel, and that is well-sourced, that alone is reason for an article, and is not crystal balling. Fears about a Third World War in the 1950s-1980s were notable on their own, although the war didn't happen, and now looks unlikely in the form then postulated. Anticipation of a future event is a current event, and may be notable if it is sourced. DES (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, but it's crystal balling if you say "WW III" will happen. If you say "there is anticipation that a third world war will happen" then that is a different story. Now, where is the information regarding the anticipation of a third world war best placed? Probably not in its own article. Giving it its own article is basically saying that it will happen. Placing the information with WWII or another more appropriate place, stating that there is anticipation that another war will occur is probably better. Right now, there is only anticipation that they will make more films, even anticipation from the studio itself. They haven't signed anyone to any contracts, so stating anything other than the anticipation is crystal balling, and providing an entire article devoted to the anticipation is equivalent to saying "oh it's going to happen, we're just waiting for it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        • See the article World War III for an example of topic about a hypothetical future event that still merits its own article. Yes, World War III has not occured, and may or may not ever occur, but it has been notably discussed and there are enough published references to write a reasonable encylopedic article about it. On a lighter note, the same can be said of some "planned" films and television series. The main question is whether or not there is enough verifiable, independently published material about the hypothetical film or show to draft a reasonably solid encyclopedia article solely about that subject. It's not necessarily true that a film has to actually ever be released - all that's necessary is that there is enough good verifiable published analysis of the unreleased film to construct a good article. For example, a film that was initially planned for production but that ran into interesting and notable problems that eventually resulted in its cancellation could make for a fairly good Wikipedia article that talks about the "rise and fall" of the film.
        • So basically the crystal ball section is mainly intended to weed out speculative language and rumors. But topics about hypothetical future events and releases that have good, solid published analysis are quite possibly worthy of articles in their own right. Dugwiki 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
          • This conforms with my understanding of "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball."
As an editor who works on articles of future films, I have come to understand that announcements and developments do not equate an actual film. It seems that determining the notability of a film that never takes up is very subjective. For a case like Spider-Man 4, there may be a case of recentism. The existing content really seems more appropriate for WikiNews than Wikipedia because there is no real-world context except for the hiring of a screenwriter back in January 2007, just talk. I believe that it is most appropriate to house possibly impending films or stalled films at the articles of the source materials. I've done this with Logan's Run (2007 film), Ant-Man (film), The Flash (film), Magneto (film), Warcraft (film), Onimusha (film), Spy Hunter: Nowhere to Run, Street Fighter (2008 film) (Note: 2008 was based on IMDb, but doesn't mean it's true), Master of Space and Time (film), Pattern Recognition (film), Knight Rider (film) and Voltron (film). I also helped trace the production history of Black Panther at Black Panther (comics)#Film without needing to create a separate article. There are more articles that potentially need to be redirected like these.
There should be a case made to have an article about a film that never reaches production. Not just based on notability, but also on the amount of content as well. Like the hypothetical situation that Bignole posed, if production of any further films were dropped, then there would be sparse content at Spider-Man 4. Also, notability should be argued, if possible, through what the media has said, not our personal opinions. I've based my decisions on redirects mostly because of content. There are still more redirects to do, but to be honest, I hesitate to redirect often because I don't desire source materials' articles on my watchlist because most edits would not be related to the "Film adaptation" sections. I believe that an exception to redirect would be Watchmen (film), which has a long history in development hell, and even if the current production fails to take off for some reason, the content seems extensive enough to have its own article. However, for Spider-Man 4, there is insubstantial content at the moment, and if you review the page history, there has been a lot of edits saying, "It is rumored/speculated" and "Fans believe that" so-and-so. I'm going to wrap up my spiel here, haha... I think I've said a bit too much at this point. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
With WWIII there was years and years of speculation, and fear. Sony only recently announced that they want to make more films for Spider-Man. The whole point I was trying to make is that "CRYSTAL BALL" needs to be a little more specific about what satisfies it enough to be its own article. It's one thing to have that type of information in an article already supported (a film series if it's a film), and a complete other to put in its own article. The point of CB is to distinguish between what merits an article and what doesn't. It should express what is "sufficient" information to warrant an article, when you are dealing with the speculative nature of future films. You can't say "see Crystal Ball and combine with Notability guidelines", because every article is different, and what's in CB now even goes out of its way to mention media as needing special care (although currently in a different aspect).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To drop another film into the mix, what about The Hobbit (2009 film)? Is that a clear-cut case? Carcharoth 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • See, the Hobbit is even more grey than Spider-Man 4. You could look at it like "well, it's part of the series of books, so they have to make it", but you could also look at it like "well, it's been made before, they skipped it when they made the LOTR trilogy, and there is nothing that says they have to make it". I would personally keep that with the original film article, or the book, listed as a potential new adaptation. I say that because they cannot secure anyone to make the film. They're trying, but right now all they have is air. Jackson wants the lawsuit settled, and there is nothing but rumors flying around that everyone from Sam Raimi to Peter Weir are up to helm it, although nothing official was announced.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I think the main question is whether the behind-the-scenes information about the film makes for an interesting and informative Wikipedia article on its own. In the case of The Hobbit (2009 film), there does appear to be quite a bit of verifiable published information and the article looks to be somewhat substantial. So even though the film itself is still speculative, the "story so far" probably makes for good enough reading that it's a worthwhile article, even if the film were never to actually come out for some reason. Dugwiki 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Brief" plot summaries

Ok, let's create consensus that plot summaries should be brief. his is an encyclopedia, and articles about works of fiction need not include scene-by-scene summaries of events. See, for example, much too lengthy plot summaries at Saw 3 or Dead Calm (film). Please allow the word "brief" to be added to this policy. Thanks. Not a dog 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this addition, and this is coming from a guy who did this:[12]. Brief is such a subjective term and larger subjects will merit longer plot summaries/timelines. Current policy is more than sufficient.Chunky Rice 16:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) I would support this, though it should already be implied by the word "summary." That means a condensed form, reduced to main points. Saw 3 is hardly condensed, giving almost every detail short of the script. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
As Chunky Rice says though, brief is subjective and some articles should get longer summaries than others. Obviously a summary of a 3 hour movie should be longer than one for a short film. I would suggest using something like: "Plot summaries should be a summary, a condensed version of the stroyline, they should only include significant details." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Somethign of this sort is already part of WP:FICT but is often ignored in practice. I think that plot info is often overdone. DES (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm not as concerned with whether or not a plot summary is "brief" as whether or not an article is only a plot summary. An article should contain information outside of just the plot of the fictional work, such as an explanation of why that work is important or how it was received or behind-the-scenes information that might be interesting and notable. So it's not really the size of the plot summary that matters, per se, but whether or not there are other items in the article besides just the plot summary. Dugwiki 18:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I would agree with that, but that is also often hard to enforce. DES (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I do think that length is relevant, in that it should be proportionate to the amount of discussion. If there are 20 paragraphs of plot summary and 1 sentence of real-world context, that doesn't make sense. But if there are 20 paragraphs of plot summary in the context of 15 different sub-articles discussing impact, significance, etc., I think that's reasonable.Chunky Rice 19:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:IINFO could be used as a case for summaries of plots, see #7. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with adding brief. It doesnt conflict with any other policy, and there are many articles that get tagged for not being brief. Basically, per previous mention by Dugwiki, it either meets the definition of a summary or does not. The hard part is not enforcement of summarization, but sometimes reaching consensus on the major plot points to be reiterated can be difficult. But that's part and parcel of having summaries at all. VanTucky 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • To me, this is just evidence that current policy is sufficient. There's no need to narrow editor discretion on an article by article basis.Chunky Rice 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I disagree. As other policy supports briefness, adding one word that clarifies what is already set in stone doesnt hurt. Narrowing would be speifically defining what is brief, which this doesnt do. It just makes clear something decided elsewhere. VanTucky 20:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, first of all, WP:FICT (I assume that's what you're talking about) is a guideline and is specifically denoted as not being set in stone (See WP:POLICY). Second, WP:NOT is an official policy and and generally speaking, policies are higher in the hierarchy, so we shouldn't change them to conform with guidelines unless there's a good reason to do so.Chunky Rice 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I meant set in stone in the sense that there is no systemic challenge to the guideline that plot summaries should be brief. It seems to me there is a good reason to do so, to make an accepted and important guideline policy. VanTucky 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
                • That's not a good reason. All guidelines come from established consensus. That doesn't mean that we should then make them all official policies. Policy (and guidelines for that matter) should be kept to a minimum unless it is required. That's simply not the case here. The existing relevant policies and guideless are more than sufficient to handle the issue. I certainly haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.Chunky Rice 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
                • I'm fine with Elonka's wikilink to WP:FICT from WP:IINFO #7, though.Chunky Rice 20:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • Thanks. Also FYI, we're currently discussing the issue of plot summaries at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Policy on plot summaries. The three possible ways of writing up the guideline that are being discussed seem to boil down to, (1) "keep it short" ; (2) List a recommended number of words, like 400-1200; (3) offer a proportional percentage, for example, "if the plot summary is taking up more than half the article, it's too long." Additional opinions would be appreciated to help reach a consensus. --Elonka 04:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing Wikipedia is not?

Could we say that Wikipedia is also Not a lyric book? That just came to my mind. Tell me if you think that should not be in the article. Thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 02:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 02:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Somebody suggested merging Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not aniconistic into Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. I am against this merge, as this warrents its own section at a minimum. It would be better to just add it somewhere else on WP:NOT, or to not move it at all.--Sefringle 02:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, Sefringle. I am inclined to agree. --ProtectWomen 06:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Specific examples do not belong in WP:NOT, we are not a lot of things, but they are covered by the general topics at WP:NOT. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree-- WP:NOT is a page of our most important policies. Not Aniconistic is a very specific minor case-- it might make for a great guideline, but it's not a good policy, and certainly not one of our most important ones. --Alecmconroy 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Alecmconroy, some people may disagree with you on how "minor" a case it is. You and Sefringle and I may agree that including pictures of so called "holy" images in Wikipedia is not a big deal. We think it is a minor issue. However, there are enough other folks here who would like to turn Wikipedia into some kind of Islamipedia, that making this into policy would be a good idea AND good policy. --ProtectWomen 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to make a subsection of Not Censored or perhaps a section right below it. I would say this is definitely major. Let's not forget how people lost their lives in riots relating to iconisist (and admittedly racist) cartoons. We need to come down with concrete policy so as to avoid gray areas in the future. That having been said, we have disputes over matters of BC/AD versus BCE/CE all the time and we have policy in place (actually as I look at it it seems to be up for discussion as well), but the issue of images, utterances/typing of ineffable names, this is a very major issue that has to come under a major discussion. --Valley2city₪‽ 19:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


No merge please, one is policy, one is an essay, and one I disagree with, at that.--Manboobies 12:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a "list of such (dictionary) definitions" vs Glossaries

I think the articles in Category:Glossaries, e.g. Glossary of BDSM clearly contradicts this point.

Either the policy needs to be updated or the articles that are clearly lists of dictionary definitions should be removed.

-- nyenyec ☎ 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. One thing that is clear from WP:NOT is that you shouldn't have an article that is simply a definition of a single word or phrase. Articles about a word or phrase should include some encylopedic information and background on the word that you wouldn't simply find in the dictionary.
However, it's not as clear that the policy is intended to prohibit glossaries of related terms. That is, a large list article of related words and phrases within a particular topic area. One could argue that while the individual entries in the list are basically dictionary definitions, the list when taken as a whole has encyclopedic merit for Wikipedia by acting as a useful index for readers interested in finding related articles about that topic by scanning the article links in the list.
Off-hand, without thinking about it too deeply yet, I'd be ok with slightly modifying the language of the "not a dictionary" section to clarify that "individual dictionary definitions" aren't allowed, but that "glossary list articles of related terms" are acceptable as an alternative means of navigating related articles in a subject, especially if there isn't a directly related category for the topic. Just my from-the-hip opinion. Dugwiki 20:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would say that this falls under the purview of WP:LIST. If the list has value on it's own, as a list, then adding definitions to terms just improves its functionality. If the list doesn't have value by itself, then having definitions doesn't make it so. I would say that the BSDM Glossary probably does not meet the requirements of WP:LIST. It should be a category. But I can certainly think of a couple ways that it could be restructured to make it compiant.Chunky Rice 21:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Children's encyclopaedia

Can we have something like "Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopaedia. Do not oversimplify language with the purpose of ensuring a five-year old child is fully able to comprehend it. If an article uses specialized jargon, an explanation would be advisable, do not however remove the terms for fear of misapprehension."? Far too often I've seen articles that make me want to bang my head against a wall, it's like an epidemic. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How far do we take that, though? It's obviously stupid to try to simplify quantum electrodynamics to a level that a five-year old can understand. But any article which is understandable by people other than subject matter experts will, by necessity, lose some technical jargon, because quantum physics is by far not easy. There's no need for a policy saying not to oversimplify; it's easier to determine case-by-case. -Amarkov moo! 23:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well there is the simple english Wikipedia, which can be used for this purpose. I know what you mean about those kinds of articles, but more often than not they appear to be just mediocre writing style as opposed to people removing jargonic terms and replacing them with simpler phrasing. I don't think "Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopaedia" would be a very good name for a guideline though, because Wikipedia's supposed to be for all age groups and what have you; at the same time, it's not exclusively for academics either, hence why overly technical articles need simpler explanations to facilitate them. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I see your point. Thanks for explaining your position and not saying "no". :) +Hexagon1 (t) 04:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Or to the 2007 Wikipedia CD Selection, put together by SOS Children and Wikipedians - meant for school use. You can see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection for more - there will be a downloadable version extremely soon, but the site is 100% of the content anyhow. JoeSmack Talk 16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not trivial"? DrumCarton 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_10&oldid=1145731169"