Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

"not solely yours"

I reverted the change from "not yours" to "not solely yours" to describe user pages. "not solely yours" implies that my user page is partially mine. I don't think this is correct. Martin 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well not yours implies that it is not under your jurisdiction at all! There's got to be some happy medium here. → JARED (t)  02:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made my disagreement with this policy heard already, not only because it is in itself rediculous, but also because nobody can seem to agree on what the policy is anyway, or even how to word it. It would seem to me that, even though I disagree with it, "user pages are not exempt from the rules" and that "objectionable content will be removed" fits the bill, however the (in my view) pointless prerequisite for all policy here to be prefixed with "Wikipedia is not..." may prevent such a wording. 82.153.142.162 10:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not just remove the section altogether? It's mostly duplicating "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site". Martin 14:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that and the section above it really don't fit. → JARED (t)  15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Wikipedia has a current and serious problem with abuse of the userspaces. Removing the section on userspaces dilutes and confuses the message. While it might possibly be consolidated with some of the earlier sections, the wording of this section has aspects not covered by the others. It should not be removed until we have consensus on replacement wording. Rossami (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
What aspects of "What your user page is not" are not covered by the section "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site"? Martin 13:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The main one is probably that there's no ownership of the user page, you don't own it, and anyone can edit it. I think it's also worth emphasizing the point about userpages since they are so often abused. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Support removal. Roassami would you care to enlighten me on what this "current and serious problem" involves? I've still yet to see any evidence of a problem, and continue to fail to see how userpages affect the encyclopedia. I still don't see why we can't just leave people to put whatever they want on their userpage. The very name "user page" implies that it is the page of the user and nobody but the user - the question in my mind is why SHOULD other people be allowed to edit it? There is no reason for people to want to do that other than vandalism - it's not an article and the User Talk page is there for any communication other people might want to have with the user. What business would I possibly have editing your user page for instance? What would be the point? What would it achieve? What does it achieve by making user pages a communal editing space? What function do they possibly play if everyone can, are encouraged to, and do, edit them? Also you've got the problem of who is going to police this rule? How is it going to be enforced? What would even constitute a violation of the rule? If someone wrote "I own this page so don't edit it" on it? On the whole I think this policy is weak and poorly thought out beaurocratic nonsense. I don't see the necessity for such a policy nor do I see a problem with users having their own personal space to talk a bit about themselves.▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of reasons that people can't put whatever they want on their user page. Some examples include soapbox ranting, copyright vios, attacks on other users, excessive self promotion, etc. And others can edit user pages to fix those issues. The point of a user page is to give people an idea who you are, not be a blank slate where you can do whatever you want. We're all here to make any encyclopedia, and generally we should be spending our time on that, not making elaborate user pages. Generally, people aren't going to edit other users' pages unless there is a problem - if there really is an issue, other editors will support the edits, and if the other editor is editing for bad reasons, other editors will likely revert it and support the person who's bage it is. And generally, if people write "I own this page so don't edit it", it is ignored or even deleted if the page has other issues that require editing. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
As Milo said, there are many things which are inappropriate on a userpage and can become harmful to the project even though they are restricted to the userpage. I'm sure you've read WP:USER and it's Talk page archives but that's where the rationale is really laid out. WP:USER also established exactly what is and is not a violation of our standards. As to policing it, that's a function of WP:MFD - and if you track that page for a few weeks, you will see the evidence of the "current and serious problems" we are having. Rossami (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I will happily concede that a user page does not afford the freedom that a website does, but that to me seems only logical; I would have thought that it would be considered more specific than a website. A User Page implies that it is a page about the user, IE the person behind the name, but I can see how it could be misinterpreted to mean "you can do whatever you want here". Perhaps "User Bio" would be less ambiguous/open to interpretation? ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, there has recently been a large debate over Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy where one user has been saying the page does not violate anything here at Wikipedia:Not. This page hardly seems Encyclopedic over the many other celebrity fueds, and it's existance suggests that all tabloid celebrity topics are acceptable. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not an extension of EW or ET or People or any of those other gossip magazines/shows. So, I was wondering if perhaps Wikipedia is not a Tabloid should be added. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 02:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • 1) Adding a new general rule to What Wikipedia Is Not in order to solve a specific problem with a specific article is not a good idea.
  • 2) I do think that Wikipedia has a structural problem in that people enjoy attacking celebrities they dislike, or are idologically opposed to, by adding true, but unflattering and unimportant material to the article. As WIkipedia is currently constituted, the best that can happen (and the best does often happen) is that the spitefully-motivated material becomes worded accurately, neutrally, and cites a published, reliable source, and that the overall balance of the article remains fair. What Wikipedia is unable to do is to declare gossipy or trashy information off limit. Wikipedia is not limited to "all the news that's fit to print." Wikipedia has an extremely strong cultural preference for retaining absolutely anything at all, regardless of trashiness or contributors' motivation, as long as it is neutral and is an accurate description of a published source.
  • 3) These structural characteristics of Wikipedia are (in my opinion) a problem with regard to articles about living people, and I think its widely recognized that it is a problem, as the Seigenthaler incident demonstrated. I don't think anyone, certainly not me, has any idea about how to solve it.
  • 4) One thing's for sure: adding a "WIkipedia is not a tabloid" section isn't likely to help. It conflicts with "Wikipedia is not censored," and I think that it is going to be virtually impossible to define what is meant by "tabloid material" in a way that is clear enough that two different editors with different points of view will nevertheless make consistent judgements about whether a piece of material meets the definition. 13:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

P. S. I haven't looked at the AfD discussion yet, but the particular article in question cites no sources at all and does not meet WP:V. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical significance, new events

"Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known."

While the remainder of this article is perfectly clear, this sentence has rather fuzzy wording. It seems to eigther make a jump, contradict itself, or refer to something that is not mentioned explicitly, depending on how you read it. After reading it over and over again it starts to make some sense, but I'm still not 100% sure I understand it right. Could somebody please explain or, even better, make this sentence understandable on first reading? Thank you! RToV 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

News reports. Wikipedia should not offer firsthand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known.[clarify] See Current Events for examples.

— WP:NOT#OR
My own interpretation is that while WP can have articles on issues and events which are in the "here and now" (versus "last year"), we are not publishing news stories. That is, talk about the "War on Terror," but don't create an article which has to be updated each week to reflect the current U.S. DEFCON level. So WP can have articles on topics which are of historical significance (that is, not just last week's crime statistics), but not "breaking news." For me, objectivity also requires a time-sense objectivity, as well as point of view. I resist articles that are based on "the status today, right now," and prefer an article that gives the reader background, and if possible, bring the reader up to date.
Because each article is an evolving, living document, such a topic can be updated with recent developments and trends. "Developments and trends" does not mean "last night's news." Is this any clearer? Perhaps if you post the question with an article (or idea of an article) that you have in mind....? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 03:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Very much clearer. After a great deal of careful reading and comparing, I think you've got the drift of both the part I understood and the part I didn't. Only in a completely different and much better wording. With some edits it could replace the current version. Shall we give it a try? RToV 12:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Long lists of people that just keep getting longer

I'm not sure if this policy covers this issue well enough. Here's a scenario. A page about special visual effects. On the page is a list of people who are "notable." It starts out with Wally Veevers, Albert Whitlock, Ray Harryhausen, Peter Ellenshaw, John Dykstra, Dougals Trumbull ... you get the idea. Suddenly the list starts growing. More and more names are added, Robert Abel, Gary Ralston, Greg Jein, Dennis Muren, Con Pederson... hey, they're notable, they've won awards, are credited by others, their names are on the films! They're supervisors on films, or they were interviewed on DVD extras, they created their own FX companies, whatever. Next you know, the list is 90 names long. According to a guideline or two, really the list ought to be a prose paragraph or at least names that could be worked into the article due to their notability (this is my interpretation of WP:LIST, WP:LISTV, WP:NOT#IINFO, and Five Pillars). But we really don't seem to have a bullet item that says "no long list of indiscriminate information." (Or do we, and I'm just blind today?) So there are arguments sprouting on a page I'm actually working, wherein some arguably notable people are adding themselves to the list, despite WP:COI and WP:NOT#SOAP. Complaints from editors that the list is too short. What's an editor to do? (Besides passionate apathy, that is.) Any opinions or suggestions welcome, I think we need to update this page so that we can at least strongly discourage overlong (43 lines?) lists within articles. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the longer list to a separate article, conforming with Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people, seems like the best option. It would still allow for two or three of the most important people to be listed in prose, beneath the {{details}} link to the list. Neier 23:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Who cares? Left-handedness is an interesting phenomenon. Wikipedia is not paper: we can afford to have lists like this. JROBBO 11:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • OTOH, Wikipedia is not toilet paper, and such lists of trivia do have a tendency of getting deleted on AFD. >Radiant< 12:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • OTOOH, the original question was about a list of notable people, notable for contributions to their field. That is not trivia, and would stand a better chance at surviving AFD. Unlike left-handedness, there is a gray area at where the notability for visual effects would be cut-off; and, the limitations of prose in an article versus the limitations of a list exclusive for such a purpose would be different. Neier 13:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Provided all the notables already have articles, and there is nothing more to say within the field of notability about them. But, neither of those are very safe assumptions. Lists can be improved upon. "Wally Veevers, Albert Whitlock, ...." is not a very interesting list. But, generally, people are notable for a reason, and a list can give a summary of the main claim of notability much more concise than a category. If I was trying to remember the name of the visual effects artist who pioneered a way of doing stop-motion, scanning the list and finding "Wills O'Brien, stop-motion animation" would aid that research. Neier 13:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition - 'Names in other languages' sections

I always thought it was stated under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" but it's not really specified. Examples of this are/were in Donald Duck, Pinocchio (1940 film) and Magica De Spell. It seems especially pointless since you can always go to the inter language links to see the translation. It also is always removed in featured article candidates. Garion96 (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring specifically to film titles, I think the original language title of the work is appropriate as IMDb does. Only that. Listing the Gadzookistan title of The Wicker Man in the en.wikipedia.org is silly; it's an English language film. Have you checked the Film Portal (style) talk pages to see if it's been raised there? If not, it should be,... feel free. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on afd/cfd

A recurring problem I've seen on afd and cfd discussions is the seeming inappropriate application of the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section of this policy in nominations. Actually reading that section makes it clear that it is currently fairly limited in scope, listing fairly specific areas of consensus of certain types of information that is not appropriate for Wikipedia (ie Lists of FAQs, Travel Guides, How-To manuals, etc). The section's introduction even outright states that "...there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, [but] current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply" and proceeds to list specific items.

What bothers me is that it is becoming very frequent to see editors in afd/cfd give this section of WP:NOT as reasons for deleting articles and categories that have no seeming relation to the types of information cited. I have no problem supporting deletion of articles that actually violate that section of policy, but I do have a problem supporting a nomination when they are quoting a section of policy that doesn't seem to apply. Basically it boils down to someone thinking an article isn't "important", and cites this section of policy, even though it is not a broad-brush section intended to erase any article that is "unimportant". (A similar problem exists with nominations that simply state an article or category is "fancruft", for example, a term that has no actual use in policy or guidelines.)

So my suggestion to editors is to please use the appropriate section of policy or guidelines, rather than just quote "indiscriminate collection". If something isn't referenced, say that it's not referenced or original research. If it doesn't meet notability standards, mention notability and the appropriate notability guidelines. Don't just say "WP:NOT indiscriminate" unless it is actually one of the types of information included in that section, or use WP:NOT for articles that don't obviously fall under this policy.

Finally, if you feel I'm misreading this section of this policy, please feel free to post and let me know what I'm overlooking. My appologies for the short rant, but it seems a shame when that part of policy is used as a lazy way to handle potential deletion of articles that others have otherwise put up in good faith. My two cents; now back to work. :) Dugwiki 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The list in that clause was intended to be a set of illustrative and non-controversial examples, not an exhaustive list. It is still possible for something to be an "indiscrimate collection of information" without being on that specific list. The problem is that there are just so many things which an encyclopedia is not that we can't possibly list them all - and if we did, the list would be far too long to read or use.
Having said that, anything not on the specific list would have to be discussed and decided by the community on a case-by-case basis. If you think a particular use of the phrase is incorrect or overly broad, you certainly should challenge the statement in the deletion discussion, backing up your opinion with the relevant facts, logic and references to policy and/or precedent. For example, if Encyclopedia Brittanica does X, that's a pretty good argument that X is encyclopedic and that we should have a darned good reason for not allowing the same in Wikipedia. (Note: The converse of that example is not necessarily true.) Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with you. Anything not on the list should be discussed on its own merits in afd/cfd. I think there are two problems, though, in how things currently go. One is that some people simply say "WP:NOT Indiscriminate" and nothing else, even when it's not something that has clear consensus in the policy. The other, lesser, problem is that this section of the policy is vague over just how broadly the section applies to information not specifically listed. All it says is that "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries" without actually saying whether or not or how the policy might apply to those debated classes of entries. This leads, I think, to sometimes vigorous disagreements over what is and is "trivial information". I'd like to say I had a good way adjust the wording to lessen that problem, but unfortunately it's a complicated issue and I'm not even sure editors and admins here could reach a consensus on just how broadly the Indiscriminate section should be applied. So to sum up, Ross, I'm with you in that I think the best rule of thumb is to always specify exactly why you think something should or should not be deleted. Dugwiki 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a sentence added to the main page along that line of reasoning (to avoid claiming WP:NOT without a backing argument) is a good idea. Neier 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No - I think you're right— I'm sick of policy being misread to justify deletions. The same with "Wikipedia is not a directory" - no one can seem to tell me what a directory is and what it might involve. JROBBO 22:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, many editors just use it as a loophole to cite an actual policy instead of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The periodic table? Just an indescriminate collection of information - delete it! --Milo H Minderbinder 22:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a directory?" That's fairly easy, actually. A directory is a listing provided for accessing entities. Wikipedia might have a similar listing of entities, even the same entities, but it is aimed at understanding those entities. Do you want a list of the major architects working today? Such a list would be encyclopedic, since you might be interested in researching your hypothesis that the majority of working architects today were trained in the Blah-Blah-Blauhaus School, or something similar. Do you want contact information for the major architects working today? That's a directory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1) There's nothing recent about any of this.

2) People say many irresponsible things in AfD discussions and always have, but that doesn't mean they carry much weight. By all means, go ahead and nominate the periodic table for deletion as an indiscriminate collection of information, and see what happens. It won't be deleted, because most editors will feel strongly that the periodic table is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If someone says article X is an indiscriminate collection of information and two-thirds of the people discussing the article agree, the likelihood (barring sock-puppetry, etc.) is that article X really is an indiscriminate collection of information. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If the AfD always went the way you just described (people pointing out that "XYZ is indiscriminate because...." or "XYZ is not indiscriminate because...."), then I doubt that the original message above would have been posted. The problem is that WP:NOT is bandied about without any backing arguments as to why the article/list is indiscriminate. Actually, since WP is not a democracy, if there is one discriminate use of the information, then regardless of how many objections (or the strength of said objections) there are, then it should not be deleted on the grounds of WP:NOT. Yet, I have witnessed AFDs where certain lists are legitimatized but still followed by a flood of WP:NOT deletion votes. I don't want to put words into the original poster's keyboard, but, I think that this is the gist of what he was trying to say. Neier 02:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've likewise seen WP:NOT keep floods from time to time. People on both sides of the debate sometimes don't have an argument but pretend they do anyway, and there's no feasible way of stopping that. >Radiant< 08:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The two thirds thing just sounds like voting to me. If two thirds say WP:IDONTLIKEIT, those will be ignored. But if they say "WP:NOT indiscriminate", they still aren't providing a real argument but it's taken more seriously because they're citing a policy. Closing admins shouldn't count "votes" without reasoning behind them, but it happens. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That is true, and a long-standing problem. However, the problem lies in the people, not in the process, so the solution is not to change the process but to tell those admins what they are doing wrong. >Radiant< 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct this isn't a recent problem, and I hopefully didn't imply it was. It is a longer standing issue and it does reflect, at least in part, a misuse or misunderstanding of that part of the policy. My main hope is that by reminding people about it here, the discussion will help newer editors understand when and when not to cite "indisciminate info collection". And who knows, maybe there's a minor rewording that will help too. Dugwiki 18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One problem I see here is that the WP:NOT guidelines are not fixed - they are changeable. I have used the argument that "Wikipedia is not an almanac" since I'm sure that used to be on the list - but then when I went to check recently, it wasn't. This was used particularly in the recent sports Afds on FA Premier League results December 2006 and FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers. Are the WP:NOT rules to be determined by precedent? QmunkE 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Alamanacs" was only on the policy page for a single day in December. It was added by Robdurbar on December 28 2006 and removed on December 29 2006 with the comment that there was no consensus on almanacs. There apparently has been no consensus on that being in the policy. Dugwiki 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the two example debates mentioned above that referred to "alamanacs" also took place during those dates. So apparently those particular debates actually referred to something that was put on the policy page prematurely and removed almost immediately the next day. Dugwiki 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Being one of the AfDers who has recently fallen foul of this, I thought I ought to add my opinion. Indeed, I was just heading here to bring up the very same issue.

I think it needs to be made clearer whether not an indiscriminate collection of information is to be used only for the specific examples or not. I didn't really pick this up from the policy and hence quoted it referring to the general case rather than one of the specifics. To make things a little more confusing, Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas lists Extremely specific details which only a dedicated few care about - the way which I was using the policy - pointing at the policy in question. Yet this is not listed as a specific example in the policy.

Clarification is required as to whether the nine listed 'nots' are exhaustive or just a few examples. Or, as it would seem, that you may go beyond the listed examples, if you give a good rationale as to why the policy applies. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy is not a computer program, and Wikipedians are not processors. Wikipedia is the sum of what Wikipedians actually do. They write pages called policy, they express opinions in AfD, they cite policy in AfD in hopes of influencing others, WIkipedians who are admins read the AfD and may or may not do something predictable, etc.
Policy pages tend to specifically spell out the things WIkipedians really are agreed on. WP:NOT says Wikipedia is not a directory of "Genealogical entries." That's because we really agree on that. If someone puts in an article that is just a collection of geneaological entries, it will get a consensus for deletion. The people editing WP:NOT are savvy enough that this would not be in the policy page if it were not the case.
If a class of topic isn't mentioned in WP:NOT, that does not meet that Wikipedians consider it encyclopedic, or that anyone is entitled to submit articles about them. It just means that the results of taking such an article to AfD are not going to be perfectly predictable.
If someone gives as a reason that an article is "an indiscriminate collection of information," it's reasonable to point out that it is not one of the specific examples mentioned in WP:NOT, in hopes of influencing other people's opinions. But it is still all a question of judgement. There are surely things that most WIkipedians would judge to be indiscriminate collections of information that are not specifically mentioned here.
They only will get mentioned on the WP:NOT policy page if a) there's a clear consensus about a brightline kind of indiscriminate information, and b) we get enough articles of that kind that there's some good in mentioning them here.
I could create an article on "the contents of my bookshelves." It might well get deleted as "indiscriminate information." It would not be a very good defense for me to say "WP:NOT doesn't forbid it."
There would be no point in adding a provision about "articles about the contents of bookshelves," though, unless it was clear that we were really getting a lot of them, so there would be some point in trying to warn people off. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to reply to your bookshelf example and comments, DPB, an article about the contents of your bookshelves would fail verifiability (since it's not from a verifiable independent publisher) and also wouldn't meet notability guidelines. So there would be no reason to try to apply WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE to your personal bookshelf article, because it would be deleted for other reasons.
Which brings me to the point that the problem is that editors are referring to the wrong policy or guideline. If something isn't notable, they should refer to WP:Notability. If it's not verifiable, use WP:V. Those two references alone cover the majority of articles that editors might consider "unencyclopedic" or "trivial". Using WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE for things not listed there likely means you are misapplying that part of the policy and should instead be looking at other policies or guidelines for support of your argument for deletion. So just because WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply doesn't necessarilly mean the article meets other standards for inclusion, and in cfd an afd debates I'd rather focus on the things that do clearly apply. Dugwiki 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

indiscriminate adj. done or acting at random or without careful judgement.

— Oxford Concise Dictionary
I concur and appreciate all the arguments and suggestions put forth here -- how's that for wussiness? Two distinct issues occurred to me reading the initial post: that "indiscriminate" is a subjective term and must be discussed and argued, you can't just say "it's indiscriminate, so nyeahh!" and be done ... also, notability is subjective, and must be discussed, and the very idea of discriminating what is included in WP is establishing notability and writing about it in a encyclopedia fashion. So discriminating writing happens twice, once when establishing an article's notability and writing about here, and then when editing the article making sure it doesn't have humongous lists of information, or endless detail that derails the article from being a concise summary and makes it a thesis. (One example: the Bodhran page had two screenfuls of "Players" listed, and more coming weekly. It was becoming endless, as "notability" was being interpreted loosely.)
There are several things I find indiscriminate: lists of sports results, films in which a character stubbed out a cigaret on the ground, characters in Batmana comics. These are lists. There are also complete articles on episodes of Heroes (tv). Would I reach for the Brittanica for a list of story outlines of THE TWILIGHT ZONE? Hell no. But people insist that episode synopses of FIREFLY, HEROES, and whatever need to be in here, they're notable (maybe) and the descriptive articles very discriminating (maybe; OR and NPOV additions are expunged quickly and mercilessly).
Problem with this policy is that perhaps the "indiscriminate collection of information" section does not establish that these issues have to be discussed on a case by case basis, and that the policy itself can't a) be a comprehensive list of examples, and b) be ruled out for cases which aren't listed in teh policy at a given moment. Almanac was a great example, it was added quickly, while there were sports results AfD discussions going on, and a complaint was registered that the policy was written to support those discussions, so the editor reverted himself out of decorum and fair play (and I applaud him; not everyone has the guts to admit a mistake and correct it without coercion). I think it's fair to add it now after checking the discussion on this page (above). But the original poster raises a very important issue: we need to edit this policy section so that it doesn't sound all-inclusive or final. Hope I helped the discussion, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a good proposal to police the contents of lists. However, you've left out one distinction that I think we need to consider. Discriminate (requiring judgement, as defined above) also implies that a choice must be made, to see if a particular item on the list falls on the "include" or "exclude" side of the bar. Lists can be split to two groups: those which can be completed, and those which cannot (and which the contents need to be discriminately decided). A list of people who played a particular instrument is practically unending. A list of people who played a particular instrument and who are notable for it (or who promoted it, etc) need not be specifically limited by our policy, but is better off to be maintained by people familiar with the subject. Having the policy here to say "it's ok to include some, but not others" is a good idea.
On the other hand, list of episodes, list of video games, list of sports seasons, list of olympic results, and others can be expected to have a clear end. Some of those, I am more interested in than others; but I don't consider the contents within any of those lists to be indiscriminate, because the bar for inclusion is binary (did it exist, yes/no). In other words, no expert in the field of Olympics is needed to decide whether the 1994 figure skating finals should be included or not. There is nothing to discriminate in those lists.
Regarding sports results (and it probably applies equally to video games, movies, books, voting results, whatever), in Brittanica's article about the Chicago Bears, I doubt that they mention any specific season outside of 1985 in much detail. That's because they need to decide what fits in their encylopedia. In our case, we have a featured list Chicago Bears seasons which goes (and links) into detail unimagined by Brittanica. Is each season notable? Well, in 1957, the 1957 Bears season was notable. WP:N#Notability is generally permanent, etc. The 1957 Bears season article does not mention the scores of each game, but, by 2005, not only are we including results, but full rosters, TV announcers for each game (!), etc. Within that article, there is a discriminating line to draw; however, my opinion is that it is south of the results and rosters. Would I like to click out from Mike Ditka, to see who else was on the roster in 1966; and more importantly, is it important? I think so. Would I like to click out from Troy Aikman to see what other games he announced with Joe Buck, and is it important? No. Why did the Bears go 5-7 in 1957? Who beat them? Having the list of results somewhere (I don't know if it is best to keep all together in one article for the league, or duplicate every game twice, once in each team's article for the season) supplies added context, is WP:V, and is not indiscriminate because the season is made up of a set number of games (16, 82, 162, 30, depending on the league). Neier 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I too have become increasingly annoyed with the editors citing this section without further explaining why an article is "indiscriminate information". It's nothing short of WP:IDONTLIKEIT except using a vaguely worded section on a policy. But I think that can be easily fixed by explaining that the burden of proof rest with the editors who use that argument in a deletion debate and not with the editors defending the article. --Farix (Talk) 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If I can add my voice to this much-needed discussion, I think part of the problem is this: the statement, quite rightly, says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This means that Wikipedia (through AfD, consensus or policy) may well discriminate against certain types of articles, and types which have community consensus as improper are listed under WP:NOT. Several editors, however, are invoking WP:NOT as if it is unambiguous policy against what they see as "indiscriminate information" - "Lists of fictional entities" are a favourite, as lists with somewhat broad criteria - often backed up by an assertion that the list could "possibly" contain thousands or millions of entries, and sometimes including a ludicrously broad or narrow list example as a straw man ("What next? List of people with fingerprints?"). I am strongly of the opinion that unless something is listed by consensus under WP:NOT, then the community can and should be trusted to keep or delete the article in question, and be sensible enough to maintain that article to reasonable standards of quality, verifiability and notability (such as only including source materials notable enough for an article themselves in the case of fiction lists). --Canley 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to "indiscriminate information" intro paragraph

Here's a suggestion to chew up and discuss and maybe we can get something we can all live with.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply everything about anything. In any acceptable topic class, a threshold of notable and relevant detail must be established by editors reaching a consensus, and excessive information or trivial details are discouraged.

Some examples include: (continues bulleted list)

— proposed new introduction

Now, let's discuss. Don't mind my feelings, be bold. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh I like it, but it is somewhat vague for policy, no? I frequently use reasoning along these lines in AfDs - for example, Wikipedia is not the place for articles on every conceivable character, village, animal, star chart, and brand of beer mentioned in Lord of the Rings. But, such an argument ultimately goes nowhere because another editor will just say "yes it is." Having policy language that is exceedingly vague only exacerbates this problem, I think.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I smell a loophole. -- Ned Scott 11:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you specify what is vague? I don't think I removed anything that's in the policy now, only added the statement about "excessive information or trivial details are discouraged" with a link to Wikipedia:Notability. Can you try a rewrite of what I put above that isn't as vague? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I'd prefer the phrase "a threshold of notability for an article subject" instead of "notable and relevant". The word "relevant" isn't, that I recall, ever discussed anywhere else in the guidelines, and it sounds like it would be an easily debated characteristic. Notability, however, has received a large amount of discussion and there are numerous guidelines regarding determining the notability of a subject.
In fact, I think a large number of articles which editors call "indiscriminately collected info" actually fail on notability grounds. To use the "books on my bookshelf" example, an article about books I personally own fails notability requirements because there are no independently published articles about my book collection. So even if some people happen to find the information "relevant" or "useful", it still fails on notability grounds because it hasn't crossed the notability threshold of independent analysis or review.
Also, I noticed that most of the items now listed in WP:NOT#IINFO aren't there because the information is "trivial". They're listed because of copyright concerns, or concerns about Wikipedia giving formal advice, or notability concerns or style concerns. For example, a FAQ isn't enyclopedic in format, but the information might be rewritten as prose. Information from a memorial should be about someone who already meets notability guidelines. How-to guides are excluded because Wiki can't be held responsible for giving advice; it's only here to give (hopefully) factual information. And plots can run afoul of copyright issues.
So all the things listed, though they might be accurate, have legitimate reasons for exclusion from Wiki. But the reasons transcend that the article is "trivial" or "irrelevant". Rather, they stem from notability and verification, copyright and liability issues. Therefore I think it best if this section focus on somewhat objective and well-discussed things like notability, verification, copyright and liability and not get into subjective debates about what is or isn't "trivia". Dugwiki 18:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, notability is a guideline and has no real business being linked to from a policy in a manner which endorses it, and certainly a guideline should not be described as something which "must be established by editors reaching a consensus". The wording is fine as is. Hiding Talk 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Sometimes I forget that WP:Notability is a guideline, not a policy. So unless that changes, I think you're correct that policies shouldn't refer to notability requirements. Dugwiki 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've been involved in drafting a few notability guidelines, and I've been clear in discussion and in the page's text that they aren't deletion tools but are rather meant as advice to newcomers pondering their chosen subject's merits for inclusion. For example, I want to write an article on foo, so I check our notability guidance to see if foo is notable. However, once it is created editor Y can't list ot for deletion as failing notability criteria. They should cite an actual policy. In no way should we be citing guidelines as reasons for deletion. Guidance is something which is offered and can be rejected. Policy is something to be followed. Consensus is a policy, and I do find it worrying sometimes that a consensus opposing a guideline is trumped by the guideline. The checks and balances need to operate in the correct manner, and well written and sourced articles need to be evaluated as such, not measured against a guideline. Hiding Talk 19:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't care for the proposed language. It strikes me that simply adding words to the effect of "What follows are examples where consensus has been reached, but this list is not exhaustive. Absence from this list does not mean that the policy does not apply." would go a long way toward addressing problems. By the way, can someone point me toward where the ongoing discussion on items to include is taking place? Otto4711 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that suggestion, Otto, is that the sentence "Absence from this list does not mean that the policy does not apply" gives editors no guidance at all as to when it does apply. Let me put it this way. Assume hypothetically we removed all the classes of entries listed in WP:NOT#INFO from that section. All you'd have left is the first two sentences: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. " Those sentences give no guidance and imply nothing about how to decide whether or not to include otherwise accurate information. Thus the only information of any value in this section, currently, is the specific examples of classes of information that have consensus for which things might be true but still shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
Notice that even if you add your suggested sentence and say "What follows are examples where consensus has been reached, but this list is not exhaustive," how would you know if an example that isn't listed falls under this section? It's not as if there's a clear factor linking all the examples in that list. They're independent types of articles that have varying reasons for exemption.
So unfortunately I don't think the "not exhaustive" sentence will help. I think the approach you have to take is to add new broad classes of information as needed which a broad consensus of editors agree shouldn't be included. For example, if the editorial consensus is that "trivia" shouldn't be included, and the word "trivia" can be accurately defined, then you could add a "no trivia" portion to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE saying that articles should consist almost entirely of "non-trivial" information. Dugwiki 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't see what is so hard about putting it in the policy that just because something isn't on the list doesn't mean it automatically passes NOT#IINFO. As I have offered up as an example several times when someone has argued that a particular garbage list has to be kept because it doesn't precisely fall under one of the eight items, List of blue things would not survive a WP:NOT#IINFO challenge but there's nothing explicitly in the policy that says it's barred. List of people by favorite ice cream would be deleted under this section despiter there being no specific prohibition against it. It's ridiculous. Simply saying something like "Current consensus is that the following types of articles are by definition indiscriminate collections of information. This does not mean that only these types of articles may be considered indiscriminate collections of information." Then, we hash it out on AFD and when 50 or 100 or how ever many articles of a type get deleted because it's agreed that the article type is IINFO then add it to the list. Otto4711 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the word "relevant"; this too seems 'subjective' and vague. There may be little relevance to contemporary concerns in Ocidelus, or Volapük language, or Amafanius, but they all remain subjects that should be covered in an encyclopedia.
I suggest pulling the entire section on "indiscriminate" information for the time being; or removing the "indiscriminate" language and opening sentence, and breaking down the several subheadings into headings of their own. The "indiscriminate" label is too widely and subjectively misused, especially when considering lists and other user-made indexing and cross-referencing pages. Some editor doesn't like the way another has chosen to organize his links, so someone's work ends up on AfD.
The "indiscriminate" business is too vague to call a policy. It invites destructive extension by analogy. It needs to go. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a fanzine

Someone brought this up in a thread at WT:COMIC and I thought it was quite a useful point. The point is that whilst Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a fanzine. Just thought I'd bring it here to generate some discussion and see if we can't take it a little further. Hiding Talk 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Trivia" mentioned in five pillars, but not here

I noticed that WP:Five Pillars includes the sentence "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory," but that the word "trivia" is never actually discussed in policies. The best I could find dealing with a description of what "trivia" means is the essay Wikipedia:Trivia, which is unfortunately an essay is considered a subjective opinion and doesn't carry the same consensus weight as a guideline. I also noticed that the terms "soapbox" and "web directory" are explained in more detail here in WP:NOT, and "Vanity" is discussed on the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

So it appears that the word "trivia" is left largely undefined by policies and guidelines. But the word is also tossed around in afd and cfd discussions with great frequency, in many cases with vigorous editorial debate about whether an article actually falls under the qualifier of "trivia". Given the broad power of the word "trivia" on deletion debates, is it worth exploring the creation of an actual trivia guideline of some sort? Does Wikipedia even have enough consensus on what the term means to form such a guideline? And if not, is there any consensus on how to interpret what that means in terms of the Five Pillars?

The reason I mention it here is that a number of editors seem to link WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE to trivia. So perhaps WP:NOT is a good place to start discussion on the topic. Also, it's possible that there's something I'm overlooking, and I'm pretty sure the editors who follow this page have been around the block enough to know if there's a guideline that already covers this. (The only other thing I could find on that topic was Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, which deals more with the matter of trivia lists being poor stylistically, and that the information should be presented within prose form in the article itself assuming the information is notable.) Any thoughts? Dugwiki 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Five pillars has morphed over time from "a collection of primary source documents" to "triva collections". Happened around May to October last year, with an intermediate stage of "a collection of source documents or trivia". Trivia itself was superceded for roughly a year by Wikipedia:Importance, which itself became Wikipedia:Notability, before it was resurrected late 2005. I'd guess most people use trivia as a shorthand term for "not worthy of note", i.e. not notable. However, having witnessed some frightening afd's recently, I think the issue is less that people are using policy wrong, which is absolutely true in my opinion, but that it has become a clique, and is not representative of Wikipedian opinion as a whole. Hiding Talk 19:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed the reference to "trivia" in 5P but nowhere else. I do think that NOT should include a statement about trivia, given that the very meaning of the word "trivia" includes "unimportant matters" and "something of small importance". Agent 86 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What would it to take to forbid long, pointless lists of pop culture references?

Couldn't this policy expressly discourage editors from creating the sort of endless pop culture references that dominate many otherwise well-written, well-organized articles? Could you, for example, edit the WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE list to include item:

"10. Lenghthy lists of pop culture references."

I have been guilty of adding items to such lists, but I readily admit they are distracting and significantly degrade the quality of encyclopedia articles. As mentioned in the discussions above, there are guidelines and essays that deal with trivia, but it would be nice to address this issue as part of an "official policy".--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with this suggestion. One is that not all editors are opposed to pop culture sections, so it's not obvious that there is consensus to having a policy against lengthy ones. Secondly, the length of a pop culture section sounds like a stylistic concern as opposed to something that policy would deal with. The items listed in WP:NOT aren't listed because they detract from the "style" of an article, but rather are there for practical reasons such as enforcing verifiability of information, removing material that might present legal trouble (eg How-To advice), and removing material that could be overwhelming for editors to properly maintain or that suffers from POV issues.
So while it's a good idea stylistically to keep pop culture lists pruned to a reasonable length, it's not an issue that necessarilly has strong consensus on how to handle it nor does it seem to rise to the level of a policy concern. Just my opinion.

Dugwiki 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Two things would help.
  • First, being reasonably assertive about requiring source citations. If the appearance of the Statue of Liberty in Alfred Hitchock's The Saboteur was actually important, somebody will have mentioned it in a publication.
  • Second, if there were a general consensus that nobody cares about "I Spy" contests to see who can spot the largest number of passing glimpses, people could start diligently removing such entries from such lists. A story in which the Statue of Liberty carries on an extended conversation with another statue (O. Henry's "The Lady Higher Up"), or plays an extended scene as a character in the story (the movie Ghostbusters 2) is worth mentioning. A movie or video game that includes a glimpse of the Statue of Liberty to establish that the location is New York is not. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
And your first requirement would effectively cover the second. My favorite is "veiled" references to Scientology (List of Scientology references in popular culture) which boils down to "I think I spy, maybe" and including every instance of that. But it is so dearly loved by many. --Justanother 17:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Insisting on references will exclude original research, but it won't stop the "I Spy" games. If the claim is simply that the Statue of Liberty is seen in the panoramic opening shot of a movie, the source is the movie; if you cite a particular timestamp on a DVD, it's well-cited. That's a valid use of a primary source. The problem isn't that it's unverifiable but that it's unilluminating.
Also, it's often possible to cite secondary sources for irrelevant material. If it's true, as the article Dragonfly informs me, that "Lorelai Gilmore's inn is named The Dragonfly on Gilmore Girls", chances are good that someone has mentioned this in a review of the show, and no doubt it's relevant to the article on Gilmore Girls, but is it relevant to the article on dragonflies? My guess is there are dozens if not hundreds of equally citable, equally trivial mentions of dragonflies. Including a few of the most significant ones may be helpful and can liven up the article, but it needs more selectiveness than WP:V can provide. —Celithemis 01:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please put me down as strongly in favor of adding "Lists of pop culture references." I've been picking through Category:In popular culture recently trying to AfD some of the more egregious list articles, and consensus may be starting to emerge that these sorts of lists are Not A Good Thing. Examples here and here and here with a failed attempt here (which even looking at it disinterestedly I don't really understand the "no consensus" closure). There are a few more open which, if they are deleted, will stand as pretty good evidence of at least a case-by-case consensus. Not sure how much that translates into a general consensus but if five or six such articles get recognized as indiscriminate collections of information I would feel comfortable in asserting the general consensus. In the explanatory information I think it would be fine to mention that such lists of references within articles must be sourced and anything not sourced is subject to immediate removal. Otto4711 06:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
While I'm not a big fan of those "in popular culture" articles, it scares me a little to see them deleted. At least they protect main articles from accumulating movie and TV trivia. All the more reason to get something into the policy if possible.
How would it be worded? To me the important thing is that pop culture references in an article should shed some kind of light on the nature of the subject, its significance, its influence, or how it is perceived. For an obscure subject, it may be significant that pop culture has even noticed its existence; well-known subjects will generate hundreds of trivial mentions, so those included in the article should have some point beyond the mere fact that the subject was mentioned. —Celithemis 01:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My preferred technique for dealing with trivia lists in articles that seem intent on listing every occurrence ever is to do this with any easily consolidated points. For the Statue of Liberty article for example, one of the sentences could be "The Statue of Liberty is so iconic of New York City that it is often used as a landmark to set the location of books, television episodes, movies, video games, and other media." By adding a point like that, you could then remove any addition of a trivial sighting or mention of the statue in some Friends episode as being redundant.
The one problem is does present is that it's somewhat difficult to reference, at least in the cases of things that aren't so widely written about as the Statue of Liberty. The one time I was challenged on one of my consolidated trivia points I ended up showing the {{citeneeded}} tagger the revision of the article that had the full list of the trivial sightings I had collapsed into that point, saying that if he so desired I could readd all those into the note section as my references, and he stopped complaining. --tjstrf talk 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The argument that these sort of data dump articles "protect" the main articles has been advanced as a reason to keep them in a couple of the AfDs that are running right now, but I can't say as I find that argument particularly compelling. If the information is trivial in the main article it's trivial on its own. Otto4711 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really disagreeing with that, just saying that it makes the need for clear guidance on this issue more pressing.
As for consolidating similar items, it's a good idea, but I doubt whether most pop culture sections can be adequately cleaned up that way without original research. —Celithemis 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The argument might seem more compelling after you've spent minutes a day, every day, reverting the constant re-additions of such things. Personally, I would not be unhappy with the removal of most "X in Popular Culture" articles per se... except that I know it would mean a great deal more work policing X, if X is on my watchlist. You may say that this is no different than watching for vandalism... but there are two differences. First, these are good-faith additions. They do not maliciously harm the encyclopedia, and some editors may feel that having the information available is helpful. Second, for most articles, vandalism will be far less frequent than these additions, if they begin to be removed entirely. At least, if mythological creatures are any indication. I think the base concern here is a good one, but I'm afraid it might be a net negative to the project -- the time it eats is time that could be spent writing articles, removing vandalism, or tending various administrative tasks, and the end result isn't a terribly great benefit, at least in my opinion -- even if I don't think most of the trivia adds much, I don't think it actively hurts, as long as it's out of the way. Shimeru 09:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • With several recent deletions of pop culture and similar lists here and here and here and here and a couple others that are running toward deletion I'm fairly comfortable asserting a consensus against these sorts of lists. Not sure what the wording should be, but whatever it ends up being it should include an admonition about merging the content back into the main article. Otto4711 14:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's try this for wording: "10. Wikipedia is not a repository of trivial cultural references. Many people, places, concepts and items, both real and fictional, have had an impact on the popular cultures of many societies. In an effort to document this impact, many articles accumulate large "In popular culture" sections. These sections often accumulate a large number of entries that consist of nothing other than noting the presence of the subject in aother medium, for example: "Adam Sandler mentions Sammy Davis, Jr. in his song, 'Love to Eat Turkey'." These entries are trivial and in most cases provide no context for the entry either in terms of the work from which the reference is drawn or of the subject itself. Editors frequently, in an effort to improve the subject article, remove all of these items and house them in a new article entitled X in popular culture or Cultural representations of X. While it is laudable to remove this trivia from the main article, relocating it into its own article is problematic. Such articles are essentially standalone trivia sections which are no better suited to Wikipedia as separate articles than they are as sections of the subject article.

"This is not to say that lists of cultural references to notable subjects have no place on Wikipedia. Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a featured list. Such lists, to be retained, must meet the same standards as any other article."

How does that sound? Otto4711 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All you have really found is consensus among a small number of people who vote in AfD's, but you have ignored the consensus of the thousands of people who added these entries to begin with, who obviously believe they are notable enough to be included.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Thousands of people are constantly adding entries about their garage bands, their soon-to-be-released revolutionary new software products, and things made up in school one day. If people performing drive-by addition of material just because they personally would like to see it in Wikipedia constitutes "consensus," we might as well delete WP:NOT and two-thirds of our policy pages, starting with the neutrality policy. If we define a Wikipedia editor "anyone who has made an edit to a Wikipedia article," then the majority of WIkipedia editors do not know most of our policies, let alone support them. Sincere contributors who are interested in building an encyclopedia and aren't just out for vanity or self-promotion, and stick around for a dozen or so edits are likely to have a different outlook. This is the group of people whose consensus matters. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You've kind of abstracted the problem and made it more simple than it really is - when you look at individual entries and have to decide on a individual basis which entries should or should not be in Wikipedia it becomes very difficult and a matter of opinion. Getting rid of "in popular culture" articles does not solve anything, it just moves the discussion back to the article - where there is constant churn with various editors adding and deleting material which is a serious waste of time and effort. The "in popular culture" articles were created for a good reason and removing them is going to add a lot of extra work for a lot of people with a constant cycle of add/delete/add/delete etc.. it doesn't matter what level the churn happens - on a per entry basis, a per section basis or a per article basis, it's still churn and a waste of everyones time. -- Stbalbach 17:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The cycle of add-delete-add-delete can't begin to change as long as dumping off crap into an "...in popular culture" article is an option. Look at some of the AFDs running now. A good percentage of the "keep" !votes are premised on "yeah, this material is worthless, but better it go here than stink up the main article." If that's the best reason someone can come up with to keep the articles, then the articles should be deleted. I am not suggesting that there is no place for articles which chronicle how various things are represented in popular culture. In the proposed policy I have offered an example of such a list. But, the articles as most of them currently exist do not meet the most basic of minimum standards for inclusion. They are indiscriminate in their attempt to capture every appearance of the subject in popular culture. They are unverified by reliable sources. They offer no context as to the importance of the appearance of the subject either within the fiction from which they are drawn or in the real world. They often capture references which are not unambiguously the subject because in the opinion of an editor the reference is similar enough to the subject for inclusion, which constitutes original research. Frankly, there shouldn't even need to be a policy against them because they already fail a number of existing policies. But because enough people would rather make the crap information someone else's problem by dumping it off into another article instead of dealing with it in the subject article, the articles persist. It is not my intention to cause other editors difficulty here. But really, if there is a stronger policy in place that says flat out that this sort of crap is unacceptable, that should make it easier to delete it out of articles before it erupts out into an "...in popular culture" article. Otto4711 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As a practical matter, "...in popular culture" articles are getting slaughtered at AFD, and I see no reason to think that will change. Keeping the cruftforks around to save everyone's time is not going to work if they keep getting deleted. —Celithemis 20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I view these "...in pop culture" sections the same as trivia sections. There is little to discern between the two. In my opinion if the "factoid" can't be worked into the flowing prose of the body of an article then it shouldn't just be dumped elsewhere. We're aiming for prose here, not lists of lists. --Monotonehell 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think this guideline is necessary, as it is pretty much covered by [[WP:TRIV], WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Why should we target an article on popular culture references that is well-sourced, non-OR, and provides analysis distinct from a simple list? The "lists of pop culture" articles that have been AfD'd will mostly fail on their own grounds. There aren't many which were of a sufficient standard to achieve "no consensus" or "keep" votes. Adding this guideline may be seen as trying to override the consensus (or lack thereof) reached at AfD. -- Black Falcon 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The proposal exempts well-sourced, etc. articles: This is not to say that lists of cultural references to notable subjects have no place on Wikipedia. Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a featured list. Such lists, to be retained, must meet the same standards as any other article. And this is in my opinion a way to build on consensus in AFD, while admittedly at the same time explicitly blocking "keep this because if you don't it will end up in the main article" style opinions from being given any weight. As I've said previously, I agree that existing policy should be enough to bar the I-Spy pop culture articles but given that some of these AFDs are closing as "no consensus" largely because of the "better here than not" comments... Otto4711 04:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I think I would support this kind of addition to WP:NOT in principle, but the wording above is quite strict. What it's saying is that unless it's of a quality equivalent to a FA right from the start, it ought to be deleted. How can we somehow provide a certain degree of latitude to articles beyond a "outstanding or nothing" distinction? --

I read the recent AFD discussions as showing that the only clear consensus is that no one wants the trivial "I Spy" type of popular culture reference. There are varying views about more sustained or central references, but no one actually defends the band poster in the background of a scene or the brief mention on a TV program as worth mentioning. (I question whether even the people who add these things are really interested in them -- they want to add their own favorites, but do they really care to read all the others?)

While there are other guidelines and policies that relate to this, the advantage of putting it in WP:NOT is to have something to point to that directly addresses the issue, without needing further explanation. Since new editors are constantly adding pop culture references, that's a major advantage.

Could we agree on a more modest wording -- something like this, maybe:

9. Wikipedia is not a repository of cultural references. Describing a subject's cultural influence can be an important part of an article, but it is not the job of an encylopedia to catalogue every time IKEA is mentioned in passing on a TV program or every time the Statue of Liberty is seen in an establishing shot in a movie. Lists of trivial references to a subject in culture should be avoided.

Note that this also helps those trying to keep articles like Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc or The Statue of Liberty in popular culture focused. —Celithemis 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see some wording added that indicates these sorts of trivia dumps are not welcome in either the main article or in a separate fork. That's one of the big arguments in favor of keeping the separate articles, that if they aren't kept they'll be dumped back into the main article. That needs to be addressed. Otto4711 14:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest rather than saying what not to included - which is highly subjective and problematic and impossible to codify in any objective way - tell people how to do it correctly. Look at the best examples, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, figure out why it works, and then codify it into a general MoS guideline. Then you can write a WP:NOT rule that points to that guideline on how to do it correctly. As someone already said, the rules for what not to include are already written (OR,V,etc), what is needed is guidance on how to properly create a cultural list. -- Stbalbach 05:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • We already have policies and guidelines in place on how to write articles, but for whatever reason have not been holding IPC articles to those standards. Otto4711 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the current AfD process is working well, and all this is already covered in our policies. A lot of the bad articles get deleted, as they should, and the good ones are usually kept. I don't think closing admins are unaware that "better here than there" is not a valid argument. You might add a section to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions mentioning that, if you want something to point to in AfDs. Some editors don't like detailed descriptions of pop culture, and some do. The ones that don't should work more on removing innapropriate references instead of nominating for AfD and then giving up. The ones that do should should work more on citing the references to prove that they are appropriate. Basically the same as everything else on wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher 19:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dumping ground

Wikipedia is a not a dumping ground for all those heavily biased opinions that no RS will touch. Controversial material goes: biased source >>> RS >>> wikipedia. If it can't be found in an RS then it has no place here.

What do you think? I know that WP:V and WP:RS cover it but I think stressing the "not a dump" has value. --Justanother 05:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes citing opinions from all sides of a debate, including the extremely controversial ones, has value - but yes, they do need to have references. If it can't be backed up as debatable opinion with sources, then it should go, yes, but that's already covered by WP:V and WP:RS as you say. There's no need to expand on this with metaphoric references that people won't understand. JROBBO 06:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the current page already covers this sufficiently. I concur with JROBBO, sometimes controversial material can find its way in, with citations. Your proposed addition would just add more metaphors, which can (not necessarily does) weaken a guideline/policy page. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, controversial material often finds its way in in the circle I travel in (alleged cults) and the only citation is to the heavily biased POV site without support of a 3rd-party RS. In my circle I almost find that to be the rule rather than the exception. Certainly, my suggestion can be reworded without a metaphor. --Justanother 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Burgerking.

Following the actions of a few editors in insisting it's their way or the highway, I'm highly tempted to add "Wikipedia is not Burger King. You do not get it your way." --Barberio 18:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a separate official policy for what I can gather. Try WP:OWN, which states that no-one owns an article, to the point where they disallow other people from making changes. --tgheretford (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I was also thinking more along the lines of "Wikipedia is not an experimental form where you can be unique and different. Editors are still expected to follow certain forms and methods." and "Wikipedia is not there to make you feel special for knowing the secret handshake.". --Barberio 01:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
There are some instances where you'll have it your way, when it is a good idea and upholded by consensus. It's more like "Wikipedia is McDonalds; your ideas are mixed with those of others". — Deckiller 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
A sign I saw at BurgerKing yesterday: "Push. You can have it your way and pull all you want but the door can be pretty stubborn." -- Donald Albury 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this...

Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy or individualism.

Wikipedia is not an experimental form where you can be unique and different. Editors can still be expected to follow certain forms and methods, and above all to follow consensus decision making and not take ownership. Your ideas will be mixed in with others, and will be revised and altered as part of consensus decision making and editing.

would be useful? --Barberio 02:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • That would be redundant with "Wikipedia is not anarchy". At any rate, you appear to be trying to modify policy to get an edge in a dispute you're already forum shopping over. That's not particularly productive. >Radiant< 09:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Radiant, please suspend your personal attacks and wikistalking of me. You yourself have been editing the project pages in order to make your argument stronger - [[1]]. If your behaviour continues in this disruptive and abuse manner, I will raise the issue in an user conduct RfC. --Barberio 13:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It might surprise you to learn that I've been editing this page since 2005, and I've had it watchlisted for most of the time since then, and that I am a regular contributor to the village pump. The fact that you've been forum shopping is not a personal attack, considering the many different forums where you've attempted to bring up the matter of PER. On the other hand, accusing people of wikistaling, disruption and abuse is a personal attack. So cut it out already. >Radiant< 13:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Read what I posted above? Did I mention your essay there *anywhere* there? No? Then... Gee, that means you just accused me of doing something I didn't do. You have been bullying me in order to get your way ever since the stupidness on WP:EL, and it should stop now. --Barberio 13:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's another personal attack. Anyway, I said that you "appear to be trying to modify policy to get an edge in a dispute you're already forum shopping over". That's precisely what you seem to be doing here. Your remarks clearly indicate this proposal is in reaction to a dispute you're involved in; if it's not the PER dispute I'd be happy to hear what this is actually about? >Radiant< 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. I'm going to take an indefinite leave from the wiki since I'm fed up with Radiant's bullying selfish attitude. --Barberio 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support if a sentence detailing "beware groupthink" is added. — Deckiller 13:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the intro covers this already, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Hiding Talk 13:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Considering this is already covered under WP:OWN, I'm not sure why it's necessary to duplicate that policy here. Is there a fundamental difference between WP:OWN and the proposed policy above that I'm overlooking? If not, it seems a little redundant to have it in both places. Dugwiki 17:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I could see an insertion of "Not Yours", and a brief summary of WP:OWN, similar to not paper, not a dictionary and not things made up in school one day, which all have their own pages but which are also included here. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is itself a policy that is "duplicated" here. Hiding Talk 19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not an Almanac?

I'm kind of a newbie to editing Wikipedia (long time reader, though) and I'm curious if there should be an added provision that the Wikipedia is not a collection of facts and statistics (i.e. not an almanac) Perhaps this is already covered under "1.8 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", but I think it could be made more clear, to prevent pages like 1963_German_Grand_Prix (and thousands of others like it) which really do not belong in an encyclopedia, they belong in an almanac. Or perhaps Wikipedia is seeking to serve as both? Like I said, I'm new at this. GileadPellaeon 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reading of this talk page (which I probably should have done before posting, oops), it appears that the almanac debate has surfaced before. But perhaps there could be some discussion of it separately from the discussion of Notability and whatnot else? I'm not saying almanac-esque information is not notable, just that it's not encyclopedic.GileadPellaeon 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We have such pages as WP:AVTRIV, and the section here that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminatory collection of information. Does that help? Such almanac-like tables tend to end up on WP:AFD and get deleted (among others, because they tend not to be updated, and there are sports results sites that cover the information better and faster). >Radiant< 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, they also frequently end up at AfD and don't get deleted, especially if the topic is something that has a computer-based fan community. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Can't see anything overly wrong with 1963 German Grand Prix, seems to have a place within the information chain. Not sure we should have a broad policy which would allow for outright deletion of such useful information. Hiding Talk 15:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There is currently no policy against almanac type information. In fact, a "not an almanac" clause was added by one editor to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE but was deleted after about one day due to lack of consensus. The only guideline regarding almanacs that I'm aware of is the WP:AVTRIV style guideline that Radiant mentioned, which recommends that almanac style information be presented within the text of an article as opposed to a bullet-point list of facts. However, this does not preclude the existence of list articles, for example, nor does it imply that such information should be deleted entirely. Rather, it comments on the recommended style used to present the information as opposed to whether or not actual information itself is worthy of inclusion. Dugwiki 17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not keen on the indiscriminate and incomplete collection of bits of trivia that don't get updated, but in the case shown here the results of the 1963 German Grand Prix appear to be complete and won't need updating, so that's not a problem to me. Average Earthman 08:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy name / Merge proposal

I realise this policy has been around for a while, and many editors are no doubt fond of it, but it just struck me that the name is a bit uninformative. Could the name be changed to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia? This would seem more logical than the current name. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • We have Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This page is more about what Wikipedia isn't, because it's easier to work out what we aren't, and it makes it easier to converse in discussion, we simply say, no, Wikipedia is not (a dictionary). It would be hard to have a page which stated Wikipedia is not an anarchy in a method that would satisfy the structure Wikipedia is... Hiding Talk 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think everyone "knows" that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's what's good about the name of this meta-article. The name is supposed to remind everyone that they can't use Wikipedia as their own free vanity press, a web site to post whatever they're personally interested in without regard to whether it belongs in an encyclopedia. Netuser500 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There's already Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it's just a summary of this policy! The status of the other article is unclear - is it a policy, and explanation, and essay? I suggest it is merged into this policy, or I should say replaced with a redirect to this policy because it says nothing that this policy doesn't. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Have you read all the discussion on the talk page there which details what the page is for and why it exists? That may change your opinion on a merge. That page exists as a pointer. Hiding Talk 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to remove the part about plot summaries

I believe we need to remove the part about plot summaries. There are many plot summary articles that keep getting AfD'd and keep getting kept. People like me might stop nominating them for deletion if we removed that unenforced part of the policy. Netuser500 19:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are also a lot of plot summary articles that are nominated and that get deleted. So by similar reasoning you could argue that the section should remain in place to help reduce the number of such articles that are ultimately created. Dugwiki 19:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, you need to find a better reason for deleting things than that they don't meet WP:NOT. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes has a consensus that deletions aren't helpful, and that whilst we don't do articles which are solely plot summary, a better method is to improve articles away from that flaw rather than deleting them. WP:NOT is not a deletion tool. Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
To clarify something, though, articles which continually fail to meet policy do get deleted. So, for example, if an article is strictly a plot summary with no other information, then it should ultimately be deleted unless it is eventually improved. Normally in such afds I try to include in my comment that "if the article can be improved in such-and-such a way I'll reconsider my delete vote". But articles which are never improved ultimately can get deleted. Dugwiki 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The extent to which they fail policy is the key. A well written article on a TV episode which fits into a larger chain of articles about the television show is more likely to stay. Each article is a single instance, as is each afd debate. Hiding Talk 20:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'll agree there too. Nothing is set exactly in stone, and you have to judge each situation independently. When something comes up for deletion, WP:NOT and other policies are rules to help decide whether something is ok to keep or needs improvement to avoid deletion. Policies have stronger consensus and weight than normal guidelines, so something that doesn't meet a specific policy is more likely to be deleted than something which doesn't meet a guideline. Dugwiki 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess it depends how you define well written. There are tons of articles about TV episodes that are nothing but plot summary, with no sources besides the show itself and none of the other things mentioned in NOT like impact and historical significance. I doubt you'd be able to get an article about an episode of a popular show that's nothing but plot summary deleted. And I'd bet the article would probably never get improved away from that state either. The current view on improving plot summary articles seems to be making them longer and more detailed. This part of the policy is completely ignored on a huge scale. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Many articles which are just plot summary have been deleted. Television is just one instance of an area where articles consist of plot summaries. Where is this current view referred to? Plot summaries should not get too detailed, that is a breach of copyright. Hiding Talk 21:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
They shouldn't, but they often do. And even when that is pointed out, they still are kept at AfD's. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Many articles get kept at afd, on numerous occasions. This doesn't mean they should be kept, merely that the people who read the debate created a consensus to keep. It took seven debates to delete an article about a picture of Mario riding a dinosaur. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUEshi (7th nomination). Hiding Talk 21:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a current example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Stink (Gilmore Girls). Terribly written article, nothing but plot summary with no sources, and at AfD there's strong support for keeping it. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate on one point, though, terrible writing isn't a reason for deletion. It's a reason to tag the article for cleanup by interested editors. Most of the comments I read in the AFD seem to be of the opinion that if the writing is cleaned up it will be on par with other television series episode articles. Dugwiki 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
True, the main issue is that it's nothing but plot summary and no sources. Blatant violation of NOT. The article will be kept, and I doubt anything else will be added nor sources. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm with you there, Milo. One problem in this afd is that the plot summary section of WP:NOT doesn't seem to completely agree with the centralized consensus discussion WP:EPISODE from last year. My guess is that the article probably fails to meet WP:NOT's restrictions on plot-summary only articles, but that it's a case of editors seeing other plot-only articles and WP:EPISODE and assuming that this is an ok practice. I'm personally kind of on the fence regarding plot-only information, so I'm not quite sure how to handle it other than case by case. Dugwiki 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You've got four separate pages which offer guidance on this. WP:NOT, WP:EPISODE, WP:WAF and WP:FICTION. They all establish we don't typically do plot summary only articles. Hiding Talk 19:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:EPISODE says that plot summaries may be appropriate as part of a larger encyclopedia article. Nothing in WP:EPISODE or that discussion's Talk page says that a page which is a mere plot summary is allowable or appropriate. On the contrary, several people noted that a page which is nothing more than plot summary is going to be a copyright violation more often than not. Plots themselves are copyrighted. Plot summaries are allowable under fair use only in proportion to the other content on the topic.
The central question to me is whether or not the article is expandable beyond a mere plot summary and whether we've given the article enough of a grace period for the expansion to have occurred or not. A page created last week that's still a mere plot summary gets a little more leeway than one which has been unexpanded for a year.
I'd say that WP:EPISODE is very clear that if all we have to say is mere plot summary, then there is not enough "independently verifiable information" to justify spinning the information off into separate articles. WP:EPISODE would tell you to merge those pages back together. Rossami (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switch (NCIS). Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 season 6 episodes was recently closed as "no consensus" with the closing admin dismissing delete votes as invalid. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you're concerned about the admin Phil's comments in the "24" afd above, I'd recommend sending him a polite request to give his own feedback on this thread about the Plot Summary section in WP:NOT. It would be worthwhile, I think, to get an admin's insight here. Note that he marked that afd "no consensus", as opposed to simply "keep", but did imply in his comments that he is not generally opposed to plot-summary only episode articles, which would seem possibly to contradict WP:NOT. Dugwiki 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You have an admin's insight already. Hiding Talk 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ditto.
However, I also would be interested in Phil's explanation of his close. He appears to have weighted his decision based on his own comment that individual episodes can be notable because they can be awarded Emmy Awards. To the best of my knowledge, there are no Emmy Awards for individual episodes. I'm very curious what he intended by that comment. Rossami (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think individual episodes can win technical Emmy's, for sound and stuff like that. But I still can't see the problem here. I don't get Dugwiki's assertion that this page doesn't agree with WP:EPISODE when they both seem to come to the same conclusion, and I can't see a broad support for the fact that Wikipedia articles are simply plot regurgitation. Maybe someone can point me to that consensus and then we can discuss the situation further. Hiding Talk 18:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is articles that are blatant violations of NOT and EPISODE getting neither fixed nor deleted. Many editors ignore both and just insist "all episodes are inherently notable" when the issue is not notability but the fact that articles that are nothing but plot fail the "indiscriminate" clause. Whenever a policy is broadly ignored, something is wrong. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Policies get ignored all the time. But like I say, policies aren't deletion tools. That policies and guidance state that articles aren't solely plot summaries isn't a blank cheque to delete them all, that's a WP:POINT. What it is is a statement of the position. The method of implementing that position is different. It can be gradual, it can be swift, it can mean merging or cleaing it up, it can mean many things. That personal attacks exist does not mean we deprecate the personal attacks policy. That afd can allow decisions which contrast with policy does not mean policy is wrong, it doesn't even mean the afd close was wrong, it just means afd isn't a method for enforcing policy. We go through this. We've been through it on internet phenomena, we've been through it on schools, we've been through it on Pokemon characters. Nothing much is broadly wrong more than normal. Afd is typically an ineffective tool like most of Wikipedia. But when it works, like most of Wikipedia, the results are fascinating. I don't really see what the issue is. Wikipedia is a broad church, and that means compromise and consensus. The consensus is that Wikipedia articles shouldn't just regurgitate plot. The consensus is not that articles which regurgitate plot should be deleted, which seems to be your reading of it. I hope that helps. Hiding Talk 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Episode articles aren't the only articles being targeted, but also episode/media lists: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach media and materials, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information. Someone is clearly itching to set a president on the matter even if policies, especially WP:NOT, do not back them up. But I think the main problem is that editors are only seeing the bullet point plot summaries but are not reading the explanation. To them, any description of a WoF's plot is indiscriminate information. --Farix (Talk) 18:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This is the problem, IMO. At best, these episode "summaries" should simply be stubbed and left alone - we have plenty of room for episode lists and episode articles, especially since they don't work within the context of an actual article, and often overwhelm them. It's obvious, in action and at AfD, that this part of WP:NOT isn't at all close to how we actually operate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to talk me through it Jeff, since it iterates exactly the point you make. Note the clause "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." I cannot see the problem that you can with the policy, Jeff. I can see that articles are getting nominated for deletion, but that's not the policy's fault. That happens regardless, and should be welcomed. We should never have a situation where no article can be nominated for deletion. Nowhere in this policy does it state that articles which are solely plot summary must be deleted. If it did, I would help rewrite it. Hiding Talk 11:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't have to say that, though, since clearly articles which break policies are subject to likely deletion if they aren't otherwise fixed or improved. The whole point of policies is that they lay out areas where there is, supposedly, strong consensus on what is and isn't acceptable for Wikipedia articles. Sure, it's possible to have exceptions, but they shouldn't be common and there should be a pretty good reason for being an exception to policy. So, if in fact the WP:NOT Plot Summary section doesn't actually have strong consensus, and a lot of editors actually want to include plot-only articles, then the plot bullet point of WP:NOT should probably be ammended or removed to match what the policy consensus actually is. Dugwiki 16:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
First, afd is not a tool for changing policy, it's far too easy to game. Second, what exceptions are we talking about here? All the articles so far mentioned work as part of a broader topic, so comply with this point. Can you show me a number of articles which exist in isolation, are composed entirely of plot summary and have been kept at afd. The actual consensus is that Wikipedia articles consist solely of plot summary, although as part of a broader topic this may be acceptable. That has been demonstrated at the afd's you mention above, which detail episodes as part of a series of articles. As yet no-one seems to have acknowledged what the policy says. Everyone only seems to address the fact that some articles aren't being deleted on afd. We've got four policy and guideline pages which offer guidance on how to move forward with plot summary only articles. Hiding Talk 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The question is whether episode-by-episode plot-only articles for otherwise notable television series are actually part of a "broader topic" as described in WP:NOT. The way WP:NOT#INFO reads, it says that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, ... not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." This phrasing does not imply that articles about a particular episode of a television series are exempt as being part of a "larger topic". Now I'm guessing that you might be able to reasonably determine that general consensus is that plot-only summaries for episodes of notable television series are acceptable, but it's not clear that this is what WP:NOT says as it is currently written. Rather, the wording indicates that plot summaries should be included as part of a larger topic, with the implication that this is within the context of a single article. If you were to interpret WP:NOT as saying that plot summaries for "notable works" are ok, then the plot summary section of WP:NOT would almost never apply to any plot summary. I could write a plot summary and say that it is "simply part of the larger topic of analyzing that book/tv series/etc", and provide a link to the main article for that work.
So I'm becoming convinced that, possibly, the language in the Plot Summary section should be clarified to explain how it pertains to episode articles for television series. Assuming there is some sort of consensus on handling episode articles, then this section should be written in such a way that it more clearly reflects that consensus. Right now it looks like there is a dichotomy between the policy language and the way editors handle episode articles (which is a very large number of articles). Dugwiki 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If this is your interpretation, then we need to work harder at making sure this is noted at the relevant discussions. At the moment, it's handed in debates more as how I'm describing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, it isn't my interpretation, it is what it says and means. I know how it is used in debates, but that isn't a flaw with policy, that's a flaw with people. People will use anything to mean anything, that doesn't mean we should scrap every single policy. I've been involved in disputes where I've been told I can't call something original research because that's a personal attack. Like I say, Wikipedia is a broad church. Push the broad position. The broad position is that we don't want our articles to solely regurgitate plot details. Also, if people want to stand here and state that afd has no flaws then I'll gladly walk away, since I do not believe that to be true. Hiding Talk 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree that it should be removed. The first immediate problem is it contradicts with "Wikipedia is not paper", there is also the fact a plot summary is encyclopaedic when it is decently written and not massively long. Clearly the consensus exists that plot summaries/episode articles are indeed encyclopaedic and belong in Wikipedia. What people fail to often get is that we are building an encyclopaedia of a wide spectrum here, not solely on trees, animals and anatomy. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Everything on the page contradicts "Wikipedia is not paper". That's not an issue. Hiding Talk 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'm going to disagree with both Matthew and Hiding. Nothing in WP:NOT appears to contradict WP:NOT#PAPER. All WP:NOT#PAPER says is that there isn't a physical storage limit on information, so editors don't have to concern themselves with information getting "too large" for Wikipedia to handle. Large articles can be split up, etc. The rest of WP:NOT deals with types of articles and information that are not appropriate for Wikipedia for reasons other than just physical space constraints. For example, Original Research is prohibited due to verification issues, not because Wiki doesn't have the physical space for such research. Other information is kept out for technical or legal reasons. You won't find any part of WP:NOT that says "this type of article should be discouraged due to lack of space on Wikipedia". So nothing in WP:NOT contradicts WP:NOT#PAPER. All the other clauses of WP:NOT refer to other reasoning besides simply lack of space. Dugwiki 18:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Aye, it certainly is. Also was there ever an actual consensus to add this? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The only relevant discussion appeared to be here, and, I'll be honest, it didn't seem to have much in the way of consensus. Or, to put it another way, I've refrained from adding things to policy/guideline pages with less opposition. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so it appears there was never a consensus to add this in the first place. It seems logical to remove it then debate if we should add it at all. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There was also some discussion here. I think it's fair to say that a solid majority has historically supported the "plot summary" item in one form or another, although the issue has always been somewhat controversial. TheronJ 18:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but consensus isn't a majority. If the original wording lacked consensus to begin with, and this one did too. Perhaps we need to revisit it for real given what we know - I don't think we should remove it without wider discussion, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus in those discussions and there is a consensus at WP:FICTION and WP:WAF and WP:EPISODE, but I'm bowing out of this because the central point I keep making is being ignored in the rush to simply remove it. You guys go right ahead. I'm incredibly disappointed with the style of debate here. WP:CONSENSUS asks for more from our discussions. Hiding Talk 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the impression that there's any rush to remove it at this point, although I do disagree regarding the level of consensus. I'd much prefer your input than your bowing out, in any case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There were at least three discussions about the plot summary section specifically on this page. I had started the 3rd one for some minor re-wording, but specifically asked for a lot of requests for comments via RFC, WikiProjects, etc, to help strengthen the obvious consensus for the section. I have to run to work right now, but it's all in the archives. If no one can find them I'll put up links when I get home. -- Ned Scott 19:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • My two cents: It's perfectly ok to have a policy that doesn't quite fit the actual practice. In part because of this section of WP:NOT, there has been a consistent effort to minimize pages consisting solely of plot summaries, merge episode descriptions into well structured lists, make articles less crufty and so on. The general principle is sound and, as far as I can tell, fairly representative of consensus. It's not intended to call for the systematic destruction of all articles about TV show episodes and is rarely wielded in this way. Pascal.Tesson 21:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

One tangential comment. Wikipedia:Consensus reminds us that consensus is strengthened every time someone looks at something and doesn't object or change it. So the length of time (which I haven't looked into), that the clause has been present is relevant to whether or not there is consensus for it, especially if page/section is often read. GRBerry 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet, WP:CCC. The question is how much has it changed. --Farix (Talk) 04:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Coming to some clarity

Whether you think the plot summaries point should be removed from WP:NOT or left in, can we at least agree with one point? That is articles that are solely plot summaries are the kinds of articles we like to avoid. After all, we don't need things like the two dozen or so One Piece plot summary articles that were recently redirected. --Farix (Talk) 04:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that all people currently involved in the discussion agree, I do think that there is a wide consensus in the community in that respect. It comes up quite often in discussions and it is part of the basis for other guidelines and policies such as WP:FICT, WP:BK and so on. That is also the reason why I believe that this part of the policy should be kept: by and large it represents a sound principle that people like to rely on. That does not mean that we have to be radical about enforcing it: common sense dictates how we actually work with it in practice. Pascal.Tesson 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't want them, but we don't want to discourage it, either. There's no deadline to finish an article here, y'know? If the only thing I can provide to a redlinked article is a plot summary to start, that shouldn't be abandoned immediately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Then having the statement in any form in WP:NOT is counterproductive. WP:NOT are for things that should be prohibited. It's not for things we simply want to discourage, but are will tolerate for a short time. If we simply want to discourage plot summary articles, then the statement should be moved into a guideline instead of policy. --Farix (Talk) 15:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't want them and we do want to discourage pages which are nothing but plot summary. There is no deadline to finish an article but there is an immediate obligation to comply with copyright law. If all the author can write is a plot summary then the project is better off with a redlink for now. Rossami (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I really prefer a redlink to a plot summary but I am sure that we want to discourage articles consisting solely of plot summaries and, at the risk of repeating myself, I do think there is a wide consensus in that respect. Pascal.Tesson 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And as I pointed out, do we want to simply discourage or do we want to prohibit. That makes a huge difference. If we just want to discourage plot summary articles, then we should move the point into a guideline, either WP:FICT or WP:WAF. That gives the plot articles a chance to be improved and keep AFDs down to those what are unlikely to improve, have been tagged for cleanup for a while but have not been improved, or are far too extensive to make a rewrite feasible.
If we keep the plot summary statement in WP:NOT, then we are affectively saying that plot summary articles should be deleted regardless of if they can be improved towards encyclopedic quality or not.
It's just like the primary notability criteria. It is only a guideline to follow in judging whether a topic is notable, however, articles don't have to specifically adhere to that criteria but could be judge as notable on entirely different criteria agreed to by consensus. Though I am starting to see the PNC cited more and more in AFD to override broader notability coverage in articles that are part of an article series. --Farix (Talk) 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can really "discourage" things on wikipedia, if something is not forbidden, people will do it. If you allow an exception without strictly defining it, people will always see themselves as the exception. The key isn't that plot summaries are bad, it's that they are bad when they stand alone out of context and when they are overly long and detailed. That distinction needs to be made clearly enough that editors understand that "keep all episode articles"/"delete all episode articles" aren't appropriate. I also think the "chance to be improved" thing is severely abused, since any article could theoretically be improved at some point in the future - since there's no timeframe for improvement, it's just an excuse to not delete with no incentive to actually do the improvement. I don't think it's unreasonable to delete articles that have been around a while and still have nothing beyond plot summary, especially if nothing is added during the days an AfD lasts. If nothing can be found in five days, there probably is little or no information available (and don't forget, a new article can always be created again later). Not to mention that if there's nothing but plot summary available, the article shouldn't even be created in the first place. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Village pump

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia is not solely for the summarising of plot?. Hiding Talk 08:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So if you remove that clause then you are saying that articles containing only a plot summary should be OK? I think that's a poor thing to recommend. I mean we're going to get articles that have nothing buy a plot summary - and we might decide to let them slide on the grounds that maybe someone will come along and add more 'meat' to the article later - but to actually have policy that (in effect) encourages this style of article seems pretty poor to me. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying here? SteveBaker 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I've changed this to say "Raw plot summaries." - it better fits the description in the rest of the entry. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? --Random832(tc) 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I can't see what reason you could have for wanting to remove that very sensible clause. A plot summary is not a complete article. Can you imagine being assigned to write about Beowulf for a university, and handing in nothing but a summary of the plot? No mention of context, culture, meaning, language, just "he did this, he did this, he did this, the end?" That wouldn't be good enough for publication elsewhere, so why would it be suitable for Wikipedia? zadignose 23:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries redux

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Excessively long plot as a suggested focal point for debate about long plot summaries. --GunnarRene 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Does Not Give Advice--Proposed Edit

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s.

I recommend editing this statement to note that Wikipedia does not preclude giving general safety information, i.e. when talking about viewing a solar eclipse I think Wikipedia should be allowed to state "Caution: Never look directly at the Sun using the naked eye, binoculars, or an unfiltered telescope. Doing so is dangerous and can cause permanent eye damage." Under the current edit this would be classified as medical advice. Cheers.--Burzum 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no need for Wikipedia to state anything like that; see No Disclaimers for more information. Trebor 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify something, the article solar eclipse already has a long section about the dangers of directly staring at a solar eclipse, with references. So that "caution" already exists in the article. Now whether or not you consider that as "medical advice", and therefore whether or not it fails WP:NOT, that's the question. Dugwiki 18:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe parts of the solar eclipse article are giving safety information. For example:
Contrary to popular belief, it is safe to observe the total phase of a solar eclipse directly with the unaided eye, binoculars or a telescope, when the Sun's photosphere is completely covered by the Moon; indeed, this is a very spectacular and beautiful sight, and it is too dim to be seen through filters. The Sun's faint corona will be visible, and even the chromosphere, solar prominences, and possibly even a solar flare may be seen. However, it is important to stop directly viewing the Sun promptly at the end of totality. The exact time and duration of totality for the location from which the eclipse is being observed should be determined from a reliable source.
Many people would consider this to also be giving advice (though I do not). I am trying to get this cleared up and hopefully useful passages like the one above can remain as well as more explicit warnings about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse or other dangerous activity. Cheers.--Burzum 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Your no disclaimer template link was unhelpful and the warnings I suggest (not disclaimers) do not fall into any of the categories listed. A disclaimer is not the same thing as a safety warning because a disclaimer is there to protect the reader from the content of the article while a safety warning is not. A warning is also not medical advice in my opinion (though this is something on which I am facing debates which I am trying to clear up here). I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be giving out medical advice, but that only means we shouldn't be saying "the best way to treat X disorder is with Y" or "you can diagnose X disorder with the following symptoms..." I think that saying "don't look at the Sun during a solar eclipse" is a wise addition in an article that explains how to view the Sun since so many people have been blinded by doing so improperly. Obviously other safety categories should apply as well.--Burzum 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You'd actually be altering this statement to the opposite of what it currently says. An article about viewing solar eclipses should say "Viewing an eclipse without eye protection is likely to cause blindness [1][2], medical professionals have isssued warnings [2]," etc., not "Don't look into an eclipse without eye protection." We're a reference, not an instruction, and a warning is an instruction. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Some subject areas are widely known by the safety precautions that are associated with them. Eye protection related to viewing solar eclipses is one of them. Leaving out such information would make the article less complete, although the information should be descriptive, and the tone of such information should not be dramatically different from the rest of the article. I.e. there should be no "do this, do that". This is a difficult area given the case Wikipedia that has against how-to articles. Maybe a passive voice and neutral description would do, when the precaution (or other how-to material) is in itself a notable subject. Santtus 13:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "reading list" or a "collection of books"...

I'd would like to add the following to the heading Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and make it Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, media files or reading lists :

5. Mere collections of books to read or a reading list. Books are an important resource to source material, but should not be added indiscriminately or for the sole purpose of promoting them. Wikipedia strives to have articles that have well-written informative content -- not articles with lists of books where interesting content can be found.

If there are no objections to the above... I'll add it in a few days. Re-write the above proposed wording at will. I look forward to any and all comments. Nephron  T|C 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I'm a little unclear what this applies to. Do you have a link to a sample article that this would impact? Maybe once I see an example of what you mean I'll be able to form a more valid opinion. Dugwiki 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Although I would agree with the policy addition as proposed, I'm also unsure what kind of article/section it would refer to. Please clarify before adding AndrewRT(Talk) 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate, under this, to have a list of books by an author in the author's biography entry? Does that depend on any conditions? (Example conditions, "not a bare list free of internal links", or "so long as we have a short paragraph on the significance of each" or ....) GRBerry 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think that such an inclusion in an article about an author would not run afoul of anything, as it would be more than a "mere collection" of books. I think the topic under discussion are those articles that are nothing more than a directory of books. Agent 86 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This should be merged with external links; bibliographies can be useful, but don't constitute articles on their own. Reading lists, like external links, should stick to specifically related, useful resources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While I very much support the inclusion of bibliographies in biographical entries, I feel that some focus is in order. My own thoughts are that only books (including chapbooks) be included. In other words, contributions to magazines and newspapers are out, as are pieces published in anthologies. I've twice butted heads with self-described fans who have insisted that a one or two book bibliography be supplimented by a list of contributions made to community newspapers and the like. Furthermore, I would argue that unless magazine/newspaper/ezine pieces are excluded, comprehensive bibliographies by well-established authors like Margaret Atwood would increase in size ten-fold and would dominate what is intended as a biographical article. Victoriagirl 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example of what I was referring to.[2]
As to the point above, I think a list of works in the context of a bibliography is reasonable. What I dislike and believe does not help make an article better is a selection of books that are not used as references. I suppose the above should be amended a bit... to clarify that biographies are not included. Nephron  T|C 21:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is, among other things, a jumping-off point for further research. Why wouldn't we want to include a list of books where the reader can find more information? Often the references section can double as such a list, but when it can't, I see no problem with listing the books separately.
Many articles are originally written from tertiary or online sources, yet the best sources are books. Someone should eventually consult those books and use them as references, but until that happens I see no reason we shouldn't have a bibliography pointing people to the most authoritative books on the subject. —Celithemis 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with a collection of the books is:
  1. What makes a given book great?
  2. Who decides what is a great and/or authoritative book?
  3. How do we separate "good" books from books people just add to advertise?
A source/jump-off point is one thing... but a list just for the sake of a list, IMHO, is quite another. Also, if I want a book on a given subject, I go looking at a virtual book store--and read the reviews. On the topic of what WP isn't-- it isn't a book store.
As for "the best sources are books"-- I don't think that's true in many cases. For most of the articles I edit (medicine related stuffs)-- the primary literature and/or review articles (in journals) is more up-to-date, better, available in abstract form for free and not infrequently available in its entirety for free.
Do you think it would be useful to set an arbitrary limit/make a guideline on the number of books that can be listed in an article that is non-biographic? Nephron  T|C 04:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What makes a book important for users--quality information. Who decides? The reviewers. The book world is supported by a very elaborate system of book reviews in popular newspapers and scholarly journals in which very serious judgments are made by experts. Wiki users need to be clued into this major resource, which makes it possible for them to use their local libraries effectively. Rjensen 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of reviewers out there and many opinions about which reviews are worthwhile to read, especially when the topic is politics. Personally, I don't think Wikipedia should be reviewing books... that's not the mission. In any case, I'd like to hear more about the "elaborate system" --perhaps there is something I don't know that you know. What greater authority is it you're suggesting we go by-- can you be more specific? Thanks. Nephron  T|C 01:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The simplest measure of the worth of a book for inclusion in a Further reading section is if it is directly referenced as a source for the body of the article. If (some of) the book's content is not worthy of inclusion in the article then the rest of the book doesn't meet the (IMO) requirements of "further reading" on the subject. The same can be said about external links. This would help lessen those who add their publications for self promotion, as they would need to contribute to the article and then cite their book before it would be considered a legitimate addition. --Monotonehell 03:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
How do editors tell if book is useful for the users? Here are some factors: different books will cover different aspects in more or lesser depth, each book will take a somewhat different perspective, each book will rely on somewhat different primary sources. In the US, only about 15% of college students have access to a major research library; the rest of the readers--the great majority--will have to depend on limited public or regional libraries. A longer bibliography will make it more likely they will find book locally while a short list will make it more difficult for them. Rjensen 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line is that most editors are unable or unwilling to go find a book and check that it's appropriate for inclusion. If the article has been updated with information sourced from a book then (if you believe the editor) the book's worth has been 'proven'. If it's just added to a list with no attempt at including any extracts, concepts, facts or figures then it's next to impossible for the wikipedia editing community to judge what's inside that book. --Monotonehell 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Next to impossible?? Oh no, all serious books are reviewed in many journals and evaluated by scholars in the humanities and social sciences, so it's easy to evaluate the value of books. Note that source like scholar.google and books.google (and amazon.com) also tell us how much a book is cited by other experts. On the other hand, just because a snippet from a book is used by an editor for cerain fact does not mean the book as a whole can be recommended. Rjensen 04:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

There is a proposed notability guideline at WP:NOTNEWS which seeks to expand on WP:NOT#IINFO. This proposed guideline seeks to exclude articles which are considered newsworthy but not permanently notable - e.g. the recent disappearance of two teenage girls which prompted widespread media coverage and hence plenty of independent verifiable citable sources.

I have suggested that the proposed guideline is combined with an addition to the examples section along these lines:

_______

9. Temporary news stories: Articles should not be written about stories which are temporarily newsworthy but are not of any lasting interest or significance. See also WP:NOTNEWS.

_______

Please could others comment on first whether they would support or oppose such an explicit exclusion and also on the suitable wording for inclusion here. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I might be ok with something like this except that WP:NOTNEWS is still being debated and doesn't have clear consensus yet on what form it might or might not take. Therefore it's still premature to include any references to it in policy. My suggestion is to wait until WP:NOTNEWS actually becomes a guideline of some sort with consensus, then reintroduce your proposal to mention it in WP:NOT. Dugwiki 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
So which comes first the policy or the guideline? I guess I tend to like heirarchies (which I guess is bound to lead to disappointment here :) ) but I prefer that the principle should be established first (and I think the best place for that is here) and then after that elaborated further in a more detailed guidleine. I take your point about not refering to a proposed guideline so I've struck that through and maybe add it in later if&when the guideline gets approved. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Technically it's probably possible to go either way, but I think it's probably more likely to succeed if you craft it as a guideline based on existing policies and the five pillars of Wikipedia, than work to introduce that guideline into policy. Trying to change the policy first is going to be more difficult because you would have to establish a stronger consensus for the change then if you try to form a guideline first. Dugwiki 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The other point I almost forgot to mention is that if you discuss how to handle news articles here in policy, and also discuss it at WP:NOTNEWS, you're basically splitting the discussion into two places which might complicate things. It's probably better to keep the discussion of news events in one relatively centralized place, at least until you can get some agreement going there. Dugwiki 23:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I really like the principle behind this proposal. It could also be worded as "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. ... For a wiki that is a newspaper, visit our sister project WikiNews."
    I do have a concern about the subjectivity of the phrase "temporarily newsworthy" but I think we can work that out based on the emerging consensus on the drill-down page. Rossami (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not accurate, and is far too subjective to be made policy. Look at the Pale Blue Dot. Everything in wikipedia documents events of mere temporary importance. A million years from now, even World War II will just be trivia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper mainly because it's not for firsthand reporting. We also don't cover single events in their own article because they're too narrow and any details we include would be trivial, but this is way too subjective a way to phrase it. Also, prohibitions on reporting on fresh news stories are not something that should be made policy, because we have plenty of articles about single news stories that develop as they happen. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be fair to the proposed policy at WP:NOTNEWS, though, I think the idea is to try and shift articles about transitory events out of the Wikipedia article space and into the Wikinews space. A reason being that Wikinews is probably better formatted for readers and editors to handle large numbers of single- or couple-of-day covered news events. So it's not a matter of saying that one-shot news stories aren't useful or interesting and the information shouldn't be kept. It's a question of where the information is kept, Wikipedia or Wikinews or both.
So while I don't necessarilly agree with the current wording of WP:NOTNEWS, I do think that in principle a guideline on how to properly organize information about news stories between Wikipedia and Wikinews would be very helpful moving forward. Dugwiki 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP: NOT a directory

Does this principle apply to internal WP links? (concerning the dispute about the Management section of Aeroflot, see Talk:Aeroflot) Colchicum 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While you might be able to apply some of the same rational and logic in some situations, I do not think that is what people had in mind when the NOT a directory section was added. The advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links is where they should be looking. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That being said, even if WP:NOT doesn't directly apply, it is a rather sloppy addition.. It's a style issue more than a policy thing. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

not a directory: "Category:Lists of three-character combinations"

Double standards regarding "news" articles

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy (second nomination). This Afd showed a clear consensus to delete, but I fail to see how it differs from the article 2007 United Kingdom letter bombs in that they are clearly both just news articles. At the moment I'd say that the David Beckham move gathered much greater publicity and could be said to be a more historically significant event (clearly this is opinion, not fact, but if you want some supporting evidence Google news search on "Letter bomb" (about 3000 for a pretty wide search) and search for "David Beckham Los Angeles Galaxy (over 7800) - unless someone is killed or serious damage is caused by this campaign it will be forgotten within weeks).

So, what should be done here? Put the Beckham article up for deletion review (which seems inappropriate since it was not deleted out of process) or nominate the letter bomb article (which will be speedily closed since it is currently on the Main Page "in the news" section)? QmunkE 13:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to comment here since the David Beckham article is already deleted. Without seeing what the article looked like and what references it used, it's impossible for me to say if the article had sufficient problems to warrant deletion. It's possible that if the David Beckham article were rewritten from scratch in a month or two, with proper references to multiple independent sources for verification, and it isn't simply redundant with the information already present in Beckham's main article, then a new afd on that rewrite might result in a keep or no consensus. I say give it a bit of time to settle, then if you're interested in creating a new article about it to split it off the main Beckham article, give it another go at that point, making sure to put in proper references and include enough additional significant information that it's clearly something that won't fit easily within the main article. Dugwiki 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have also not seen the article before it's deletion, but it sounds like the nom summed it up by saying "wait until the dust settles to see if this has real historical significance in and of itself". Sometimes things seem more important at the time, but then it becomes a "heat of the moment" type thing, or something. There are many shades of gray, and the point of things like WP:NOT is to make sure things don't get out of hand. You can have the elements of a news article in a Wikipedia article, but it just shouldn't be only that or that to an extreme. Or something like that. I'm sure someone can word that better than I. -- Ned Scott 00:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to justify just that part of his career can warrant an entire article. Possibly it should be (and is) mentioned in the David Beckham article. But as a stand alone it is a news article and should be on wikinews not wikipedia. --Monotonehell 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
As an analogous aside, note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident which resulted in a vigorous "no consensus" has similar features. It is an article about a very specific news event that features a particular celebrity. Editors appear to be split on whether or not this should be a seperate article, with some arguing that it should be merged to Mel's main article and others (like myself) arguing that the event itself is notable enough and the article provides sufficient references and additional information about the event to warrant splitting it off as a subarticle.
Also, see the proposal WP:NOTNEWS which is trying to fashion a guideline on handling articles which revolve around events in the news. Dugwiki 17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP: Not a scientific/technical/specialist encyclopedia

I don't know if this point has ever been brought up, but I find many if not most entries on technical or scientific terms to be incomprehensible without a knowledge of these areas. I understand that for the sake of comphrehensiveness it is important to cover subjects in depth, which requires some technical language, but I think these articles should at least get a simplified layman's terms intro. It would be handy to have a template "Layman's terms intro requested" to slip into such articles for someone to come along and write a simplified intro. Damiancorrigan 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact ALL articles should include a "layman's" introduction and outline. The overtly technical discussion can come afterwards. I believe that the simple wikipedia should not exist at all as all en.WP articles should begin as I mentioned. --Monotonehell 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. But is there a template for this? Damiancorrigan 23:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There are {{context}}, {{generalize}} and {{technical}}. Garion96 (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Also the more general {{confusing}}. But I definitely believe that we should cover scientific/technical/specialist topics, even if context is just a matter of pointing to the more general field required as background knowledge, e.g., "In computer science, a complicated technical thing is ..." — brighterorange (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting any article be devoid of the really technical discussion. But that an article should have a hierarchy from a simple introduction that would satisfy a layman or an casual interest, then delve into more complex discussions. From simple to complex - It should never start with a highly technical introduction. --Monotonehell 17:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You are right, but this is probably more of a manual of style issue, rather than a WP:NOT issue. Proto::► 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

new catagory

How about wikipedia is not a newspaper or a collection of media reports?--Lucy-marie 15:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See the related guideline proposal at WP:NOTNEWS. They are trying to come to consensus on how to handle news event related articles. Dugwiki 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


not a dictionary

For terms that are deleted due to their being "dictionary like" would it not be appropriate to put in a redirect link to the appropriate Wiktionary page instead of giving the hapless user a wiki-404? Note, for instance that the (deleted) Wikipedia page on Moral turpitude is #1 in the Google search results, which is not at all helpful for visitors. Can we be more hospitable? --Dweekly 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and do it. Direct redirects are discouraged for a couple of technical reasons but the template {{wi}} can be very helpful. Rossami (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Go on be bold.--Lucy-marie 15:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Usage guides or slang and idiom guides. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep, or a British gent. There is a change in tone. Also, this article is written in the 3rd person, and shouldn't lapse into the first person we --Sébastien Goulet 14:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Main page talk page exchange

There was (a few minutes ago) a "same to you with ketchup" exchange on the above page, now deleted - suggest that this is another category of "What Wikipedia is not". (Puns, dreadful or not are not included in this - eg the response to a question on the "brane" talk page to the effect that "You are brane-less").) Jackiespeel 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP: NOT Travel guide

What does this entail? Are some well-known features allowed? Simply south 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, of course. The travel guide thing is, for example, to keep an article on Disney World from being merely a collection of prices, specials, advice on what to see, and so on... but rather make sure the article focuses on the history, culture and so on. But if you have enough information for an encyclopedia article on say, a Disney World ride, go for it. Another way of saying it is that an encyclopedia article on say, a museum in Paris, is written both for people who are going there and people who have no intention of doing so... both will get something out of all the information in the encyclopedia article. But a travel guide entry would contain much information only of interest to tourists. --W.marsh 01:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

British Isles

I wonder if anyone could clarify some issues for me related to the above page. I know that Wikipedia is not a usage guide. But the British Isles page has a rash of editors inserting examples of usage of the term in different ways, or of the usage of alternative terms. These are being used to promote some of the various POV's about the term. My question is, is this legitimate Wiki practice, or is it not, and if not, what policies or guidelines cover it?--86.31.225.220 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what "...not a usage guide" means. If I'm correct; you're confusing the intent that wikipedia shouldn't be a manual of use for things. There should be no instructions for how to make ice cream, for example. But there should be a discussion of what ice cream is, its history and how it's manufactured (as opposed to how to make it yourself).
What you have on that article is a difference of opinion. This is the kind of thing that should be discussed, rationally, on the article's talk page and some kind of consensus reached. The policies you might want to look at include WP:CON WP:V WP:NPOV and WP:NOR --Monotonehell 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Afterthought: I now understand what you were referring to (WP is not a dictionary). But what I said above still stands. --Monotonehell 04:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Long plot summary as copyvio

Long plot summary as active copyright violation discussion. Discussion here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 February 19/Articles --GunnarRene 17:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not for furthering memes?

Seems kind of silly but it's come up a number of times where an internet meme explodes and someone inevitably starts an article about it. Unless a particular meme led to something really world changing this NOT idea would limit these memes to List of Internet phenomena. (→Netscott) 20:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It might make sense to see about adding something regarding memes to one of the notability guidelines first, such as WP:WEB or WP:N. You could see about adding a section to one of those guidelines that says an internet meme isn't considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia unless it has received multiple, independent non-trivial published articles about it. That way you are requiring that the word has actually been analyzed in a published article somewhere first, rather than doing original research and analysis here on Wikipedia. Dugwiki 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is already covered at WP:WEB. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Memes also include religions, songs, phrases, etc., and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX covers these well enough. Netscott, I think you're trying to say that Wikipedia is not for the furthering of internet memes (the wording, not just a link, has to indicate this), and this seems a bit too specific for me, and the application of this potential addition is a bit too strict in scope. GracenotesT § 21:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems contentious (plot summaries)

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic

I find this guideline in conflict with actual practice for most articles: Analysis, history, and criticism is usually only a tiny part of the article. For instance, all these are undoubtedly important works to have an article on, and only meet this guideline, if at all, in a fairly trivial way: Emma, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, Mazeppa (opera), Something Positive, The Comedy of Errors, The Marriage of Figaro, Great Expectations.

The ideal article on these, of course, should contain more. However, the simple fact is that we're confusing an FA-quality article with what can be expected of a B-quality article on a literary subject. A plot summary is informative, encyclopedic content that we should welcome as the first step on the road towards a better article. Analysis and criticism is in the realm of opinions, and is much harder to get right without OR, POV, or Undue weight.

Why are we rejecting the first stage in making an article on a literary work as being a totally inappropriate activity for Wikipedia? Adam Cuerden talk 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Eliminate guideline, instead allowing Wikipedia:Notability to handle such things. If an article is, indeed, notable, it should be possible to find criticism and analysis of it eventually. Adam Cuerden talk 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't eliminate it, but it could be more specific - I think the current wording is misleading. A plot summary isn't a bad thing, it's bad when it's the only thing in the article (or takes up most of the article) and/or it's overly long and detailed. A plot summary (truly a summary )is encyclopedic. A description of every tiny detail of the plot is not. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"A plot summary isn't a bad thing, it's bad when it's the only thing in the article" ... rRight, that's why this policy reads "not solely a summary of that work's plot." Plot summaries are appropriate; articles which are solely plot summaries are not. --Dragonfiend 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
While the B-Class article on Emma can surely be improved, it already documents that there have been at least four adapatations for film and television. I would say that this type of impact meets this policy, and in no way could this impact be described as "fairly trivial". A quick look through the other examples shows similarilties. Eliminating this policy so that we can encourage plot summaries on fiction with no achievements, impact or historical significance is a bad idea. --Dragonfiend 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Obviously, we need to keep notability as a criterion, but the guideline could be phrased better. How about:
Plot summaries. While a short summary of the plot is a useful start to any article on a literary work, keep it to an appropriate length for the complexity of the plot. By the time the article reaches B-Class, the article will need to start dealing with the subject's real-world context, sourced analysis of the work, and begin to offer detail on a work's achievements, impact, and historical significance. Adam Cuerden talk 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you think? Too chatty? Adam Cuerden talk 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Completely unnecessary; this portion of this policy is uncontroversial and fine as is. -- Dragonfiend 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
With all respect, I think if I'm able to misunderstand it, others could as well. Adam Cuerden talk 23:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Which part of the policy as written do you think may lead to misunderstanding? -- Dragonfiend 23:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it does seem that a summary of the plot (of appropriate length, which, of course, is somewhat determined by the work's complexity and length) is important to any article on a literary work, perhaps even crucial, so it seems somewhat odd to say that if you make a new article and do a plot summary first, you're in violation of WP:NOT, but if you instead do the (often less useful) awards, context, and such, you're fine. Better to give guidance on length of plot summaries, and make it clear that context should be added as soon as possible, than to worry so much about one gross lapse of common sense that the guideline becomes draconian about what order you may work on an article in, or worse, only mention they "might" be appropriate, when no literary article could really do without one and move beyond start class. Adam Cuerden talk 03:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I prefer it as is. The current wording better addresses the copyright concerns. Rossami (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for a personal vendetta

I thought it might make a good addition for some users. JackSparrow Ninja 02:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with anything that you wrote, I have concerns about m:instruction creep. I'm pulling the text to here for discussion before we add a new section to the page. Rossami (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for personal vendettas
If anyone has a personal vendetta with another user, or a subject on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not the place to battle it out. If any user has concerns regarding another user or subject, these can be discussed. As Wikipedia strives to have verifiable correct information, if a user's concerns are true, they will be solved. Engaging in an edit war is not the solution, and could get one banned for vandalism.

Confusion

I am a bit confused. This policy says (as does WP:WINAD) we should not have articles that are essentially dictionary deffinitions. Yet invariably, if you nominate such an article for AFD citing WP:NOT or WP:WINAD, the consensus is to keep the article. As an example look at the articles for Jahbulon. To me the article is clearly is a dictionary def (more than 3/4 of the article relates to usages and meanings of the word). Yet several AFD nominations have resulted in either no consensus or keep. Now, I accept that result (although I fought hard to delete it), but it and other AFD decisions do make me begin to wonder if this particular policy (or at least the not a dictionary part of it) has community consensus. It seems that policy says one thing, but consensus says another. (In case you think this is just a gripe about the result of that one AFD... For an example that I did not participate in see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almighty dollar - which did result in a delete... only to have an article on Almighty Dollar recreated. Do people not think this is a real policy?) Blueboar 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's because WP:NOT is broken, always observe WP:NOT#PAPER, it's the only things that's mostly right. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is OR on my part, but the people who write these guideline pages tend to not reflect the community as a whole. It seems like deletionists have a large influence on the policy and guideline pages, while inclusionists have a large influence on the encyclopedia's content. AfD is one of the places where the two sides meet, and of course they don't agree. Personally I would like to see a policy that says other policies should be descriptive instead of prescriptive. It's not going to happen though. - Peregrine Fisher 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Common behavior isn't always consensus. Consensus suggests that people have been able to reasonably consider all sides of the issue and come to a conclusion (like in a discussion or some other whatever). The idea of WINAD is to keep things on Wikipedia about topics and then to use Wikitionary for things that are just definitions. This really isn't a controversial issue or anything, it's just practical thinking that people might not be aware of at first. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if your question is, does everybody support WP:WINAD? The answer is surely no; there was a recent discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Dictionary definitions. Personally I think it's one of our silliest policies. But I think with Jahbulon the question is more about whether that article is a dictionary definition or not; to me it looks like a well-sourced encyclopedia article about a word, which is quite distinct from a dictionary definition. — brighterorange (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not a recent discussion, it's over a year old. At any rate "we're not a dictionary" is one of the earliest axioms of Wikipedia, and the very reason why Wiktionary was founded. There is always a backlog of articles to transwiki there. The key is that Jahbulon is hardly a dictionary definition. Compare it with wikt:Jahbulon and you'll see what I mean. Of course there's a gray area there, too. >Radiant< 09:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks folks... good to know I am not the only one confused. What about Almighty dollar, where the situation is reversed... an article is cut for being a dic def... only to have a dic def article recreated? Same issues? (and if things are in such chaos as far as the consensus on applying these guidelines... why do we have them?)Blueboar 16:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a game guide

I'm going to add 'Not a video game guide' to the indiscriminate collection section. Wikibooks does seem to have a section for this and from a quick search does host these items.--Crossmr 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to add it, it's already under the "Instruction manuals" section of WP:NOT#IINFO. "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes...." (bold added for emphasis) Dugwiki 16:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems regarding WP:NOT#MIRROR

RuneScape is one of the most popular MMORPGs current on the Internet. There's a lot of fansites for the game, and it seems I have a bit of an issue with the Guideline #1 at WP:NOT#MIRROR. The people who previously decided what fansites they should use, chose to examine the Alexa web ranking of the most popular fansites, and it was decided that both Tip.it and RuneHQ should be shown because their Alexa ranking was pretty close to each other (they're almost 500 apart now). There's a third RuneScape fansite called Zybez that did not generate much on the Alexa ranking because the website's forum was on a different domain than the main site. They have now changed that and both the forum and fansite are under Zybez.net. Since this change just two months ago, Zybez has skyrocketed in web traffic ranking, and is currently ranked 7,000, just a few thousand or so behind RuneHQ and Tip.it. Judging from the weekly rankings, Zybez has been consistently ranked higher or equal to RuneHQ and Tip.it in the past two months, even though Zybez is not linked at the RuneScape article. Judging from the trends that have been shown in recent weeks, I know Zybez will have an Alexa ranking close to Tip.it and RuneHQ in just a few months, or even earlier.

Another point I would like to bring up is the usage of Alexa web traffic to determine which fansites should be linked. Alexa Toolbar is the only way a person can actually be considered in this web traffic ranking, and it seems preposterous that people would use Alexa to rank websites when the website only ranks according to people using the Alexa toolbar (mind you, this constitutes a small, small, small portion of all Internet users).

It would seem unfair not to link Zybez, as well as the other two sites, since Alexa is known to have its issues with web traffic rankings since this does not usually represent what sites all Internet users are visiting. I would also like to see if we can change the guideline from just "one fansite link" to "a maximum of three", particularly because in this case, the Alexa rankings of all three sites on a weekly basis has been almost concurrent, and the fact that Alexa is not always the most accurate or useful tool to measure fansite "popularity". All three websites are in fact contested in these races for top RuneScape fansite, and different results have been shown in many tests. Thoughts, comments? Nishkid64 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, would this fansite section not be more appropriate at WP:EL? I naturally went there to link, but I did not find it there, and had to be told it was here, the last of places I would have checked. Nishkid64 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The part that says "only one" is written more as an example of how to not be a mirror, rather than directly being policy. If you can make sure the ELs on that article don't get out of hand, and you have some reasonable logic for what you do and don't include, then just add the link. No change required here. -- Ned Scott 02:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, may not need to be added unless user give you trouble about it. Cbrown1023 talk 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've encountered an editor removing what look to me to be useful external link from Drew Barrymore and interpreting the wording "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such" as absolutely excluding the use of more than one fan site. The article in question has just two links to fan sites, which I think indicates that we're not overloading it with lists of these sites.
I'd suggest that we consider removing or rewording this so that it can't be applied in this manner as a robotic rule. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

or a repository of quotes

There have been several articles lately that are barely articles, more like some large quotes linked together. Plame affair has no less than 35 uses of the purply-cartoon-quotes, not to mention many other smaller quotations. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to have content, not just what 35 people were quoted as saying about something. There are other comments about the over use of quotes at Template talk:Cquote Could we add:
5. Mere collections of quotes, or articles which consist of a very large number of quotes, especially those which come from copyrighted sources as text must be able to be released under the GFDL, as at the bottom of every page. Encyclopedias are for articles, quotations should be used sparingly. Quotations should go on wikiquote. --Astrokey44 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotations are part of the first item under WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. —Celithemis 10:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Either:
a) Move them to wikiquote:
b) Move them to the talk page.
c) Don't delete them outright, this causes edit wars Odessaukrain 12:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

Wikipedians seem to focus a lot on what wikipedia isn't, why are we not focusing more on what wikipedia is. Odessaukrain 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is, but it redirects to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which may not be what you are looking for. -- Donald Albury 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of indiscriminate collections of information

Can we clarify what exactly is indiscriminate please. I'm starting to see this come up in AfDs. Does WP discriminate against certain collections of information, or is WP simply not a collection of indiscriminate information? Either way, this page needs to make it crystal clear. - Peregrine Fisher 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed a while ago, see #Inappropriate use of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on afd/cfd above. I don't think anything came out of it though. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, does anyone remember how this double meaing wording came about, and what people meant by it then? We should put that meaning into the page, then we can decide if it's what we still want. - Peregrine Fisher 11:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
All that section is saying is that Wikipedia doesn't arbitraily include everything that's true. It discriminates against certain types of information.
"Trivia" is often associated with things that are random or a hodge podge collection of information, and thus can be loosely associated with the word "indiscriminate". However the policy we're talking about, WP:NOT#IINFO, is specifically not worded to talk about trivia but instead says that Wikipedia can "discriminate" and be selective about certain kinds of information. The policy section then goes on to list very specific kinds of information that should not appear in Wikipedia for various reasons.
The error that some editors make is in assuming the WP:NOT#IINFO talks about trivia collections and the like. It doesn't. In fact, a brief one-day attempt to add "almanac style information" to this section failed last December. Some editors who dislike "pop culture sections" and "trivia lists", etc, would probably like to see this policy extended to cover such information, but that hasn't happened yet and doesn't seem likely to happen since the phrase "trivia" is so subjective. Thus if you see something like "Wikipedia isn't a collection of trivia" with a link pointing to WP:NOT#IINFO, that would be an example of an editor making a faulty assumption about that part of policy. Dugwiki 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is what it tries to say. "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information" isn't as well worded. Xiner (talk, email) 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a courtroom

This is a style issue. There is a lot of battle over wording where the opposing side adds weasel words such as "allegedly" to positive statements, and demands that the discussion is "fair to the both sides". I don't believe this represents a neutral point of view. Rather, it is non-neutral, trying to present the arguments of both sides as they are, unconsolidated, like in a courtroom. Synthesis is obviously difficult, particularly when a consensus is to be reached, but this doesn't mean it shouldn't be an aim. --Vuo 21:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Who's Who

Inspired by a post on Jimbo's page, here. Proposed:

Wikipedia is not a Who's Who. Who's Who publications exist to catalog people that have done well in a particular field, whether it be academics, sports, business, etc. Many Who's Who are very specific like Who's who in Indian Engineering & Industry[3], some are more general like Canadian Who's Who[4], and some are debatable vanity publications like Who's Who Among American High School Students. While they vary widely in importance to their select audience, inclusion in a Who's Who or status worthy of such inclusion is not, of itself, sufficient reason for a biographical article in Wikipedia. The sufficient reasons are covered at Wikipedia:Notability (people).

What do you think? It would be nice to be able to direct people that think their favorite dentist deserves an article to that. --Justanother 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that this is better addressed in the notability guidelines, particularly at WP:BIO. Essentially, other than criticizing some Who's Who publications (I agree) all this says is that Who's Who publications do not establish notability on their own (I agree), and that's not necessary at the WP:NOT level. — brighterorange (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Ball is contradictory

As it stands now, the Crystal Ball guidelines are self-contradictory. The 2016 Presidential election is listed as an event about which "nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." This is patently untrue, because the election is also is "notable and almost certain to take place." Sure, you can argue that there will be a revolution or an astroid striking the earth, but that same argument could call into question the 2008 election. That the 2016 election is scheduled to occur in 2016 is both verifiable and not original research. Sure, one can't say very much more about it, but stubs are not prohibited. Sylvain1972 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stubs which are so short that they are mere restatements of the title, however, are speedy-deletable. Rossami (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but in an article such as 114th United States Congress that is not the case. There is more that can be said than a restatement of the title.Sylvain1972 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a great example. I disagree with your conclusion, though. The contents of that page (how many reps will be elected and what day of the year the session starts) are self-evident to anyone connecting the United States Congress article with the datestamp of the 114th session. The current contents are so trivial that they do constitute a mere restatement of the title. Rossami (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, someone has put that up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/114th United States Congress, and given the voting so far, it is almost sure to be deleted. --Xyzzyplugh 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The information in most wikipedia articles can be pieced together from other articles. That does not make them mere restatements of their titles. Additionally, there is no reason to delete a stub that will unquestionably be expanded eventually.Sylvain1972 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any good reason to create a stub before a substantial article can be written? zadignose 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It might be helpful to someone. There is no reason not to.Sylvain1972 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There are unfortunately many reasons not to. Every one of these trivial sub-stubs must be watchlisted and monitored for vandalism. Not only do we have to fend off the obvious vandalism like pageblanking and the insertion of obscenities but we have to watch for and revert subtle vandalism like minor, plausible but deliberately false edits to the page. Experience has proven again and again that pages like this just do not attract the necessary critical mass of informed and interested editors to watch the page.
Responsible editors are by far our scarcest resource. We can't afford to squander their efforts over pages that add so little. Once we have something substantial to write, the equation changes. But while it's that far in the future, it's a maintenance nightmare. Rossami (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I see. Well, that is a good reason. Sylvain1972 12:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for speculation. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 10:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

glossary pages for various specialized fields

Whatever happened to "Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields?" - Peregrine Fisher

Glossary pages for various specialized fields got added to Wiktionary's goal, then deleted at AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/archive7#Glossaries for the discussion which resulted in the removal of the line about glossaries. --Xyzzyplugh 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is a directory?

I keep seeing NOT#DIRECTORY used in AfDs, but they don't seem to match up to this policy's limited examples. People seem to have an idea of what it means, yet the examples on this page don't seem applicable. What is a directory? Or, better yet, what is the kind of directory we aren't. - Peregrine Fisher 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the intent of the section was that articles which say no more than "This is a building in X, on roads Y and Z, and it has activities A and B" should be deleted, unless there's some evidence that it is important in any way. -Amarkov moo! 16:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that may be the way it is being interpreted lately, but, that is already covered by WP:N, and there is no use trying to fit that square peg into this round hole too. NOT#DIRECTORY is not designed to determine if something is notable or not. It seems to me that there are three types of "directories" listed:
  1. Loosely related lists
  2. People
  3. Businesses and other info resources
With #1, the intention seems to be to forbid lists like "left-handed actors who played Hamlet"; while, not eliminating lists altogether (there are featured lists, so, the idea of a list is not completely bad). All the left-handed actors may be notable, but, there is no need for an encyclopedia article about that intersection.
With #2, the intent seems obvious, and, that people still need to be notable to be listed in wikipedia. I'm not sure why this is in the guideline even; but, it may be due to the creation of notable lists, and the "me too" inclusion of otherwise non-notable people.
And, #3 is designed to keep unnecessary contact information (phone numbers, addresses) out of the encyclopedia. Neier 06:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to add to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

I propose that an additional point be added to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Wikipedia articles are not simply:

  • 9. Collections of raw data. Wikipedia articles should summarize their topics, not list every known bit of information on that topic. Facts which exist, but which are neither notable nor interesting, should not be included".

I believe this addition is valid, useful, and non-controversial. An encylopedia article should be a summary, not a raw data dump. The point of this is not to rule out trivia, which is a topic of debate and contention at the moment, but to rule out things which are less than trivia, things which are not even trivia. Information can be: 1. notable and interesting (clearly belongs). 2. notable and uninteresting (might belong) 3. non-notable but interesting (I'll call this trivia, and it might belong). 4. non-notable and uninteresting (less than trivia, doesn't belong).

For example, the common belief that George Washington had wooden teeth (and the fact that apparently it's not true) is trivia which many people find interesting. If, on the other hand, from various medical examinations during his life or in an autopsy, the exact weight of all his internal organs is known, the length of his fingers and toes and forearms and so on are known, these things are less than trivia, they are entirely pointless bits of data which exist but which add nothing to a reader's understanding of Washington, they don't belong.

This is to some extent a policy statement on trivia, but one which hopefully is non-controversial. I'm not interested in the definition of trivia here, feel free to ignore my definition and instead refer to "interesting trivia" and "pointless uninteresting trivia" if you want. And yes, "interesting" is a subjective term, which we couldn't possibly define in a few brief sentences in this article, which is why I didn't try. Editors will have to decide for themselves, for each article, what is and is not interesting (as they already do), but I think we can (almost) all agree that there are vast amounts of data which exist but which are not interesting and which do not belong, and so a policy ruling out such uninteresting information is a workable one.

If anyone questions the need for this addition, I'm sure I could come up with a list of a few thousand or more articles which currently contain content which is "less than trivia". Many editors (but certainly a tiny minority of our experienced quality editors) are under the impression that a Wikipedia article is a place to include every fact which exists on a topic, and there are vast amounts of "less than trivia" which can be sourced. --Xyzzyplugh 05:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound good to me. As you say, trivia is controversial. You're explanation about GW's organ's weight is fine, but the sentence you propose adding, as written, will be used to delete trivia. If we decide trivia is OK, then we can talk about less than trivia. - Peregrine Fisher 05:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not including this section as part of some battle to keep trivia would be a poor decision and an unreasonable way of fighting to keep trivia in articles. If you think the way I've worded it makes it sound as if all trivia is banned, then please propose an alternate wording. Do you believe that "non-notable and uninteresting" facts belong in Wikipedia articles?--Xyzzyplugh 06:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The section "not an indiscriminate collection of information" already covers this since... what you are describing is an indiscriminate collection of information. People putting really trivial things in articles can be a problem, but giving more specific examples in this situation won't help that (and I would fear a bit of instructions creep). -- Ned Scott 05:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not proposing an entirely new section, as I said above, I am proposing this as one of the points made in "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", as a way of giving further detail on this point. The previous 8 subsections of this section still allow for endless amounts of "less than trivia" or data dumps of various other types to be included in articles, so this additional section is intended to remedy that. The text I proposed above did not give any examples, and I'm not sure how it would qualify as instruction creep. --Xyzzyplugh 06:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this would be a useful addition, since most of the other points in the section are mainly about topics that shouldn't be covered, but this clause makes it clear that "not an indiscriminate collection of information" can help improve the quality and define the shape of existing articles. It can prevent good articles from becoming bad articles as a consequence of more and more editors adding every single thing they can think of about a subject. zadignose 05:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
In general, articles certainly should summarize and explain their subjects rather than providing a dump of raw data and leaving readers to draw their own conclusions. However, I'm not sure how to reconcile "Wikipedia is not a collection of raw data" with the broad acceptance of list articles that, effectively, are. I don't think that Cephalopod size is a bad article, for example, despite being mostly a collection of tables of size data. —Celithemis 22:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You bring up a good point. But I think that Cephalopod size is not just a collection of raw data, and is instead a structured list of wikipedia articles with some data included. A more accurate name for it might be List of cephalopods by size. We have many lists which are mostly just lists of internal links, but due to their structure or to some additional information they have, are seen as useful and better than just having readers use the categories to find the articles they're looking for. If this had been a list which was just a bunch of raw data, with its items unconnected and unconnectable to wikipedia articles, and which was in addition not of much interest to much of anyone, I think it would be deleted in any AfD with little or no opposition. (Such as, List of George Washington's internal organ weights)--Xyzzyplugh 02:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The proposal as written forbids collections of raw data, not just those that are uninteresting and unimportant -- and the term "raw data" is subject to widely varying interpretations. Seems like what you really want is in the last sentence, but the rest is likely to open up all kinds of cans of worms. —Celithemis 02:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Except, interesting in the last sentence is bordering on POV issues. As I wrote in another section above, we already have WP:N to cover notability, so, I don't think that we need to keep two sets of rules that seek to accomplish the same thing. Neier 06:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:N is an article inclusion guideline, not an article content guideline. —Celithemis 06:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Ned Scott above wrote that "the section 'not an indiscriminate collection of information' already covers this since... what you are describing is an indiscriminate collection of information." That is not correct, though. Reading WP:NOT#IINFO you will see that it is specifically worded to talk about only certain types of information about which there is strong consensus that, though verifiable, should be discriminated against by Wikipedia. Trivia is intentionally not part of that section, or even part of this policy. In fact, an effort to add a similar bullet point to WP:NOT#IINFO restricting the inclusion of "almanac style data" failed after only a day late last year. Finally, note the previous discussions on this WP:NOT talk page regarding the incorrect application of WP:NOT to "trivia".
So Xyz is correct about at least one thing - namely that if you want WP:NOT to somehow restrict "trivia and non-notable facts" you'll need to explicitly add it to the policy. Since trivia is so controversial I'm not sure you'll actually get enough consensus to make such an addition, but simply saying "it's already covered by WP:NOT" is incorrect. Dugwiki 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to restrict trivia, but "not even trivia". I believe that we already do have consensus on what I'm trying to add, that this is something we pretty much all already agree with, but haven't put into words in policy yet. It remains to be seen, of course, whether we can get consensus to add it to this particular policy at this time, and if so whether this particular wording is best or whether the wording should be changed. --Xyzzyplugh 02:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the way you wrote the proposal, you're trying to restrict "facts which exist, but which are neither notable nor interesting." The problem is that the concepts of "interesting" and "notable" are extremely subjective. What's interesting to me might not be interesting to you and vice versa. Notability is somewhat easier to try and objectively measure by evaluating the quality and quantity of sources, but even that particular word has been a bit controversially charged (as evidenced by the current discussions at WP:N and WP:INCLUSION). So while I agree that there is consensus that "not everything which is true should have an article", there isn't necessarily consensus on where or whether to draw a line on "interesting" facts versus trivia and "not-even-trivia". That's why I don't think this would be likely to find its way into policy, which is supposed to represent very strong editorial consensus on its details.Dugwiki 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course "interesting" and "notable" are subjective, as are terms like "reliable" sources, just as trying to take a NPOV still involves subjectivity, as we have to make all sorts of decisions as to how much criticism of a topic belongs in the topic's article, for example. Notability of a topic or of which content to include within an article, the reliability of sources, all of these things are unavoidably subjective, and we have to deal with these for every article every time we edit it. WP:NOT already states, "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable", so it's not as if my proposed section would be breaking new ground here in terms of subjectivity. We don't have to all agree what "notable", "reliable", or even "interesting" mean in order to decide that we do expect article subjects to be notable, sources to be reliable, and information in articles to be at least somewhat of general interest.
I haven't yet found a single person here who believes that "less than trivia" belongs, that wikipedia should contain every single fact that can found on a topic. Do you believe that vast quantities of raw data would belong in wikipedia, that we could dump gigabytes worth of experimental data on particle physics into Quark or All known data on Quarks or something, and that this would be a good idea? If not, then you're not really disagreeing with my idea, but merely the wording. I am completely fine with rewording my proposed section, if people don't like a particular word, or any of the words I used, or if they want additional sentences added. --Xyzzyplugh 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
To reply, most editors would agree that articles should be about subjects that demonstrate some sort of general "notability" at the time of writing. But the reason WP:N has always been a guideline and not a policy is that the definition of "notability" is more subjective than other concepts described in policy. The reasons reliability is described in policy while notability is described in a guideline are that editors apparently have a stronger consensus on being able to more objectively define what makes a publisher reliable, and that we all would agree that all information should be from reliable sources but we might not all agree that all information needs to be "interesting" or "non-trivial" or even how to define those terms.
Now that shouldn't be taken to mean that I think everything under the sun needs to be included. After all, that's what WP:NOT is about. But I think your particular proposal to ban information that is "neither notable nor interesting" suffers from being too vague and not likely to gain consensus on the details. I think if you're going to try and work on this type of issue you'll have better luck trying to do so in an appropriate guideline, which would imply it is more of a general rule of thumb that editors can mostly agree on as opposed to a stricter more black and white policy. Dugwiki 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you disagree with my statement, "Wikipedia articles should summarize their topics, not list every known bit of information on that topic", and would you have a problem with this statement being included in WP:NOT? --Xyzzyplugh 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree in principle with your first sentence that "articles should summarize their topics, not list every known bit of information on that topic." What I'm not sure I agree with is whether the second sentence should be used at all, and whether the first sentence should be part of WP:NOT or instead part of a guideline. Dugwiki 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed removal: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"

This probably deserves a subheading of its own.

I would propose, at least as an interim matter, to remove the heading "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" from the article, to remove the introductory paragraph altogether, and to move the various items given there to either their own full headings (Wikipedia is not a repository for collections of frequently asked questions; Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, etc.) A few might be better merged with WP:NOT#DIR (Wikipedia is not a travel guide).

The "indiscriminate" label is too widely and subjectively misused, especially when considering lists and other user-made indexing and cross-referencing pages. Similarly, there is not, will never be, and can never be a consensus on what is "trivial" and what is not; one person's trivia is another person's thorough investigation. The problem is that the heading itself, unlike the concrete examples that follow, invites subjective evaluations of the worthiness or "indiscriminate" nature of someone's data.

(Aside — Fear of "original research", the intrusion of points of view, or claims that each statement that might be called commentary must be sourced, may be factors that encourage data to be presented as lists rather than characterized and analysed by editors in running prose. This is an overreaction, in my opinion, but I suspect it's one reason why we seem to have too many undigested lists for some tastes.)

The "indiscriminate" label is overused, subjective, and in my opinion increases friction without building consensus. I think that the label ought to be dropped as policy. - Smerdis of Tlön 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the meaning is quite clear, and as discussed in the section above, while interpretations may vary, I doubt many people would advocate the concept that Wikipedia should be an "indiscriminate collection of information." I think that this is a very important part of the policy, and only find it unfortunate that it's so hard to enforce. In fact, I often think the name of this article as a whole should be renamed to "What Wikipedia Should Not Be," instead of "What Wikipedia Is Not," since the policy largely seems to discribe what Wikipedia is. My overall impression of Wikipedia is that it is mostly an indiscriminate collection of information on non-notable subjects, poorly sourced, cobbled together haphazardly, largeley POV, preserved mainly on the premise that "I like it," with the additional consideration that "maybe it will be improved someday, so let's keep it all."zadignose 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that a policy is broken sometimes is not a very good reason for deprecating it. We regularly delete "indiscriminate information", e.g. at PROD and AFD. >Radiant< 13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the reference to deprecating the policy was a response to my comment, or the one above it. In any case, I approve of the policy, and appreciate the efforts put in to enforce it. But what one person might describe as "sometimes," I'd describe as... well, "more than sometimes." The policy goes unheeded too often, and the arguments for preserving indiscriminate information abound. The policy should remain in place, should be frequently cited, and broadly enforced.zadignose 13:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone provide me a bright line test for what is "indiscriminate" and what is merely, say, diverse? It is also my impresion that the "indiscriminate" label is tossed around quite liberally in deletion debates, without much meaning: to me, though, this is one of the problems, and why the label should go. I'm not talking about removing any of the actual, specific policies currently mentioned under that rubric; only the umbrella label itself.
FWIW, if your impression is that "Wikipedia is that it is mostly an indiscriminate collection of information on non-notable subjects, poorly sourced, cobbled together haphazardly, largely POV, preserved mainly on the premise that 'I like it,' with the additional consideration that 'maybe it will be improved someday, so let's keep it all'", perhaps one of the more closely supervised sister projects would be closer to your tastes. Then again, few of them have achieved what Wikipedia did by assuming good faith and hoping that flawed articles may eventually improve. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
One can, of course, assume good faith, while believing that a project is in danger of going astray through misdirected good intentions. When did I fail to assume good faith? Such an assumption doesn't contradict a desire for strong policies and clear guidance.zadignose 05:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I support this proposal. The phrase "indiscriminate collection of information" is often used in deletion debates without consistent meaning, and often in a way that isn't even supported by the current policy (i.e. as if the policy said that articles are not supposed to be indiscriminate collections of information, not Wikipedia itself). Specifically, I find the word "indiscriminate" to be very troublesome because it is interpreted in widely different ways by different editors. IMO it is often used as a policy-sounding substitute for "I don't like it" or the empty criticism "unencyclopedic". The list of concrete what-nots are are fairly non-controversial, so why ought the umbrella section be so controversial? (As a more minor rewording, perhaps the structure could be left as-is but we could eliminate the word "indiscriminate", perhaps by retitling it "Wikipedia is not just a collection of information." I believe this is in line with the original intention.) — brighterorange (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Smerdis of Tlön says, "there is not, will never be, and can never be a consensus on what is "trivial" and what is not". He's absolutely right on that point. That's why articles that may deviate from WP:NOT#INFO go through AFD or PROD, instead of speedy deletion. Through our consensus-driven deletion process, we let problem articles stand or fall on their own merits. What is and is not "indiscriminate" is up to the community, and the community is doing a good job deciding what is and is not indiscriminate information. The system may not be perfect, but it's working. Smerdis, I ask you: Are you proposing this change because there was a decision at AFD you didn't agree with? If so, you're free to take it to deletion review. szyslak (t, c) 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No one specific debate, per se. On the other hand, I generally support the creation of lists that cross-index articles in ways that users find interesting and significant. These are potentially valuable indexing tools: while Wikipedia is not paper and can contain thousands of such lists without breaking, the search function does seem to tax limited resources, and lists can help. Even a list of the bustiest Playboy playmates is a valuable resource that connects live readers with the information they are looking for. I also tend to favour the retention of articles that collect allusions to a topic in literature, films, and so forth, for similar reasons.
These resources are threatened by the vague "indiscriminate" label. If the community were in fact doing a good job determining what is meant to be compassed by it, a clearer description could be written, in which case the "indiscriminate" label would become happily obsolete.
I don't see that happening; what I do see is the "indiscriminate" label seems to have become the politically correct synonym for "fan-cruft" or some similar sort of "cruft", and the charge that an article contains "indiscriminate information" amounts to little more than "I don't like it". (And while I have some issues with that essay, there are good points made in it.) Demoting "indiscriminate" will help curb some destructive tendencies. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I would definitely support renaming this section to something like "Wikipedia does not include all information that is true". The phrase "indiscriminate collection of information" causes frequent misapplication of the policy by attempting to use it to refer to "trivia", which is not what that section talks about. (Note, for example, that the word "trivia" does not appear in WP:NOT at all, and that an attempt to add "almanac style data" to this section failed last year).
I don't have a problem with the individual bullet point sections of WP:NOT#IINFO, but I do think that if we simply renamed it to "WP:NOT#EVERYTHINGTRUE" would get rid of a phrase I consider somewhat misleading.
Finally, note that "trivial" information is frequently deleted, but it should not be deleted due to WP:NOT#IINFO. Rather, if anything, it's usually deleted either as original research, insufficiently verifiable information or as a violation of "Wikipedia is not a directory" as a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" (ie WP:NOT#DIR). So in afd I'm much more inclined to support an argument of a "trivia list" violating WP:NOT#DIR, for example, and will generally discount arguments that say it violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Dugwiki 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. And lest I forget there are also deletions due to lack of notability as well. Dugwiki 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the existing wording is both appropriate and generally working. The opening paragraph defines the general principle. The bullets underneath provide some specific and very clear examples but are definitely not the definitive list of everything that does not belong in the encyclopedia. Leave the section as is. Rossami (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the section wording needs to be changed, but I don't like the title. Also, note that the section's introduction does specifically say that "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply...." The logical way to read that sentence is that areas which are not listed (eg trivia) can not yet be assumed to have strong enough consensus to be included there. That's not to say more bullet points can't be added as consensus develops on other things, but you can't simply say "I think trivia fits the tone of the section, therefore it is included." The section is specific on what it's covering. Dugwiki 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
We should perform a rather controversial experiment where users nominate decent fiction articles with an out of universe perspective for deletion and see how many people say "delete per WP:NOT". — Deckiller 05:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
But for the fact that it would be WP:POINT, and wrong if I were to do it, I considered nominating an article like March 29 for deletion. The date articles are not very dissimilar to articles that have mustered deletion majorities in the past, and are random and unreferenced bits of trivia held together by mere circumstance. Perhaps a true believer might give it a try. I doubt that consensus could be mustered for such a step, but it does not strike me as very different from the sort of thing that has been deleted using these arguments. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I, not surprisingly given the subsection above this one, disagree with this proposed removal. I think if you don't like the wording of "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", or if you think further explanation is necessary, then feel free to propose a rewording or additional qualifying sentences. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and we don't want to add every single true fact in existence to an article or to Wikipedia in general. We have clear consensus on this point - encylopedia articles are not "type in every fact that exists on this topic". And, just because we don't all agree on where to draw the line, doesn't mean we abandon all lines and allow everything. We can, and do, agree that some true things don't belong. --Xyzzyplugh 13:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we abandon all lines and allow everything. — brighterorange (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly not doing that, and suggested retention of most of the things contained under the rubric, minus the "indiscriminate" label.
Perhaps some substitute for the word could be found. I would suggest unanalytical. An ugly word, but perhaps closer to what is legitimately trying to be expressed there. It also reflects my wild speculative theory that part of the problem comes from the change in attitudes over the past year or so about unsourced statements and "original research". One reaction to that seems to be the listing of undigested facts, for fear that any analysis of them might be thought suspect. I suspect that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, at least in some editors' minds: to them, undigested dumps of facts seem safer. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While I understand the concerns being brought up, I don't agree with this proposal. A minority of editors might abuse rationales in AfDs, but that is not specific to any particular policy or guideline, and is nothing new. The subheadings under IINFO are only examples and are not the only ones of IINFO that should not be in Wikipedia. Trying to be more specific in this case will likely lead to instructions creep. Have some more faith in your keep arguments in AfDs, as the logic behind it should speak for itself. -- Ned Scott 21:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as written WP:NOT#IINFO is specifically indicating only the bullet point entries as having strong consensus. That section's purpose is literally to list "miscellaneous" areas of strong consensus that don't quite fit the other policy sections. If something isn't demonstrated to have strong consensus, it's not part of policy (let alone part of IINFO). Of course, it's possible to expand WP:NOT#INFO by demonstrating strong consensus on a particular type of article that doesn't quite fit the other sections of WP:NOT. But unless that consensus is demonstrated, you can't just say "per WP:NOT#IINFO" when dealing with it; you have to use other forms of argument. Dugwiki 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Granted it lists specific areas that we're very clear on, I wouldn't say those are the only areas one could reasonable say something is "an indiscriminate collection of information". -- Ned Scott 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's possible the section could be expanded in the future to include other things we presumably agree on. But that expansion needs to be explicitly written into the section for you to be able to say "not allowed per IINFO". If something isn't explicitly included there you'll have to refer to another policy section or guideline if you think something should be deleted. Dugwiki 15:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that is not the standard interpretation that the community has used for this section. The fact that we can articulate a few clear examples was never intended to imply that this was the definitive list. Many things are "indiscriminate collections of information" even though we don't choose to list them in this section. Trying to create an exhaustive list would be impossible and even if we succeeded, it would be instruction creep. Rossami (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether some editors are misinterpreting this section, the fact remains that as written it is effectively the "miscellaneous" section of WP:NOT that handles cases of strong consensus that don't quite fit the other sections. To see this you simply need to read the introductory paragraph and notice that it doesn't actually describe a criteria for the section other than "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply...." Another way of saying that paragraph is that "not everything that's true should be in Wikipedia and here are areas upon which editors have strong agreement."
So in order to claim that WP:NOT#IINFO applies to something it either a) has to be explicitly listed in that section; or b) you need to demonstrate that there is, in fact, strong editorial consensus that it is something which is true but that which should not be in Wikipedia AND is something which isn't covered by the other parts of WP:NOT or other policies. You can't, for example, simply say "this is an article about a trivial subject and therefore fails WP:NOT#IINFO" because there isn't a strong consensus on handling trivia.
Therefore WP:NOT#IINFO is, for practical purposes, restricted to what it specifically lists. The only legitimate possible use of the section for something that isn't listed would be a type of article that 1) isn't already covered elsewhere in WP:NOT and 2) clearly has broad consensus against its inclusion and 3) simply hasn't yet been added to the section for one reason or another (maybe something that everybody implicitly seems to agree upon but that hasn't been put down in writing yet). Beyond that, WP:NOT#IINFO shouldn't be referred to in afd. Dugwiki 20:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.. IINFO is not so tightly restricted. Some things are quite literally.. indiscriminate collections of information.. but not specifically listed here. I'm not sure why you believe your definition to be correct when you haven't shown us anything to back it up, other than "I said so". It's the very nature of our policies and guidelines to take the logic behind the words as much as the words themselves. -- Ned Scott 22:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Instruction manuals

After a series of too bold edits by me, since reverted by other users, a discussion has started on my talk page (User talk:Fram) about the interpretation of WP:NOT for instruction manuals. Basically, the question is if the rules of a game are considered an instruction manual / howto guide / tutorial / game guide (and thus should be removed or at least severely restricted), or not. My opinion is that rules are instruction manuals: other people have argued that I am wrong, based on precedent (Chess and other articles have rules sets), or semantics (a "rule" is not an "instruction", ...). I would like to have a discussion on whether in general, games articles should have no rules at all, a very basic rules section, or a complete rules section (ignoring for this discussion aspects like WP:V or copyright, which may or may not be applicable in some cases). I would prefer to continue the discussion here instead of on my talk page, but comments there are of course welcome as well. Fram 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Rules of a game have a high likelihood of being copyvios. Of course that does not apply to really old games like Chess. I would take the same approach as we take to plot summaries, and summarize the rules because they pretty much describe what the game is about, except in the case of really simple games where we can just spell out the rules. HTH! >Radiant< 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A game isn't anything else but its rules, really! Any attempt to produce an encyclopedia entry on anything must attempt to define it, and games are defined by their rules. -Toptomcat 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • But an encyclopedia article on the game should primarily be a discussion of the game's impact, history, origins, cultural prominence, variations, etc. A short overview of the game's rules would generally be appropriate but detailed instructions belong at WikiBooks. (It would then, of course, be entirely appropriate to add a cross-wiki link to that WikiBooks entry.) Rossami (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This dispute is mostly about card games, which are "folk games" in the sense that no company owns the rules. So I do not believe that copyvio is an issue here. Of course, it is possible that there is copypasted text from a card game book, but at least I have not seen such cases. Yes, I agree that rules define a game, in particular a card game for which there is no special playing equipment. Thus, we need at least a summary of (essential parts) of the rules, but I cannot see any problem with a full rules text. From the essential parts of the rules one must be able to infer (1) to which group of games the game belongs to (plain trick game, point trick game, plain rummy, meld-scoring rummy, asshole group etc) (2) how the game differes from other similar games and (3) which varieties of the game there are, and how they differ from each other. Anyhow, I think full rules is a way better alternative than no rules at all. And it is true that many of the card game articles are quite horrible, but it is not an excuse to delete the rules completely but to improve the article.Punainen Nörtti 14:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Using more established games like chess (or Contract bridge for a card game example) is a good starting point. When we explain the rules, it isn't to be a game guide, it's because the article would kind of suck if it didn't give that basic background to make the article accessible to people not familiar with chess. For example I'd oppose it as a FA for missing critical context if basic rules weren't explained. It should mention in some way what the popular strategies are, that's encyclopedic, the same way mentioning strategies in a game like football (e.g. Tampa 2 or West Coast Offense) is encyclopedic. The key thing to think about is whether you're giving information, or giving advice. "A good strategy for getting ahead..." needs to go, "...this strategy become popular after it was used famously in a tournament by..." is probably encyclopedic if referenced properly. Ultimately we can't say that information on rules or strategies is always to be removed, clearly it actually needs to be present in a good article on games. --W.marsh 14:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that the rules of a game cannot be copyrighted (this comes from a legal dispute I had when I was an undergraduate that involved consultation with real lawyers, but I'm not actually a lawyer myself), so I think we at a minimum should find out the real story on this before assuming that we can't do something for fear of copyright violation. Supposing that we're in the clear, factual accounts of rules are not how-to or advice material and so I don't think they run afoul of WP:NOT. The rules of games are very important to understanding what they are, which ultimately I think is the purpose of an encyclopedia. — brighterorange (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am intrigued by the way this section raises all of these Wittgensteinian issues. It is nigh impossible to describe any game without some mention of how it is played, and an originally worded description of any game playable with a standard deck of playing cards raises no copyright issues: copyright inheres in expressions, not underlying ideas. Moreover, since the only difference betwen Go Fish and Texas hold'em are the rules applied to identical cards, describing those games requires describing the rules. The "instruction manual" business might apply to things like bridge column style critiques of play, or how to improve your chess game; but even here the line is murky. Hard to imagine discussing the King's Gambit or Grob's Attack without discussing traps and pitfalls of playing them. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Copyright issues are not my main concern at all wrt the rules discussion, but something like this[5] was clearly a copyvio, so it can happen. Fram 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How is this as an alternate wording?
    # Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s, unless they are neccesary to comprehend the article's subject. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at our sister project Wikibooks.
    -Toptomcat 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If I'm comparing the versions correctly, the you've only added the clause , unless they are neccesary to comprehend the article's subject. Is that correct?
      If so, I think it's unnecessary. Rossami (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It may be better to distinguish between adding all rules, and giving a short rules summary (just like we only have a short plot summary, and not the complete script or book). Otherwise, the rules can become quite long (see e.g. Killer (card game), Kings (drinking game), President (game), or Egyptian Ratscrew). It seems obvious to me that we can't keep such extended rules sections, but it is equally obvious (now) that most people think we should have at least some description of the rules. Is anyone willing to try e.g. President (game) as a testcase? Reducing it to what seems an acceptable level? Or removing the rules all together since everyone seems to have his own rules anyway? Fram 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Recipes

"Recipes" are listed as examples of "instruction manuals" that are to be prohibited according to the "indiscriminate collection of information" principle. This is too coarse a directive. Should the recipe for simple syrup be deleted, for example? The classic martini? An overview of the regional variations of chai? These all have historical and encyclopedic value. Certainly we don't wikipedia to become a database of arbitrary, personal recipes like Uncle Bob's Blue Ribbon Texas Horse Lung Pie, but it doesn't follow that every possible "collection of instructions" is necessarily indiscriminate or subjective.

In the spirit of developing a more fine-tuned policy, let me propose that recipes are appropriate for inclusion in wikipeida when they:

  • Possess historical or cultural significance (e.g. the classic martini)
  • Serve to present a POV-neutral overview of a topic (e.g. popular or regional variations of the martini)

These are a start.. any suggestions? --Tlane 00:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that we can agree that no recipe can ever be the sole content of the article. As you say, there must be historical or cultural significance before we even accept an article on the food. But recipes still don't belong here because they have a nasty tendency to proliferate - every editor wants to change the recipe to his/her favorite variation, or worse, endlessly add variations to the encyclopedia article. On the other hand, any recipe is acceptable at Wikibooks, specifically, in their cookbook section. All recipes should be transwiki'd to Wikibooks. Then, if you have a notable food product (like the classic martini), simply add a cross-wiki link to the appropriate Wikibooks page. That way, readers can see not only the traditional recipe but also all the variations that Wikibooks covers. Wikibooks is better structured to handle that kind of content. Rossami (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_9&oldid=1087032414"