Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 13

Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Live events

A discussion I think relevant to WP:NOT occured in Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Editing_live_events. My synopsis is that at least one editor thinks it proper to "live update" an article on a major sporting event while the event is occuring and (so far) most others disagree. There seems to not be an explicit guideline; WP:NOT seems closest but the one editor is resistant to that interpretation. I'm not sure it's important enough to take on - I doubt there's much effect on the final article - but I thought I'd mention it. Studerby 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone added a link to a personal essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper in WP:NOT#IINFO, incorrectly implying that the essay is an officially sanctioned position of WP:NOT. Without commenting one way or another on the essay itself, it is premature to link a brand new personal essay from the WP:NOT policy page. My advice is ask people for feedback on the essay to build consensus for it, then if it appears to have strong enough consensus advocate it becoming a guideline and/or a subpage of this policy. Dugwiki 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary Historical Data

I wish to explore further the notion of Wikipedia as historical data. Should Wikipedia be considered a historical database? What kind of knowledge is Wikipedia to cover and what knowledge should it not? If a topic has been chosen as valid to create an article, what criteria of said topic is not to be put into the article? Is it enough that the information is historical in nature, meaning it does is not concern current events, products, books, people, etc, to validate its inclusion in a Wikipedia article?

If not, what other definitions must be applied for the information to be able to be included within an article?

If so, is that the only criteria or are there other exceptions to case?

--Dharh 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

By the encyclopedia's very nature, this sort of thing is bound to happen over time inside nearly every article. I add an entry, and cite a reliable source that happens to be web based. Ten years later, the reliable source is gone, but the Wikipedia article remains. This is one reason why print sources are preferred over online ones. -- MisterHand 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Since I brought this up, I'd like to clarify things here. By "primary historical data", I don't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't record historical data and facts, but that Wikipedia should not be the primary source of such facts. When a web-based source disappears, the correct thing to do is wait to see if the website comes back, then, if you can't find a replacement source, use HTML comments tags to hide the source (don't remove it completely, as the details can help others find new sources). If a new source is found, great. If not, then there may be a notability problem. In general, if something is notable enough, a record of it will survive in primary or secondary records somewhere. If not, then Wikipedia can't do anything more than speculate that once upon a time, this website said this. You can try using internet archive sites, but the trail can get more and more tenuous. There is great potential for wikis to be used to record historical data, such as prices of computer games over several years, but that should be done on another wiki, not Wikipedia. Carcharoth 11:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
And to reply directly to Dharh's question, only add stuff if you can find a source. For a price, just looking at the price in the shops is not enough. You have to link to a souce that confirms what the price is. And where. And when. eg. £34 in the UK in June 2007. But then it tends to look like overspecific trivia, so a range is better "Product X was sold for £30-40 by JoeBloggs Company, was marketed for ten years from 1997-2007 and then withdrawn from the market". The trouble there, though, is that you have to credit all that to a single source. If you credit the "£30-40" bit to one source, the "1997-2007" bit to another source, and the "withdrawn from the market" to another source, then you are verging on original research. I don't think it quite qualifies as original reserch, but it would be close. Carcharoth 11:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose another heading

I think we should assert that WP is not a religious tract or a recruiting tool for any particular religious sect or set of beliefs. This seems to be violated frequently at articles related to evolution and creationism, and it would be nice to be able to point to a rule here to that effect.--Filll 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:SOAP already encompasses that. -- MisterHand 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I expanded it slightly to make it more explicit, with a shortcut: WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. Dhaluza 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball...

Tell that to Nancy Benoit 71.124.116.230 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the proper link there might be WP:NOR. --tjstrf talk 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewording the plot summary section

I propose a slight change to the section dealing with plot summaries on Wikipedia:

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

The impetus for this is the recent spate of "Plot of..." articles being put up for AfD. When keep voters are told that the site does not allow plot summaries, a number of these keep users either say that the (very large) article is supporting the main article about the work or that all articles on works of fiction should be deleted since they all contain plot summaries. These additions should make it a bit more clear what kinds of plot summaries (and within what context) are acceptable on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. This will complement User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction) well. Perhaps we should extent it to "gameplay information", which is different from gameguide information; "gameguide" explains how to beat the game or provides tips, while "gameplay" info merely describes the gameplay without venturing into that guide territory. Nevertheless, articles shouldn't be solely explanations of gameplay as well. — Deckiller 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know about "solely a detailed summary"; it might give the impression that a brief plot summary warrents its own article, which is questionable. — Deckiller 14:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article to clarify that point? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, although a couple users might oppose. — Deckiller 17:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'm wondering. Is there anybody else who has any ideas or objections to these changes? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess not. It's nothing to advertise across Wikipedia about; might as well implement it and see if anyone reverts. — Deckiller 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I really hate to be the one to object, but the point of saying "topic" and not "per article" helps us avoid people saying that WP:NOT#PLOT is disputed. It's saying the same thing, with using wording that leaves just enough gray area for special cases, but not enough to actually abuse. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS

I don't know whether this has been discussed before, but I think this section of the policy needs to be revisited. While its intention of removing pages about details of everyday news is correct, many people are indeed notable for one event. Maybe there should be some guidelines about the length of time the incident is mentioned in the media, about the notability of the event, or some other criteria. There are often pages at AFD up for deletion or a merge that appeal to this principle, but I don't think a consensus has really been reached about its boundaries. Recurring dreams 23:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS (here the "not" stands for notability). I don't have a definable opinion on the issue, but I do place extreme violations that fail the "ten-year test" of notability on the deletion stack. Shalom Hello 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If anyone wants to write about every breaking news story right as they first appear, I imagine Wikinews is the place for them. On the other hand, we can wait to write an encyclopedia article until it's clearly established that the event really is of lasting and historic significance. If that means we wait a day, a week, a year, whatever, then we wait! If it means it turns out no encyclopedia article is ever warranted, that's fine too, it's still archived on Wikinews. Our scope is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and articles outside that scope can and should be deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
What about 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack and 2007 London car bombs. Doesn't the same argument apply there? That those articles should be Wikinews articles instead, and that Wikipedia should wait a certain length of time before producing an encyclopedia article? Carcharoth 07:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to briefly counter something Shalom said above, there is no "ten year test" for notability. That is something that some editors unofficially use but which has no demonstrated consensus and isn't part of WP:N. Moreover I doubt that such a test could reach consensus if someone attempted to add it to WP:N. So I'd highly recommend not using the ten year test when looking at whether something is notable. Dugwiki 14:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought I saw it somewhere, maybe on an old version of the page. I try to work within policy, but sometimes it helps just to use ideas such as WP:HOLE (which is an essay) as a starting point for consideration. Shalom Hello 17:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the ten year test was something that was discussed once as a change to WP:N, but it never got anywhere. The topic still does come up occasionally though so maybe that's where you've seen it. Dugwiki 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture trivia

Can we emphasize or add a bullet point to the "indiscriminate collection" section for "collections of loosely-related trivia"? Then include a link to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. — Omegatron 02:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the fuss about linking to a guideline earlier this week, that does not strike me as a good change. --tjstrf talk 03:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm? Why? Who would be opposed to this? — Omegatron 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to it for starters. The avoid trivia sections is mainly a style guideline that advocates integrating trivia sections into the text of the rest of the article. While that's probably a good idea it doesn't speak to articles that as a whole might be considered to be trivial, nor does the guideline talk about not having trivia. In addition the trivia guideline doesn't, in my opinion, have the same level of consensus as most of the rest of WP:NOT, as demonstrated by the amount of back and forth disputes over what is and isn't trivia and when it is or isn't appropriate.
Therefore while I'm ok with Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections as a guideline or style guideline, it shouldn't be incorporated into policy in WP:NOT. Dugwiki 17:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tabloid

I am working on an article which is a bio of a living person and about 50% of the information in the article is garnered from one single tabloid source. This policy does not make any statement about tabloids such as “Wikipedia is not a tabloid.“. If it does, please correct me. The WP:Biographies of living persons policy states that “Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets”, emphasis on avoid. Other editors have been trying to get this article revised and/or deleted but can not because of these two weak policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Period. Do you think other encyclopedias like Britannica, Encarta, etc allow their writers/editors to utilize information found in tabloids? Your weak policy is hurting Wikipedia and as long as articles like Margita Bangová which almost completely rely on tabloids like the Toronto Sun are allowed to withstand the editorial and deletion process because of your weak policy, then Wikipedia will never be a true encyclopedia. I urge you all to revisit this issue and take a stronger position. Not even my daughter’s first grade teacher would have allowed her to use a tabloid in any of her projects. Why can’t Wikipedia, which proclaims to be an encyclopedia, have the same standards for our educated, adult editors?--Chicaneo 16:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the proper forum for contesting AfD results, and once an article has passed AfD as keep it's not permissable to speedy-delete it. I notice, however, that the previous AfD set itself up for automatic failure from the beginning by making empty allegations of racism, which spurred quite a few reflexive keeps based on the nominator being a sockpuppet who gave no actual rationale for deletion, rather than considering the article content. So in this case, creating another AfD page which gave an actual rationale for deletion might make sense. --tjstrf talk 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I know how to contest AfD results - - it's all spelled out on the AfD pages. That's another matter entirely. In bringing this issue here, I was hoping to see a discussion of Wikipedia's low standards not skirting our responsibilities to living persons and thus, the real issue. --Chicaneo 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
For a wider discussion like this I would bring it to the Village Pump. JoeSmack Talk 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy on plot summaries: Aux armes! Aux armes!

From section titled ;;;"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information":

2. Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article.

In a current deletion discussion, here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables the main argument, from me and others, is that Wikipedia's rule (on plot summaries not becoming a separate article) either (a) should not apply to Les Miserables, a huge (1,200-1,300 pages) classic, or perhaps (b) should not apply to other lengthy classics (there are a good number of really, really long ones with intricate plots). Some other possible options, I suppose would be that it (c) shouldn't apply to any classic or (d) maybe shouldn't even be a rule at all.

Nothing has been said in that discussion about why we have such a rule in Wikipedia. I'm hoping some editors here (very likely supporters of the rule and very likely opposed to my position) could participate in that deletion discussion and perhaps give us some reasoning about why the rule exists and what good it does and why it should or should not apply to the plot of Les Mis. Keep in mind that, probably at the end of that discussion I and some other editors may start a discussion here about changing the rule in some way. Noroton 21:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

An article about the plot of a classic is fine if it contains analysis, reception/criticism, etc. It's possible to create an encyclopedic article on the plot of a work; it just requires a ton of research (and is thus only possible for more notable works, such as the classics you mention).
Either way, someone who lives a long life may be notable, but we don't write every detail about such a life. The same applies for plot summaries. And if we write a few subarticles about a really notable person, it's becase we have primary and secondary sources to back it up. As a tertiary source (encyclopedia), we cover things featured in both primary and secondary sources (by using and citing those sources). Fortunately, because we are not paper, we can cover more topics (and many times in more depth) than others, but we are nevertheless still an encyclopedia. — Deckiller 21:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
In essense, if you can provide links to secondary sources analyzing or reviewing the plot of this novel, that's information that can be added to the article. And when that info is added, the article will adhere to WP:NOT, and there will be no issue. Some good helping guidelines are WP:N, WP:WAF, and my rewrite of WP:FICT at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction). — Deckiller 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to keep this lengthy post rolling, but I also see numerous sources in the references section. Try going through those to find real-world context, like the author's influence or inspiration, plot analysis, etc. Then, you can google book reviews and add a section on praise and criticism related to the plot. — Deckiller 22:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If, after doing all this, you don't find enough real-world information to sufficiently complement the summary, a merge would be appropriate. — Deckiller 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, while I'm not against jiggering the policy about plot summaries, I still don't favor that particular article. Here are my thoughts:
  • Separate articles: Separate articles for plot summaries are acceptable only if multiple articles reference that plot summary (I defended the Dragonlance_timeline article on these grounds) where it makes no sense to incorporate the summary into each separate article. Otherwise, however, the plot summary should be integrated into the main article.
  • Length: Here, my feeling is that the length of plot summary that is appropriate is related to the amount of critical disussion about that material. I don't have a hard and fast percentage in mind, but a proportional relationship is what I favor. 3 paragraphs of summary and nothing else is probably too much. But 3 paragraphs of summary along with 5 paragraphs of critical analysis would be okay with me.
But even if policy was changed to my more plot summary friendly ideas, that Les Mis article still wouldn't meet my criteria. -Chunky Rice 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That basically sounds like the current version, except with an exception (referenced in multiple articles). Critical analysis and reception in an article about the plot satisfied WP:NOT. In the case of the Les article, though, there's probably enough real-world information to justify a separate article (the key is to locate the sources to prove it, and then to add the content to the article). My opinion of the separate articles issue is mixed, because there are always exceptions and complexities. I think the proposed wording change below is a fair compromise, since it allows compelling arguments to prevail in certain scenerios. — Deckiller 23:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The part where I feel that they don't line up is that the WP:NOT policy specifies that the summary be "brief," making no allowances for the material or the discussion. I'd be more in favor of language along the lines of "proportionate" or something like that. -Chunky Rice 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps something like "concise and proportionate to the amount of available real-world information"? That would be perfect. — Deckiller 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I like it. Concise is a good word to use because it doesn't mean short, really. It just means not verbose. -Chunky Rice 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, this was actually the central idea behind the criterion. Articles dealing with plot and characters and whatnot are perfectly fine if there is sufficient real-world information included in the article (basically the fictional subarticle version of notability). You might be interested in User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction) (being discussed at WT:FICT). — Deckiller 23:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Deckiller has convinced me that we should have sourcing in each plot article, that each one should justify its notability, especially through multiple, reliable sources, and that plot summaries should not stand alone (although I wonder in cases like Les Mis when a plot summary should be huge). I created "Suggestion 2" below, and on several points I disagree with what's been said just above, but I'll address that in the "Suggestion 2" subsectin. Noroton 18:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd suggest simply adding the phrase "in most cases" to the policy, so that the sentence quoted above would read:

"A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but, in most cases, not as a separate article."

How about it? Then you would not have an absolute prohibition.--Mantanmoreland 22:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That might be fair enough; it allows for compelling arguments to prevail in certain scenerios, because there are always a few exceptions to the rule. I can detail exception scenerios in my WP:FICT rewrite. Nevertheless, I still think these exceptions are few and far between, since this plot article has clear potential to be turned into an encyclopedic one (based on the sheer amount of sources). — Deckiller 23:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I see very very few exceptions. Assuming the Le Miserables plot article survives, it will be contradicting this policy unless modified.--Mantanmoreland 23:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. The Le Miserables article has clear potential for real-world context and/or sourced analysis (plenty of available sources), so it can definitely satisfy the criteria with a bit of work. If a reasonable time period is given, I think it's fair to keep it for now and see what can be done. I just wish more users would split off articles only after they already have an encyclopedic coverage (to avoid these situations). The WP:FICT rewrite will put emphasis on only splitting off articles when an encyclopedic coverage causes the main article to become too long. — Deckiller 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Amusing how closely this follows my argument/thought experiment regarding Plot summary of War and Peace. Well, this should be interesting, I doubt we could find of a more perfect test case to make or break the (proposed) guideline. --tjstrf talk 23:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that there is any reason to have detailed plot summaries of every episode of a typical sitcom or cartoon. But the day after the Les Mis AFD, there was an AFD for the plot summaries of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." This series had a season-long plot arc in each of its seven seasons which was not apparent from the capsule summaries of the individual episodes. There have in fact been Buffy Studies which are scholarly analyses of the series, its themes, and their implications in the real world. If there were no article with the seasonal plot-arcs, then the main article on the series could well have merged to it the plot arcs, since there are reliable and independent sources to serve as references. This notability policy needs amendment to allow plot summaries in some cases.Mantanmoreland's sounds like an improvement on the existing language. Edison 05:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think its a good preliminary change that will give flexibility without having to get a major community upheaval about it--it would in any case be better to have that change in wording than to have people go around saying IAR--IAR can be used as an argument for anything at al in either direction, and is best kept in reserve as much as possible.

I note, though, that this wont settle the argument about the article. I dont want to reargue it now here. One place at a time is enough. DGG (talk)

It also leave all the guidance for WP:FICT (perhapd the revised version being implemented) and WP:WAF, guidelines that paint the picture WP:NOT#PLOT lays out. — Deckiller 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is in response to Deckiller's statement that plot summaries are OK as long as there is real world analysis in. I disagree completely. Most subjects have a plot summary section in the main article, which gives a summary of the plot. WP:FICT says plot summaries should "describe the works, not simply to summarize them." The real world analysis should be in the main article, along with these summaries. I dont think a chapter-by-chapter or episode-by-episode recap of a piece is summarizing it Corpx 07:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's not quite what I said. For a fiction topic to be notable enough for an article, there needs to be substantial real-world content, such as legacy, reception, development, and/or sourced analysis (which is rare). The idea is that when users add this info to a plot subarticle, they'll realize that it's all stuff that can be placed on the main article in the first place, since most fiction is about the plot; having a subarticle (especially one that goes through a chapter-by-chapter summary) would be redundant with a perfectly fine main article. I was hoping people would realize this themselves as they worked on the articles, but it looks like I had to show my position for Corpx. Please read my rewrite of WP:FICT at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction), which is actually more strict than the current WP:FICT. (Also, it should be noted that I was the one who made the changes to WP:NOT#PLOT the other day based on an above conversation). — Deckiller 07:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - adding "in most cases" will have no effect beyond turning AFDs into popularity contests dressed up in "this book/film/video game is clearly important enough to be one of those cases" clothing. The existing policy already allows for plot summary articles that are "important" because "important" plots will have the sort of secondary sourcing that current policy requires. Otto4711 16:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree.Noroton 18:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
That is the ideal situation; hopefully, everyone will agree so that we don't have to compromise, because I'm still iffy about opening up an exception mill. — Deckiller 19:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

Allow articles that are substantially or mostly plot summaries as long as they have some regular, encyclopedic treatment of the plot in the article.

Current language (italics added to last sentence):

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article.

Replace the last sentence above with:

"A plot summary may be appropriate as a large part of a separate article about the plot of a fictional work if normal Wikipedia notability standards are met: multiple, reliable, independent sources that give substantial treatment to the subject (the plot must receive substantial treatment, not just the work as a whole). If the plot summary can fit into the main article about the fictional work, no separate article should be created."

I'm becoming convinced by Deckiller's points made throughout this discussion and Otto4711 (at 16:00, 7 July in the "Suggestion" subsection).

Some points to consider
  1. It's an easy way of avoiding endless arguments about what's worth putting in the encyclopedia and what shouldn't be in. If multiple, independent, reliable sources can't be found for Plot of the Dukes of Hazzard Episode 9 then no go.
  2. It fits pretty smoothly with rules and guidelines for other Wikipedia articles. It's easy to understand.
  3. It will encourage more encyclopedic treatment of plots and it demands at least a certain level of that kind of treatment (in the same way we do for other subjects).
  4. Classics that have received attention from scholars, critics and others for years will be saved from deletion debates like the one over Plot of Les Miserables.
  5. Other works that have received attention for their plots will also get articles. Where critics and scholars have written substantially about the plots of Harry Potter books or Buffy episodes or other works of popular fiction, we will inevitably get plot articles. But we'll get them with a degree of encyclopedic treatment.
  6. There is no definition of "substantial treatment" in Wikipedia and this proposed language reflects that. Some things just have to be argued about on a case-by-case basis.
  7. This proposal doesn't offer any guidelines as to how much of an article should be plot summary and how much should be sourced analysis of plot. We need to respect the fact that articles should differ depending on the subject, and articles will differ depending on the editors.
Technical points to consider
(A) Should we just change the "plots" section here or do we also need to put this policy on some other page?
(B) Any suggestions about tweaking the language?

If the Les Mis plot article survives the deletion discussion, I'd be open to another nomination in six months if nothing is added to it and I'd vote to delete at that point. Noroton 17:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC) (minor edits Noroton 18:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

Discussion

  • I disagree. Plot summaries should "summarize" the work, not "describe" them. I dont a seperate article would ever be summarzing the work, regardless of the attention it receives from sources. You can find a lot of news articles on the happenings on Lost, but I dont think we should go episode by episode describing what happened on that show. Corpx 18:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Deckiller makes the point above (in the first part of this section, above the "Suggestion" subsections) that if we have regular Wikipedia sourcing, we may not even need a policy change because the new plot article would not be simply a plot summary. Here is what Deckiller wrote:
In essense, if you can provide links to secondary sources analyzing or reviewing the plot of this novel, that's information that can be added to the article. And when that info is added, the article will adhere to WP:NOT, and there will be no issue. Some good helping guidelines are WP:N, WP:WAF, and my rewrite of WP:FICT at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction). — Deckiller 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think my proposal (a) makes explicit what was implicit and avoids confusion; (b) allows for substantial plot sections whether or not they overwhelm other sections of the plot article; those other sections howerver, would establish notability for an article concentrating on plot.Noroton 18:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Deckkiller later expands that to say "they'll realize that it's all stuff that can be placed on the main article in the first place, since most fiction is about the plot". You can say that secondary sources are reviewing or analyzing the plot, but I think that's pretty much the same as analyzing the book itself. Any article "reviewing" a tv show could just as easily be construed as reviewing its plot, warranting a page for plot summaries. Corpx 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You're arguing too hard here. I've already said that if everything can fit in the main article, then put it there. Separate plot articles are for those plots where the synopsis or the analysis of the plot itself is too big for the main article. My main difference with Deckiller's position is that he doesn't want plot summaries to be too long even in plot articles, and I don't think that should matter. If sources can't be found that analyze the plot specifically, delete the plot article. Noroton 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
No, most movie or book reviews don't analyze the plot in a substantial way, but that's got to be taken on a case by case basis. A book about a work of fiction would probably have enough in it to cover a plot. A scholarly article might, too. Noroton 22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of the really bad plot exposition articles, which probably engendered the prohibition here, are the overly detailed scene by scene, shot by shot writings of dedicated fans about shows which other editors consider fluff. The language should be such that if a fan of a show watches it and writes a plot summary as detailed as the ones on www.televisionwithoutpity.com there is a clear basis for removing it as original research and as a violation of something in WP:NOT . Where there has been independent substantial coverage of the plot in reliable sources, it adds importantly to the coverage of the work, and can be ideally included in the main article about the show, and only stay as a separate article if its inclusion would make the main article too long. Few fictional works will have so many sources with so much encyclopedic content that the length with plot summary would exceed some standard for the maximum length of a good article. We will inevitably have disagreement about whether a review is about the show or about its plot, and it is rare for a review (which usually avoids "spoilage") to include enough detail about the plot and especially its ending to serve as the basis of an encyclopedic plot synopsis. Per all the recent discussion, Wikipedia can and should include "spoilers." Sometimes the TV show/play/novel/movie itself will be the only reliable source which includes the details of the shocking finale. Rarely, as in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer there will be books which include complete scripts and discussion of all the events of a series. Sometimes, for TV shows, the boxed DVD set has been used as a reliable source for episode or season plot summaries. Can a work serve as its own reference without the synopsizing being original research? Can actual "Cliffnotes" be a reliable reference? Edison 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In the language of my proposal, I specify "independent" -- that is, independent of the makers/authors of the work. You'd have to find at least two other sources. I think the work itself has to be an original resource in most synopses. That's the way it works in all synopsis sections that I've seen. I see no reason why Cliff Notes or any of its competitors should not be a source. They seem to be reliable. (I even think they can establish notability.) I see no point in footnoting them in the article for plot developments that we should be getting directly from the book itself, unless there's a dispute between Wikipedia editors on some point. Then a Cliff Notes would be helpful in settling it. Noroton 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Independent substanical sources about (plot of) TV shows can also be found. It seems like every hit show has books/articles about it which analyze it and what not. I put in some random shows on amazon and came up with LOST, CSI Miami, Desperate Housewives. I really dont see a difference in a person watching a show and documenting it and a person reading a book and documenting it. A plot of a TV show should also receive extensive plot summary because of the independent works that cover it. Corpx 21:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
If multiple, reliable, independent sources can be found for any subject in Wikipedia, that subject is generally allowed an article. I can accept that for CSI Miami if, in fact, the sources have substantial information on the plot of each individual episode. Noroton 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Corpx, I followed the links to the CSI and Desperate Housewives books and, glancing over them, I didn't see a single one that focuses on the TV series plot. Most of them are novels based on the shows -- they wouldn't be sources for anything to do with the original plots. The links you provided prove nothing. Noroton 22:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked at some of the Simpsons episodes articles and I didn't see multiple, independent, reliable sources. A web site where volunteers contribute information is not reliable under standards Wikipedia already uses. Noroton 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Evolution Levels

In Pokemon articles, is putting the level at which they evolve in violation of the Wikipedia is not a Guidebook rule? - ~VNinja~ 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • My understanding is that the guidebook thing is only referring to the whole article in question. Inserting trivial details should not be a problem unless the whole article could be construed as a guidebook. Corpx 17:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Er, and you don't want trivial details. Keep the encyclopedia encyclopedic please. Also, this maybe a better question for the article's talk page. JoeSmack Talk 18:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is Not Censored then...

Could someone please explain this and its potential to be overused? I thought Wikipedia was truly uncensored and free of disclaimers warning readers that an image may be potentially shocking, harmful to your health, psychologically damaging... whatever. Take your pick. We have this list to advise and bring to light the images that we feel may actually cross a certain decency border, but I see the template above as one of those IAR-projects taken out of control. For example, how can gangrene be free of this Linkimage nonsense, but a revert war beginning in acral necrosis and maggot therapy over the same thing. Sorry if I sound frustrated; honestly, I'm not sure if I'm in the right place to be discussing it. Linkimage has already been put up for deletion twice and saved, but since I don't see any guidelines or policy guiding it, its just a "Wild West" template thats being flung in front of picture after picture around Wikipedia. Somebody please help me. -- VegitaU 03:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Then if you feel the use of the template not appropriate for an article, then bring it up on the talk page of the article. Everything has a potential to be overused and it takes editors, such as us, to determine what is consider acceptable and not acceptable use for this template. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Note 3

Note 3 in the main article says "Also telling the reader how something is used is encyclopedic, telling how to use something is not. " Does this imply that telling how something is done is OK, but telling how to do it is not? And telling how something is played is OK, but how to play it is not? (Of course, the distinctions may be subtle.) Bubba73 (talk), 14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am just throwing an idea out there for others to consider as I am noticing a disturbing trend as of late. Anyway, the large number of "in popular culture" articles that have been created and the tremendous number of people who have worked on them suggest that a LOT of Wikipedians see value in these articles. I am afraid that by deleting articles that those who do npt like could just ignore, but that hundreds (thousands?) of editors find worthwhile, but who might be unaware of Articles for Deletion (AfDs) will wind up just mass alienating editors. I am mostly focusing on some first sentence improvements in articles for now, but I just wanted to offer that idea for anyone to discuss here as strongly believe that a lot of hard work and interesting material is being destroyed that obviously would not exist in the first place if a good deal of contributors did not think it belonged. Also, I think in general every editor could benefit from reading User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy and User:Rfwoolf#Constructive_Criticism_on_current_Wiki_Deletion_Policy for some additional insights. So that is my two cents. Have a nice night! It's time for headlines (Tonight Show watchers will understand!) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My view on this: unless it's a good description (and not a trivial list: which is what many of them are), it shouldn't be here. Many of the pop culture lists: are moved sections from the main article (due to it growing too big). The fact of the matter is: people could've condensed the section, instead of moving it to an article on it's own where it grows to a massive crufty trivial list. People work hard on things: but that doesn't always justify the article should remain forever. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines: that should be followed and not ignored. Furthermore: Wikipedia is a useful encyclopedia, not a place for fancruft and trivia to run wild. These trivial lists don't help understand how the subject is a part of pop culture in general. These lists are just a list of any and all mentions or references that some show, book, movie and so on has had. People may get alienated and think it's wrong to delete these listcruft trivia articles, but frankly Wikipedia isn't a place for everything. More people need to actually read the policies, before creating these listcruft articles (and many other articles, in general). A group of editors could like anything on any subject: that doesn't make it right for it to remain here. Deletion debates are there for a reason, same goes for policies and guidelines. Wikipedia shouldn't be an anarchy with no rules, and no deletions. RobJ1981 04:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I found something on another website regarding Wikipedia that I thought to be pretty well put. See[1] for another interesting argument. Anyway, I think the above writers further demonstrates why we should not squander our great opportunity to record as much human knowledge as possible. Really, only copywright violations and hoaxes should be axed. Just about everything else can somehow be improved/clean up eventually. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your fundamental assertion here. While we should always encourage new editors to stay, we shouldn't encourage them to add inappropriate material. The kinds of trivial references that these articles accumulate send the message that this content is appropriate. If they never existed in the first place, people would perhaps focus their energy on contributions appropriate to Wikipedia's mission. Yes, seeing an article you've worked on get deleted can be sad. But it's a self-propagating cycle.
Oh, speaking of copyright violations, that's precisely what the slashdot post you copied above is.--Eyrian 15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear, Eyrian. So far there have been no reasonable arguments that utilize policy and/or guideline for keeping such articles. There are a handful of ...in popular culture articles that are relevant enough, properly sourced, and do not violate WP:NOT#DIR; one of these is Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which is a featured list. Articles of these caliber are difficult to find and then maintain, however, since there is a lack of third party references that demonstrate the subject matter's effect on media/culture/etc. 99% of these ...in popular culture articles are glorified trivia sections that people did not want cluttering up the main article, so they mistakenly thought it could carry its own article. In short, it's unencyclopedic, and that is why they are being deleted. María (críticame) 15:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not convinced, because the large number of those articles show that a good segment of the Wikipedia community believes that this information is indeed approrpriate. Also, a block quotation in quotation marks with a reference is not a copywright violation, although I think the link instead works fine too, so I'll adjust that. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by good segment? I don't think that's been established. I see a lot of onetime-contributer IPs. I also see a lot of people arguing against their existence. However, let's step away from that question; fundamentally that's what centralized discussion (like this) is for; giving everyone a fair chance to discuss, rather than vague, unscientific declarations about what the community wants based on a few edit histories.
Your comment about copyright is wrong. Simply quoting something doesn't make it not a copyright violation. You took the entirety of a copyrighted Slashdot post and copied it somewhere else. That is copyright infringement, and it is unlikely that any sort of fair use/fair dealing would apply here. --Eyrian 15:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
A lot of people also believe in the Easter Bunny. I'm willing to bet that a great amount of people are just not familiar with Wikipedia policy and guideline, and so WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT are what most "keep" votes boil down to on these ...in popular culture AFDs, both of which are discouraged. María (críticame) 15:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What irks me most about this entire business is that the whole business of forking out "popular culture" and "trivia" sections is used as a substitute for editing, and clutters up AfD with needless and acrimonious bickering. This is what talk pages are for, and if it's felt that trivial lists are cluttering up an article, move them to talk, link them, and invite the people who added them to rework them into more appropriate fashions. This bothers me especially in articles about mythological or folklore subjects, or articles that have dimensions that touch on these matters. Because, frankly, an article on minotaurs or the Knights Templar is sadly incomplete without some kind of indication about how these topics are treated in later fiction.

The process, moreover, has been misused for dubious purposes that rebut the presumption of good faith. For example, the fans of Richard Dawkins have steadfastly refused to allow his article in chief to even mention the fact that he was a central character in the South Park episode "Go God Go", because they think the episode was demeaning. A typical fork of a section mentioning the episode was deleted with the usual nonsense.

As I've said before, the notion that it is an inadequate defense of a list, that it is "useful" is so wooden-headed that it boggles the mind. Likewise, we should still be interested in recruiting people who write about subjects that they are well informed about because they like them. The "guideline" on "indiscriminate" information is vague, ultimately unenforceable, and makes no sense without reference to cultural expectations about what belongs in an encyclopedia, an argument that the deletionists' favourite essay also seeks to belittle. An encyclopedia is a collection of indiscriminate information, traditionally organized alphabetically, a reference advantage we lack. (The Random Dictionary of the English Language - the first dictionary to break free from the tyranny of alphabetical order.) Lists are one way to supply this deficiency. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with these lists is that they serve as no aid whatsoever in constructing the kind of cited cultural impact section that we all desire. Looking around for some esoteric citation about the appearance of a minotaur in some video game will only distract you from the purpose of finding serious social commentary. These lists are not useful, not even as a starting point. I've never seen one of these lists improve after getting archived. Rarely, after an AfD has been stymied, a reference or two will be added a top paragraph. But the trivial parts will usually remain. --Eyrian 19:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Smerdis of Tlön's post is so well-put and intelligent (by far the most persuasive post I've read yet in this discussion that I have added this user to my list of favorite Wikipedians at User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Favorite_fellow_Wikipedians. Now, back to America's Got Talent ... --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am one of the editors who will attempt to merge trivia sections into an article when I come across it. However, I wouldn't list a popular culture article in AfD, I'd just try to merge it into the main article. As has been stated before, lists of individual factoids with no rhyme or reason is problematic. One they are generally unsourced, and two, as it is unsourced it is a breeding ground for vandalism. I used to be on vandal patrol and most of the vandalism I spotted occurred in sections without sourcing-- the lead and the trivia sections. My advice is to simply attempt to place this information into the general article and not in these trivia section. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with forking the trivia information out into a separate article? It is useful to someone. And categories can be made to make this stuff easier to find and possibly to use in cultural guides etc.--Filll 19:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Think of it like the lint filter in your dryer.--Filll 19:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Meaning that it should be wiped into the trash whenever you're not feeling lazy, in order to prevent Wikipedia from catching on fire. --Eyrian 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I think WP:TRIVIA pretty much lays out what's wrong with this kind of information. And to answer the question about Hollywood sign, I see several things in the list which could go in the article and several others which are a waste of time and could be deleted with no problem. These lists are just not encyclopedic, and first and foremost this is an encyclopedia, not a convenient user guide for trivia and other factoids. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse Smerdis of Tlön's comment above. The last time I was here there was consensus above to get rid of the term "indiscriminate" forever - what happened to that momentum? From my experience with popular culture arguments about articles that do document the social commentary to assert cultural importance, people argue about completely different aspects of the article and only vote delete because they think that it's some synonym of cruft and can't be maintained even if it is or would be if they weren't getting deleted. It's a trend that spreads itself so you have more newbies jumping on the bandwagon believing as amateur encyclopedists that Wikipedia can't have attributed lists on a coherent topic. The mention of "Wikipedia's mission" is troubling, and a majority at AfD only represents the current popular notion of what ought to happen. I don't like repeating specific arguments that aren't acknowledged anyway so I'll refer any interested editors to for example Fight Club's AfD and DRV. –Pomte 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't support listing these lists at AfD. Nor do I support the mass deletion of the information as some do. But considering the guidelines of style that is a part of this project, it would be best to merge this information into the article instead of just having these random lists. If there wasn't a guideline advising to avoid trivia sections, I would have no problem with them in any form.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Many of these articles are branched off sections of the main article in the first place. Frankly this is the problem: people see a big pop culture section in an article, so they branch it off into the trivia listcruft. The listcruft gets nominated: and either deleted, or people make promises to clean it up (which I've seen only a few cases of actual follow through of clean up). Notable pop culture references should be listed in the main article: and that's it. But the fact of the matter is people notice something on TV, in a movie, book (and so on), so they feel the need to add it to the article. A decent pop culture article is one where it describes the impact the subject has on pop culture. Well written paragraphs on notable things. Not just a cluttered never ending listcruft, which is what many of these are. Frankly people could add cleanup tags on the articles (instead of an AFD tag), but I doubt it would do much. RobJ1981 22:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:TRIVIA says that "it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation — they can just add a new fact to the list." and I agree completely with that statement. Whenever somebody is watching TV and spots the Hollywood Sign on their favorite show, they come here to document the appearance. The problem is that this is not a very verifiable thing. Same goes for movies. Corpx 01:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's just be clear here -- the concept of "...in Popular Culture" articles is not a fundamentally bad one; there are many topics which could (or, indeed, should) have articles about them in "...in Popular Culture". For many things, the discussion of how a topic is treated in the media, and in popular culture is an important and valuable addition to the encyclopedia. I strongly support the creation of good articles on these subjects. If things worked, and people followed guidelines, "...in Popular Culture" sections would be well-sourced discussion of how a subject is portrayed. They would be expanded, and then forked off to their own well-sourced little articles that discuss the subject. All would be well in the Wiki.

However, this is not exactly what happens. Unfortunately, many editors (many new, many anonymous), don't follow our guidelines for trivia, and make "...in Popular Culture" sections a list of things related to the subject; that is, things called the same, things that looks the same, things that kind of act the same, etc. As these lists expand, the main article is improved -- but, the lists remain and fester. Finally, in an effort to improve the article -- and, say, get it up a status level, the entire section is forked off. No merger is attempted, as guidelines enjoin, and no actual article is written. Instead, we get articles which are just massive lists of trivia; which then grow on their own.

They also encourage people to make more of these, and add trivia to other articles. Most people, and especially new editors, learn by imitation -- and the sheer ubiquity of trivia sections, and trivia (...in Popular Culture) articles gives the impression that this is an accepted practice -- and not simply one born out of laziness and a failure to follow guidelines. As such, these types of articles metastasize and grow. New editors think they are helping, by adding to them -- but, only because we allow these to set a bad example. I mean, if I see a list of trivia, and I know some trivia -- why shouldn't I add it? I don't think anyone is at fault here -- this is kind of a natural emergent process of the Wiki. We just have to be dilligent about removing these sections and ensuring that when we edit articles, that we make sure that we follow trivia guidelines. --Haemo 02:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that these pop culture articles, and indeed most pop culture sections, do not actually do anything or add any utility as far as the article is concerned. An article or a section that discusses a particular facet's cultural impact (albeit most likely western focused) would be a fantastic edition to the encyclopedia. The problem is that you have articles or sections that list off instances of this facet appearing in a popular culture medium. This really does nothing and does not carry any useful information. If there are a number of works that carry a strong influence of a particular thing (say, Greco-Roman mythology, then you can place them in a category (Category:Greco-Roman mythology) and write a well-sourced article on the actual cultural impact of said thing. CaveatLectorTalk 03:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Generally, I'd tend to agree. If there's tons of reliable source material out there about something's impact on popular culture as a whole, and the article actually can and does treat that encyclopedically, I've got no problem. On the other hand, most such articles are an "Ooh! Ooh! They mentioned X in this week's Y episode too!", perhaps combined with some original research speculation as to what other works may have been influenced by X, and can't be better than that because significant source material on pop-culture impact simply doesn't exist. Original research + trivia = delete and repeat. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim is frequently repeated that the additions of some of these materials is somehow "original research". This strikes me as specious and sophistical as well. In fact, just about every allusion in these items can in the vast majority of cases be simply and immediately verified. In the vast majority of cases, these items do not propose original theories or seek to advance a point of view. The claim that to merit inclusion, reference must be made, not to a work that contains an allusion, but rather to some other source that first noticed the allusion prior to the editor, strikes me as wiki-lawyering. The idea is to make the contributor who wants to add this sort of material jump through more hoops. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the easily verifiable ones are the ones that are irrelevant. It's only verifiable if there's no content beyond "this mythical creature appears in this comic book", which is an utterly useless statement. The second something like "sympathetically portrayed" or "thematic departure" crops up, it is original research, that is rarely verifiable to a reliable source. If verifiability is a "hoop", then through hoops shall we all jump. --Eyrian 14:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I have at least some slight confidence in the ability of our editors to read. Even if analysis of the sort you mention crosses the line, I would still have no problems with statements such as,

In Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe one of the villains is made to be a member of the Knights Templar, while later literature, such as Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum and Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code treats the Templars more sympathetically. These later works typically suggest that the persecution of the Templars was unjustified, and also that the Templar organization survives today, and guards important secrets.

All of these statements are quite easily verified by recourse to the sources in question. There isn't enough POV here to claim that some contested theory is being advanced. Still, there's enough analysis there to make it appropriate in tone and style. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What you are talking about it having editors interpret the works themselves, and then incorporate the results into an article. Things like "sympathetic treatment" are very much analytical decisions, and subject to interpretation. You are talking about original research. That is simply unacceptable. Whether you have no problems with it doesn't matter, it's against the core philosophy of Wikipedia. --Eyrian 15:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It is written:

The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas.

and:

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

* It introduces a new theory or method of solution;

* It introduces original ideas;

* It defines new terms;

* It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;

* It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

* It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

* It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

I think you are reading the term "original research" much, much, much, much too broadly. Nothing in our actual policy prohibits "editors interpret(ing) the works themselves", at least not to the extent that they identify who the characters are and how they function in the story, and what the plots are about. Your definition would prohibit people from noticing that Harry Potter is the protagonist of the Harry Potter books. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There's an enormous gap between noting the protagonist of a series and interpreting portrayal. Again, interpreting a work neatly follows point 6 of the list, namely that it is synthesis of analysis supports the beliefs the editor that adds it (they believe it to be true, since it is their analysis). --Eyrian 15:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, since we're on the topic of articles with "popular culture" sections, one might want to review cruft, an article involving a slang, unencyclopedic term that actually happens to have a "popular culture" section. This article had been nominated for deletion before and if nominated again, I think I would support its deletion. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't imagine it being objectionable as "original research", though, that people are forbidden from noting based on their own observations that the Harry Potter character is given a sympathetic treatment, or that the tales are told from his point of view. It doesn't really require going out on a limb with an original theory, either, to note that the relationships of some other characters such as Severus Snape, are a lot more complicated. The consensus about what to do about these trivia lists — to keep them relevant to the subject at hand, to prevent them from being forked or deleted, and to prevent them from causing endless and disruptive debates on XfD — is to render them more discursive and analytical, less list-y. This requires analysis and interpretation by editors. That analysis and interpretation should not be discouraged, much less discouraged by a policy that as written does not clearly forbid it and whose extension in this manner seems contrary to the underlying spirit of the policy. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No, analysis and interpretation by editors are explicitly forbidden. That's the essence of WP:OR. To give a nice example why, I think that the treatment of Harry Potter is decidedly unsympathetic, particularly in the later books. This is why we cite sources. Culture articles need analytical depth, but that depth needs to come from reliable secondary sources. --Eyrian 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It also magnifies when you start talking about concepts or groups of people rather than specific fictional characters (the Knights Templar, for instance). I am certain that research is out there to write some really good articles on the 'influence' or 'reception' of certain elements, fictional, non-fictional, biographical, or otherwise. I (and I think some of the other editors here) are just tired of seeing bits and pieces of trivia (that Nagini comes from Naga, for instance) composed into giant lists of nearly unnavigable and overall pointless facts. Something like the example I just gave belongs in the Nagini article, NOT in the Naga article and not in an article like Naga in popular culture. If you want to collect specific references or a database of articles covering topics where the Naga played a significantly influential role, create a category. CaveatLectorTalk 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(If you like lots of colons, insert them here.) It seems to me that there are a number of different issues here. One concern is that references considered "trivial" by many editors tend to katamari. I can understand this. (Of course, what's "trivial" is contested. The editors of the Richard Dawkins page consider his major role on South Park "just a cartoon" and negligible trivia, even if the audience of South Park exceeds that for Dawkins's atheist screeds by a factor of at least ten.)

I have somewhat less sympathy or comprehension of the claim that the use of basic literary reading skills constitutes "original research". At minimum, this is something that calls for flexibility and nuance. More leeway should be given in literary and cultural topics than in politics, science, or biography in any case.

A third way needs to be found. Lists of "trivia" can help answer reader questions. I remember being eight years old, and wondering whehter kryptonite was real, and what relationship it had to krypton gas. Being interested in literature, folklore, and mythological subjects, I think that enabling users to find this kind of information is important. While the article on kryptonite specifically links the article on the gas, the article on the gas requires users to go to a disambiguation page to find a link to the fictional element.

Perhaps that's the way to go: create a new sort of page category, similar to but distinct from a disambiguation page, that can contain these sorts of lists and allusions, welcome rather than discourage new additions, sort them, and contain brief explanatory statements that discuss, for example, the lore of naga in World of Warcraft. After all, Wikipedia is still not paper. We obviously have editors eager to add this sort of data. We have others that dislike it. Some compromise should be found. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One could say the very same thing about how-to information. Unfortunately, it's just not an encyclopedic purpose. The problem with Dawkins is the same as everything else; no reliable secondary sources. If one could compile a (carefully done, since he's alive) article about criticism of him and his ideas, with references to such sources, that would be fine. But simply mentioning he appears somewhere (or producing OR analysis) is just trivial. --Eyrian 21:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Eyrian, I just noticed the following: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Eyrian, which may be of interest to you. Anyway, I thought you should be aware of it as I believe that people under discussion should know that they are be discussed. Also, I'm only notifying you here instead of on your talk page, because I figured you would be apt to check for updates on this discussion. Good luck and have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree that inserting your interpretation of a work into an article is original research. I mean, scholars publish papers all the time about their interpretations of pieces of fiction -- this is the element of research. Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for publishing your personal interpretation violates guidelines. --Haemo 05:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The main problem I have here is that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it means crap-all if lots of editor want a certain thing to be included. (For instance, if the majority of editors on wikipedia wanted the evolution article to say that it was a 'myth', would we place that claim into the article?). There are ways to guide users through useful linking information without pages that have piles and piles of loosely associated junk. How would this special disambig page look or be managed? What could the guidelines be? If a section in the Richard Dawkins articles talks about 'portrayal in the media', then this would probably be a good place to mention South Park. However, listing every time a a word out of mythology or science is used in a popular culture medium just isn't manageable OR useful. There has been plenty of scholarship on the reception of things like mythology in modern culture. Writing a SOURCED article that talks about this topic broadly rather than just listing off instances would be the best way to handle this subject. (On a side note, if a child were to look up what you mention, sie would probably go to kryptonite, which should actually mention whether or not the word is associated with the word krypton. The krypton article, however, shouldn't because it's an article on the element, and should be scientific rather than comic-book-ic. CaveatLectorTalk 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Street addresses and phone numbers

What is the policy on this? Should they be included, for example, in info boxes about organisations or not? --ROGER TALK 18:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I think addresses are fine for most cases, but phone numbers would be a violation of "WP is not a resource for conducting business" Corpx 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought. Phone numbers are appearing in school info boxes. To my mind, they make them look like classified ads. --ROGER TALK 18:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think that an article should normally have a link to an organization's official website if one is available. Not only does the website have information relevant to the article, but it also presumably has contact information in case a reader wants to contact them directly.

Now if an organization does NOT have an official website, I think it's a good idea for an article to include some very minimal information on how to contact the organization directly. It could be as simple as providing an email address, phone number or address. This is not for purposes of "conducting business", but rather for providing a means by which editors and readers can contact the organization itself directly if desired for various reason, including possibly gathering references and pursuing additional information for the article.

So while you don't need to include a phone number in most cases, because most companies have their own website, it's possible that a phone number and address is useful for companies that don't have one. Just my opinion. Dugwiki 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What are other's views on this? Should a slightly more specific statement, particularly about phone numbers - go into the policy? --ROGER TALK 12:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists of people

People have been quoting this for deletions of most lists: Wikipedia is not for: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)"

  • How did this sneak in? We have lists of almost all award winners, and lists of people associated with each town, and we have lists of burials in cemeteries? So, how did it get banned, and when was it added? What exactly is a "loose association", and what is its converse, a "tight association"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Among the ways things can be tightly associated is having a common authorship, or location, or origin, or creator, or producer, or subject. They are all important. The most important one that takes effort to organize in an encyclopedia is by subject -- the others can be handled more or less mechanically. Thus, information about what material deals primarily with a particular subject is highly encyclopedic, such as the novels with a particular theme. There are various ways of getting this information--sometimes by direct inspection of the title. One which we ought to consider using is library subject headings, such as Whales--fiction. This is an objective secondary source. DGG (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The term "loosely" is problematic, and if it stays it needs to be defined in a clear manner along with examples. This section is used so often now for justification to delete lists that it is absolutely staggering, and clarity is far past due. The term "loosely" is an adjective, and so begs clarification. Of course we each have general knowledge as to the meaning of "loosely", but without examples our perception of what it constitutes will differ greatly. For this we desperately need consensus, for countless lists governed by WP:LIST have been deleted by voters exploiting this very section. So long as a list makes clear criteria for inclusion and the topic is considered notable enough, I'm not sure "loosely" can ever be included as policy. It seems to be a favorite of deletionists almost exclusively, and thus should raise red flags for some. (Mind meal 10:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC))
I like the vagueness of the wording, in leaving the judgment to be made on a case by case basis. We'd have some endless, unmaintainable lists otherwise Corpx 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, being vague might be acceptable for essays. But this is official policy, and should be explicitly clear. (Mind meal 02:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

Quote farming

At one point, this policy mentioned that Wikipedia is not a quote farm. I would like to see WP:NOT#INFO once again reflect this. Wikiquote would be the appropriate project for such collections. Thoughts? Vassyana 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Its still here - "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Corpx 07:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for something a bit more substantive and broad against quote mining. Vassyana 13:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
'Wikipedia is not a collection of quotations' or 'Wikipedia is not a encyclopedia of quotations' would sound much better if you're looking for a firmer statement of this idea. 'Qutoe farming' sounds a little too subjective for my tastes. CaveatLectorTalk 21:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am rather confused here. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, there are constant rationales by editors who use WP:NOT#LINK as a rationale to delete lists. They have interpreted the language to mean that any list that contains only internal wikilinks should be deleted. Often this is in spite of a lead section that clearly states the criteria for inclusion on that list. Is the intention of this policy to be construed as meaning lists are to be deleted? I find these constant rationales quite troubling, as they seem to contradict Wikipedia:Lists when they assert this is the intended outcome of the guideline. Thanks. (Mind meal 09:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

There's already an exception in the text here for "[structured] lists that assist with the organisation of articles", so I don't see a conflict. Anyone citing this as an argument that a list should be deleted is either asserting that the list provides no useful organisational function or they are wrong about the meaning of this section. The word "structured" (which has recently been deleted) may have served to eliminate lists that would be better as categories rather than articles, i.e. those that add no information beyond the fact that the linked article is an example of the kind of thing the list is talking about. It could probably be phrased better. JulesH 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If there is no conflict, why is the argument constantly being made that lists (just in general) violate WP:Not#Link? The word structured was removed for obvious reasons, as WP:LIST is not WP:STRUCTURED LIST, and the entire article governing lists at WP:List is sufficient in laying down the guidelines for layout. According to WP:List, you need a lead section, references and WP:Verifiability (ie. references) and explicit criteria for inclusion. It says nothing of how categories are superior to lists, nor does WP:Categories, and nor does Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. The arguments constantly assert Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and users then subesquently ignore those pointing out the "except lists" part. Surely you realize this argument is advanced regularly, as I've noticed you voting at many such discussions. The language certainly should be clearer, we agree. (Mind meal 11:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC))
PS - You stated that "i.e. those that add no information beyond the fact that the linked article is an example of the kind of thing the list is talking about. It could probably be phrased better." The problem with this is that WP:Lists, to which that section refers to as an exception (prior to the removal of structured and after), does not state that you must include anything other than the link once criteria, lead section and references have been added. (Mind meal 11:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC))