Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 16

Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

deletion of lists

The following sections are endlessly cited in arguments to delete a list (or delete all lists): "Wikipedia is not a directory..." "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed..." "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations..."

Since this was not the purpose of the statements here (since WP accepts lists as valid), what might be changed here so these paragraphs are not subject to such abusive misuse. Hmains 02:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Such arguments should explain how the list treats wikipedia as a "directory" or how the cross-categorization is "unencyclopedic". Given that the section exists, it is bound to frequently appear in deletion discussion, so can you give actual misuse of such arguments for comparison? As all the subelements of it are definitely not topics for Wikipedia, the header or intro text is what needs to be revised, but I can't think of another way to do it. Circeus 03:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should mention that. I took a stab at that three days ago via this edit. I assumed nobody reverted or said anything because everyone agreed. Perhaps it was just too wordy for anybody to notice :( - Wikidemo 02:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • see three examples of such deleteion arguments and all the trouble they cause:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian Americans
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people
  • Hmains 02:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Those are indeed blatant misconstructions of the point, but more importantly a reflection of a general tension between lists and categories. I don't think anything can be done to WP:NOT to prevent it to show up in such debates. Circeus 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • There will always be categories and lists for deletion, but if we can do something to keep people from misunderstanding this page to imply that every list of things is a "directory" (particularly lists of products, places, company, etc) then at least it can clean up a misconception and focus the deletion debates on the more pertinent issues. I see the "directory" argument misused quite often, both in deletion debates and in simple edits where people remove lists of things. It seems common and problematic enough that it's worth trying to clear that up if it can be done in a very brief way on the page. I think you've actually done something with your latest edits, Circeus. Wikidemo 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The AFD / CFD catch-22 is definitely a problem. I'd like to see a concerted effort to deal with it. A couple of thoughts: (1) Have a place where we can cite to AFDs and CFDs that suggest converting one to the other. (2) We need better guidelines around lists, generally. A lot of lists exist that really, frankly, are the germ of an article that hasn't been written. IMO, most (all?) lists that do not have the germ of an article are actually best thought of as a navigational aid that is complementary to categories & infoboxes. --lquilter 19:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory: misuse?

I believe the over-application of this policy is detrimental to Wikipedia and needs some attention. The institutions in a town or city are usually not notable enough to have an article about them, but grouped together they capture the government organisations, charities, clubs and societies. By removing lists of institutions, Wikipedia is removing articles on the social fabric of towns and I think that is wrong. Does anyone else agree? Pgr94 09:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I for one do not agree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is succeeding where so many other wikis have failed in large part because we constantly remember and limit ourselves to that purpose. When we allow our mission to become to diffuse, the project fails. We know this is the case because our predecessor projects such as Everything2 failed for exactly that reason. Just because something is useful does not mean that it necessarily belongs in Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I completely understand your point about over-diversifying. At the same time I think there is something wrong when policy says it's ok to have detailed plot summaries of every episode of even minor television programs yet refuse to even mention *real* organisations. It seems that the criteria for inclusion are biased against real institutions. Pgr94 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
So let's edit out the plot summaries, too. "There's already cruft!" is a good argument for "Clean the cruft!", not for "Pile on more!". Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Everything2 failed? They seem to be still humming along, doing exactly what they set out to do: nothing in particular. I see much more evidence that Wikipedia is losing sight of its mission through increasing restrictiveness than through permissivity. We'll never stop being an encyclopedia, but we're increasingly failing to be as comprehensive as we could be (while still being encyclopedic) due to restrictions not underpinned by any actual principle.--Father Goose 18:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You are correct that they do nothing in particular. That was not, however, their original vision. When they first started, they had lofty goals. They have failed to achieve their goals in large part because they tried to be all things to all people. Are they still in existence? Yes. I, for one, don't consider that the appropriate measure of success.
Carl Shirkey has an excellent article on the critical success factors for wikis. In the article, he includes some discussion on the importance of a shared and clearly understood vision and why limits are so important. If you can find a copy of the article, it's a very enlightening read. Rossami (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, absolutely. The consensus and standard in an article about a city is to list its major institutions, features, businesses, landmarks, historical events, etc. That has nothing to do with being a directory, and the "WIkipdeia is not a directory" does not speak to that at all. Citing that as a reason for gutting an article about a place is clearly invalid. Simply restore the content and educate those people if someone does that, and tell them they need consensus. If they wish to persist they need to take it to the talk page and, if necessary, a policy page or dispute resolution forum.Wikidemo 15:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, do you have an example of what you're talking about? I looked through your recent edit history and the only disputes I notice in the last week relate to an occasional external link to an off-Wikipedia list of town-related content. A list of external links is in directory territory, but a single link doesn't raise any questions of whether Wikipedia is a directory. If anything it is a WP:EL question, and hinges on other matters.Wikidemo 15:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is the example that prompted me to write: List of clubs and societies in Thanet (www.edithis.info). It was previously on wikipedia and moved offsite because of WP:NOT. Now WP:EL is being used to remove links to it. It seems that policy is geared-up to remove all traces of local institutions. Is that really what we want? Pgr94 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
My mistake then. That is clearly a directory. Yes, I believe we want to avoid hosting such lists on Wikipedia for any of a number of policy reasons, not the least of which is that there is no way we can be up to date, comprehensive, and maintain quality control. We may or may not want to avoid linking to similar content. There is nothing inherently or categorically wrong with linking to a directory. If we find a link to such things off wikipedia, it may or may not be appropriate depending on what we are linking to. Government sites and local chambers of commerce are reasonably authoritative. Open wikis are problematic and rarely make good external links. They suffer from the same reliability problems Wikipedia has, and usually worse. If your mission is to create a good directory of things in the town, and none exists, why not do it in a more reliable format with proper editorial control - a real website? If that site becomes the best, most authoritative list then it's okay to link to. If there is a better list, you can link to that one and spare yourself the effort because it's already been done. This has nothing to do with films. That's the dreaded Pokemon fallacy: "We cover Pokemon to death, so we might as well X", where X is whatever unwise idea someone has. Wikidemo 15:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree when you say it "can't be up to date, comprehensive, and maintain quality control": that is an argument that holds for the Britannica-model of encyclopedia. With wiki-style encyclopedias this is not the case. Contributions from the local community can make this more accurate and reliable than any "authoritative" one. I am in favour of this kind of information being hosted on wikipedia and would very much like to see the counter-arguments re-visited. Pgr94 16:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
For the purposes of verifiability, we tend to require that sources of information about a subject be available from something other than the source itself. So your list of clubs presently fails on that point. If such a directory was independently published by a reliable source, I personally would be willing to let it stay in Wikipedia, provided that repeating the list did not constitute a copyright violation.--Father Goose 18:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't exactly put it that way if we're talking about deleting the external link, because verifiability doesn't apply to off-wikipedia content or to the decision to use an external link. We don't hold the world to Wikipedia's policies, just Wikipedia. It's more like reliability. Were this in Wikipedia, citing sources for inclusion of items on lists is a tough subject. In general we don't, but for some problematic lists we do. But the original research / verifiability issue does indirectly have to do with why directories are not a good idea to begin with. Wikidemo 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about what standards the list would have to meet if it were hosted on Wikipedia itself. I generally just ignore external links, good or bad.--Father Goose 05:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not a problem for organisations with a legal statute. For instance, registered charities and companies are recorded in government-maintained registers and this is straightforward to verify. However, organisations with no legal statute are more problematic. Newspaper articles are one source but I can't think of much else just now. Using the legal statute as the condition for inclusion is not ideal as a lot of entries will be axed, but it does meet WPs verifiability and reliable source criteria. This would certainly be a big step towards being less biased against real organisations. Pgr94 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if this related, but please see User_talk:Pgr94#External_links. On October 26, 2007 List of clubs and societies in Thanet was unanimously deleted (AFD). Pgr94 then began inserting a link back to editthis.info en masse to Thanet related articles, which contained a backup of the deleted page. I have tried to explain that we are not a directory service, nor are we a link exchange for directory websites. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So you believe that information about the institutions in a town are not relevant to an article on the town? Something is clearly wrong here - either WP policy or the application of them. Pgr94 10:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a dictionary

IMO, both the old and new definitions (diff here) are pretty weak. We need to get away from the rhetoric and the exaggeration on this page, and give some concrete guidance. The point is we cover things, not words. So we don't do the etymology, culture, definition, or usage of words. But if a word stands for something we can cover that thing. In addition, if a word becomes a cultural phenomenon we can cover the phenomenon. If a neologism arises from a concept we can cover the concept. And of course, a language, dialect, or accent is a thing, not a word so we can cover that too. All subject to notability. These are not "rare cases" at all as the new wording seems to suggest; they are quite common. The old wording misses the point, and the new one more so. And what's this with enshrining Klingon language and Leet in the policy? WP:NOT#LAUGHINGSTOCK. Wikidemo 13:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary only covers a sketch of the etymology, and very little of the uses, and none of the cultural significance, Restricting WP from covering these for important words leaves this critical material nowhere. Maybe we should change Wiktionary, but that's another question. A word can be discussed as a word in an encyclopedia, if there is more than the basic dictionary information.DGG (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That's arguing for a broader admissibility than I was...whereas both definitions permit other arguments. Notable cultural phenomena surrounding words, things/concepts described by words, neologisms, accdents, dialects, and languages are allowed here so as a class we should exclude them from WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. If we want to go farther and say that some words are interesting enough we can cover the word for its meaning and etymology, that would be a carve-out from the section. There are 600K+ words in the language, plus any number of compound words. Compound words are funny. There is no pushcart article because as the disambiguation page insists, they are simply a kind of cart that is pushed. But we have a handtruck article because that kind of tool is not the same as a truck that one operates by hand. How many words deserve their own articles?Wikidemo 17:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There could be a pushcart article; it is a synonym for "vending cart" (hot dog carts being one specific (though poorly written) example), and we could have an article about the different types and their historical and global use.--Father Goose 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiktionary will cover etymology, use and cultural significance to as much depth and degree as the editors there think appropriate and I've seen some pages that went very deep on those topics. But if they're not doing the way you think it should be done, you too can be one of those editors and can help fix Wiktionary. Don't distort Wikipedia's mission out of some misguided attempt to preserve all possibly useful information. Lexical information very clearly belongs at Wiktionary. Words should not be discussed as words in the encyclopedia. Wikidemo's distinction about Words --> Wiktionary, Things --> Wikipedia is a better description than many I've heard and makes a good start on how to sort out the missions of the two projects. Rossami (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen many, and I think we should not destroy existing infromation in a good project while we wait for another one to reach a higher standard. There's a limitto what one person can work on, btw. Which is why I stay in WP. DGG (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with DGG. The idea that the various wikis are mutually exclusive is absurd. We see this with WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikinews too. There are areas of overlap, and areas that are exclusive. We have current events on WP, but only Wikinews takes OR. The same is true for definitions. An article needs to start with a definition to define its scope. We can cover etymology, usage, etc. if it helps explain the topic. A WP article is about the thing, not the word, but the two are related, and sometimes inseparable. Also WP is written for the reader's benefit, and we should not force readers to go to other wikis to get a complete story. WP articles must be able to stand on their own, and if including information about the word helps the reader to understand the topic, then it should be included. Dhaluza 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I second DGG and Dhaluza, some overlap between the two projects is natural but it's not a problem that should be dealt with by enforcing policies to the detriment of the end user--DarTar 13:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. For an excellent example of where the word is the thing, and an extensive etymology is encyclopedic and relevant, see for example the article on the N-word. Dhaluza 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Most recent change

This one makes some sense to me. It's clear, although it does not say why some words are covered for reasons other than their concepts. I would say it's when a word becomes a phenomenon in itself beyond just meaning something. Wikidemo 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

An even bigger change

The recent changes to the section made me realize the whole thing needed some streamlining. I attempted to not change the meaning of any of it, just make it cleaner and clearer. Hopefully others will agree with my changes.--Father Goose 04:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT

I feel that a recent rewording of WP:FICT now directly contradicts this policy (among others) - I have brought up the issue here - if anyone would like to comment. [[Guest9999 13:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Not a directory: A section "Contact details" in an article is generally not appropriate

Any one objecting to the inclusion of the following sentence under Wikipedia is not a directory? :

"Inserting a section "Contact details" in an article is generally not appropriate", or
"Inserting a section "Contact details" in an article is generally not acceptable" (any preference?).

It is (or is becoming) a widespread concern, see [1]. I have already cleaned up some articles, but it seems there are more than 900 cases. --Edcolins (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The google search you provided includes a large number of User: and Talk: pages, where contact details are not necessarily inappropriate. An on-site search limited to article space only turns up about 300 pages, and in many (most?) of those, the words "contact details" are needed, and actual contact details are not provided.
Have you tried to simply remove contact details when you've come across them? Generally it's sufficent (and accepted) to just provide an external link to an official website.--Father Goose (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Another, more focused Google search "site:en.wikipedia.org "Contact Details" -user" returns 361 hits. But indeed some occurences of "contact details" are legitimate. Is there a way to find all occurences of "Contact Details" in section headers, i.e. "== Contact Details ==" or "=== Contact Details ==="?
"Have you tried to simply remove contact details when you've come across them?" Yes, I started, see [2] (maybe that's why you can't see a lot of (or some of) these "contact details" sections anymore). --Edcolins (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, good work then. I don't know how to search for section headings like you describe, but it's not too hard to see from the search result excerpts which are just the words and which are actual contact details.--Father Goose (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a structured database

Note: I have left a pointer to this discussion at WT:CFD and on the talk pages of six editors who have long been prolific contributors to CfD debates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)

Proposed text for new section WP:NOT#DATABASE:

Any thoughts? This is an attempt to note an issue which frequently arises at CfD, and to reflect what I believe to be the current consensus. The draft text needs more work, but I would like to see to what extent there is consensus for collating these points in one place (I believe that they are widely agreed). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories serve both for navigation and for tagging articles. The guideline you linked to even says, "Avoid categories that will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" (emphasis added). I don't believe either purpose is 'primary' . Some categories are primarily navigational, some are primarily used for tagging articles. For example, Category:Articles lacking sources is unlikely to be used for navigation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of the exception you mentioned wrt to small categories, but it doesn't invalidate the wider point.
As to Category:Articles lacking sources, it's a slightly obscure example because it's one of a very few maintenance categories (i.e. for use by editors rather than readers), but it is in all other respects a good illustration of the "categories are for navigation" point. It serves absolutely no tagging purpose, because it is generated by a very prominent tag. It's purpose is to allow editors to navigate between articles which are under-referenced, and to decide whether to try to improve them or to propose their deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd support this addition - no doubt refinements will be suggested. Do we have a definition of "defining characteristic" yet? - I think not. Ease of navigation works against over-large categories as well as over-small ones, but we have seen resistance to quantifying a definition of either. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You were the only person to reply to my proposal at WT:CFD#Defining_attribute, but maybe that discussion should be moved to WT:CAT? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) •
Yes, let's try to drum up some interest! Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(contribs) 15:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that a general link to Wikipedia:Overcategorization would be a good idea (hope I helped) PhilB ~ T/C 15:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I agree at all. The organization of a wiki should take advantage of available technology. A century ago, all that was available was alphabetical arrangement, an index, and a limited number of cross references and see alsos. (Even then, there was often some outline or other scheme for general organisation or sometime suggested reading. ) We can do more than that now, and I see no reason why we shouldn't. The main additional capabilities available are the ability to keep track of multiple intersecting categories, and to use multiple levels--as many levels as needed in order to keep the work logical. One of the things I expect of a access scheme is consistency. If this means creating an group for every author covered, even though some have 100 articles in it and some 2, then I would see no reason not to do it. It is easier to follow the standard levels than to start making exceptions, or considering the size of a category. DGG (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, I don't know about creating groups not taking into account the size of the category--I'm just thinking of things like tagging Fidelio under Category:Operas by Beethoven, which it clearly is. (And is also the only (completed) member of that category). What I like about BrownHairedGirl's draft is that it encourages us to put articles into categories where people will think to look for them rather than necessarily the most correct category. Sort of like article names ("Bill Clinton" instead of "William Jefferson Clinton"). Again from music, the article on oboe begins by saying that it is a "woodwind instrument," which it is (it's one of the four principal woodwinds in an orchestra). However, the categorization follows the organology experts' classification system, labeling it not as "Category:Woodwind instruments" but instead as "Category:Single_oboes_with_conical_bore" which is a subcategory of Single oboes, which is a subcategory of Oboes, which is a subcategory of Reedpipes, which is (finally) a subcategory of "woodwind instruments." I think this is what "Not a structured database" tries to avoid--at the least, the instrument could be listed under both categories. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Nobody can ever agree whether to list articles in parent and child categories, or just child categories. It's a perennial dispute. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My original point was that categories serve as both navigational aids and tagging devices; the draft language ignores this aspect of practice. I also don't quite see how this is relevant to WP:NOT. It looks more like the sort of thing that belongs in the categorization guideline. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I like BHG's formulation with the possible addition of the "small cats" exception as part of larger scheme. As for whether tagging or navigation is the purpose of categories: I would hope that navigation was primary. In fact, I wouldn't mind all tagging cats - for maintenance, etc. - be moved by bot to talk pages. The tags will alert the reader of the issue involved, those readers who really want to go ahead and fix things will no doubt avail themselves of the talk pages and may navigate the tags there. We should seriously think about a rationalization of what overall schema we want to support to provide for small categories. Taxa cats generally go to the genus level, but monotypic genera are deprecated cats and usually deleted. Music tends to be by band, by nationality, but the various music by genre is a mess. Geography tends to get down to as low a unit as can support sufficient articles not to be upmerged. Of course, this differs greatly among countries. The U.S. for example, I think has categories for every county, and most cities of 50,000 or more people. I would venture to guess that India is not so deeply categorized. There are lots of schema that could be looked at, because there will always be tension about what is a small cat without growth potential.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
you are right there, regardless of the merits. This is not really the place to discuss the issue. It's not analogous to the other NOTs, and this page is confused enough already. DGG (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    1. I'm not entirely sure this is an inappropriate place for "not a structured database", because the point applies to infoboxes as well as to categories.
    2. On tagging -- while I agree that editors often put categories on pages as if they were tags, the software functionality of categories is very different than tags. That point is very much a "WP:CAT discussion, of course; I suggested some sort of guidance on that issue a few months ago but didn't have time to follow it up then.
    3. The problem with the general concept of "this is not a structured database" is that we do use the categories in this way to some extent -- the birth/death categories are very much "categories-as-fields". I think the proposal is a good idea, conceptually, but we need to have some systematic rationale for when it's okay and when it's not.
    4. I personally don't like the "small categories without growth potential" section in WP:OCAT and so don't like it here, either. I think all the examples listed in that section fail for reasons that would provide a stronger philosophical basis for deletion -- two are relational categories, categorizing people by their relationship to someone else; the third (Catalan-speaking countries) is I think better thought of as a non-defining attribute (categorizing countries by language). But some small categories without growth potential might be otherwise needed, to fill out a logical and sensible category tree; e.g., some division of monarchs by era. *--Lquilter (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see a rationale for avoiding categorization-as-tagging. Certainly categorization-as-navigation is important, but if categories can also usefully be used in a different way as well, why not? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • One major reason is that mediawiki categories don't work that well as tags, and using them as tags leads to lots of redundant categorization. For instance, any scholar in a field might be "tagged" with that field and any other relevant keyword for that field -- that's great in a tagging system, because tagging software lets most frequently used tags float to the top (e.g., in tag clouds). But manifestly bad with mediawiki categories, which just collect all "categories" in an undifferentiated fashion. --Lquilter (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I see no consensus for any version of this statement other than certain interpretations of arguments on a recent CfD/DRV/CfD/DRV/CfD/DRV/etc.; if applied, it would eliminate all "profession from location" categories, and, in fact, all "XXX from location", where XXX is not a political office. (As an aside, I might support that, but I see no consensus for it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Categorization instructions already describes the structure (not a tree) and use of categories. Also, the mention of "structured database" assumes too much understanding of the meaning of that phrase, and for those with a technical understanding of Wikipedia also carries several wrong meanings. (SEWilco (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
  • First, I commend BHG for at least attempting to enunciate some of the editorial philosophy that led to the Erdos Number Categories deletion. There's no hope for the future if we don't try to understand each other a little better.
  • Some of this can be made a bit more explicit. For example, at the Wiki Database article, all databases are considered to be structured.( Wiki has data, and it has structure; both can be a bit amorphous.) If BHG means wiki is a hierarchical more than relational database, I agree.
  • I don't understand the distinction made between "labels" and "navigational aids"; I don't conceive of any kind of label that is not some kind of navigational aid. For example, the labels on food in the supermarket aid shoppers in choosing between products and finding products with certain features. The labels that librarians put on the spines of books serve the same purpose. Pete St.John (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Articles should be placed only in categories which denote a defining characteristic of the article's subject.
-- Question: what is a "defining characteristic"? Does this phrase have in fact any meaning beyond the subjective WP:ILIKEIT? Is "Casablanca" defined by it having been made in 1942?
I think this needs more thought. What surely is more relevant is that, having reached an article on a 1942 film, a user may wish to browse to see what other films were being released at the same time. That is surely what makes the category valid. Jheald (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in many ways Wikipedia is structured with parent and child articles, categories, list articles, etc., mostly for purposes of navigation. This relates to the field of interest, not defining fields of an article's subject. As one example among many, many others we often characterize biography articles by the ethnicity, national origin, birthplace, or residency of the subject (e.g. People from Detroit). It does not have to be a person's defining characteristic to be a useful thing to categorize of add to a list. Other examples of a tight structure is the way we break geographical locations down into states, counties, and cities, or winery regions into American Viticultural Areas and subareas, organisms by taxonomy, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Participants in this discussion may find this paper interesting and relevant. They're using Wikipedia as a source of information to answer natural-language questions in an automated way, and finding that the information in Wikipedia's category system is helpful in making their answers more accurate. So there are already ways in which Wikipedia's category system is useful precisely as structured data for purposes other than navigation. I think we should be trying to encourage work like this, not discourage it. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Expansion/clarification of "NOT#SOAPBOX"

As currently written, this portion only applies to article space. What about category space (and more contentiously) user space? In regards to user categories, the current policy (based on precedent established earlier this year) appears to be to delete potentially divisive user categories, but there is no formal policy, which is a continuing source of contention. As to user space, there is an astonishing amount of soapboxing (mostly advocacy, but there is a lot of "not" promotion as well). Some of this has spilled into other areas of the project (the userbox listings, in particular; the politics and religion sections are filled with boxes that proclaim opposition to various leaders, organizations, ideologies, religious beliefs, and so forth). Is the ambiguity intentional, or is it an oversight? Does NOT#SOAPBOX apply to the entire project, or just to article space? Perhaps a revision is in order, but I'm not foolhardy enough to make bold edits on such an explosive issue without discussion. Horologium t-c 14:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second Horologium's suggestion that we clarify this policy with respect to category space especially. Not only is there contention, but there are de facto POV selective applications to the policy. (I say "de facto" because many editors are very consistent in their interpretation, including many administrators. However, in practice it seems that certain, somewhat predictable categories are somehow exempted from this policy whilst others are not. The selective POV applications could be somewhat of an emergent phenomenon, magnifying slight—but not tendentious—POVs of individuals in the group.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs)
Expanded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, that will probably be non-controversial, but now that I read that again, I notice it already mentions user pages which have specific exceptions to this rule. Also, to clarify my point a bit earlier, I was referring specifically to user categories and not categories in general. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
A specific problem with the current wording (but not one introduced by ≈ jossi ≈) is that it specifies that user pages are not places for self-promotion. There are other similar problems in dealing with user pages and user categories. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Are not these covered already in WP:USER? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sort of. These two guidelines are in conflict, however. Furthermore, to the degree that they're in conflict, it's not clear how user categories fit in. User categories are technically in category space, so don't necessarily apply to WP:USER. Unlike user boxes, for which a userfy option exists (move the templates to user space), there is no such option for user categories as near as I can tell. On the other hand, they're limited to the Category:Wikipedians subsection of category space and so appear to be a weird mutant-hybrid of the two. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:GAMEGUIDE

WP:GAMEGUIDE currently redirects to the "not a manual" section, but it doesn't discuss game guides in particular, only manuals and textbooks, and travel/internet guides. Is it possible to add a paragraph about game/strategy guides in particular, assuming this redirect is justified? Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a part of "Instruction manuals": "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." I think that says everything it needs to.--Father Goose (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

What should an editor do when discussion forums go into personal attacks? Can an editor delete the personal attack on the basis that it is not germane to the discussion? Maybe some advice along that line should go into this page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ragrading linking to external links, there seems to be some ambiguity. Does Wikipedia have any policy on linking movie articles to (specifically) trailers? Or do they not have any information value?

An Admin on the farsi wikipedia has left me a message citing WP:NOT#LINK, and has deleted every link I put from every article to any trailer of that movie. All links went to either trailers on IMDB, or on the official website. He claims "links to trailers are not encyclopedic and are not relevant". Am I missing something here? Thank You.--Zereshk (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(Discussion taking place at the more appropriate location: Wikipedia talk:External links#Linking to trailers is discouraged?) --Stormie (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

¡WP:NOT violates itself!

  • "Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any organizations ... those interested in promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."
  • "If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks."
  • WikiHow is a for profit company looking to make a profit from advertising. So are (Future) Wikia and MySpace and Facebook, which are also specifically mentioned in this Wikipedia official policy.
  • When a policy says Wikipedia doesn't advertise or endorse any organizations, and the official policy itself specifically recommends a for-profit company, does it mean anything at all?

P.S. the reason why I'm adding this is that I'm a bit annoyed by the confusion. I kept thinking in the back of my mind that WikiHow was a proper Wikimedia project, and could easily have ended up putting content on a for-profit forum. Maybe it's open source and creative commons and all that, but I still suspect the company must have some trick up its sleeve (see Westlaw#Legal disputes for an example of copyright by pagination, for example). I wonder if Wikimedia's trademarks are being diluted by this, or if WikiHow could make the opposite claim. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice point (whoever you are). Pete St.John (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"Wiki", as a word or word form predates Wikipedia, in much the same way that "pedia" does. The fact that there are other wikis with "wiki" in their names does not dilute Wikipedia's trademarks. As for whether we should mention other companies in this policy, offhand I don't see how it's a problem.--Father Goose (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Actually, we're not a "guide" either, so it's probably not a great idea to provide suggested "other wikis". But I dunno. I'm all for supporting "other" Wikis, but since they need not follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines... I dunno. - jc37 09:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Those "tips" have been added as a kind of self-defense mechanism. By showing users that other outlets exist, they are less likely to continue to try to shoehorn their inappropriate content into Wikipedia. I understand the concerns about an implied endorsement but I think that those risks and costs are quite a bit lower than the problems we had before we showed people where their content might be more appreciated. Rossami (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
These concerns have been raised before, and believe me when I say it is a very contentious point within the community. A number of Wikipedian's disagree quite strongly with linking to wikia anywhere on Wikipedia for the very reasons you list. The issue has never been resolved consensually. Hiding T 15:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no reservations about linking to Wikia in articles, and it might even have a proper place in a Help file. Even here, my greatest concern is that the text should not be confusing - I simply want it to be clear that WikiHow and Wikia are for-profit companies and not Wikimedia projects. Still, if WP:NOT must violate itself, I'd prefer that it do so by linking to a Directory of social networking services and a Directory of on-line how-to projects and so on, rather than recommending a handful of selected companies. I feel like it would be shameful if someone is not getting paid under the table for the current name-dropping. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Alternative outlets is about the closest we've got to that. Due to WP:NOT#DIR, such directories couldn't exist on Wikipedia as regular articles. But Alternative outlets doesn't do much more than link to the same sites WP:NOT already does, and insisting on using it "buries" the information a lot compared to just saying, don't do "Myspace" shit here, do it on Myspace.--Father Goose (talk)
Agreed, a nonprofit business steering web traffic the founder's for-profit project is a conflict, and looks particularly bad in a section admonishing mere customers not to try to do the same thing.Wikidemo (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory: possible contradiction with WP:ORG?

WP:ORG says:

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.

But wouldn't such a list of non-notable organisations constitute a directory? This strikes me as a contradiction. Can we please amend the "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy. Pgr94 13:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I can think of two possible ways in which they might be compatible. First, merely listing a number of instances of organizations does not create a directory. A directory is an external list that gives contact information. An internal list of elements is simply that, an internal list. So a "list of American architects" that links to other articles, and sourced non-articles, is just that, a list. An attempt to create a complete list with websites, phone numbers, email, etc., is a directory. Second, a directory is a list of various different organizations in the same line of business. The reasons it is wrong include avoiding spam/special interests, the impossibility of ever being authoritative and comprehensive (we'll never be as reliable as google or a commercial business directory), and the high amount of maintenance required to keep our list current and accurate. By contrast, some nationwide organizations have a small, stable list of chapters, and they don't present these same problems. A list of boy scout troops would indeed be a directory. A list of the five or six regional centers of a the Mayo Clinic, or the couple dozen franchises of Le Cordon Bleu throughout the world does not seem to be such a problem as long as the approach isn't spammy. I don't know if this irons out the problem, just offering a possibility. Wikidemo 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree that a list of Boy Scout troops would necessarily be a directory. If it listed the troop number, city, and date of creation, for example, that would be an encyclopedic list with relevant geographic and historical information. The fact that the list is long has nothing to do with whether it is a directory. If it is too long, it can be broken down by geography or some other characteristic. If the list contained contact info, number of members, or similar information that needs to be updated frequently, then that would be directory information that should be removed. Dhaluza (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a directory?
If we use the word directory to mean a list of organisations with external links, then there are problems like: List of Sigma Kappa chapters and hundreds of other fraternity/sorority lists, which are explicitly mentioned as OK in WP:ORG (as cited above).
If we use directory to mean a list of organisations with contact information like telephone number and address, then List of Sigma Kappa chapters does not qualify as one, and there is no contradiction.

Whatever the intended meaning of directory, it needs to be stated clearly.

My concise Oxford dictionary, 1959 (sorry it's a bit old) says:

"book with lists of inhabitants of district, members of professions etc., with various details;" (my emphasis)

Personally, I think we mustn't confuse a list of organisations containing external links and a directory like yellow pages.

  1. There is no address or telephone number information that is likely to change.
  2. Yellow pages are biased towards businesses while smaller organisations and non-profits are not commonly included.

Pgr94 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this rule should be interpreted in terms of motivation rather than banned content. The point is that an article can enumerate any number of organizational chapters, provided that the purpose is to allow the reader to look up these notable entities in Wikipedia and/or to find out more about them to add to the article - not to ensure that you can contact them or do business with them. If a link serves both purposes, it should be included, but people shouldn't get confused about which purpose matters here. 70.15.116.59 16:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewording or removing NOT#NEWS

After all of the news articles that've survived AfD, it's really ineffective. We have three options:

  1. Remove it entirely.
  2. Reword it to remove the "front page on one newspaper for one day" types.
  3. Give it teeth.

Suggestions? Will (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I favor a reword, which has been in the back of my head for a while. It should do a better job of delineating the difference between "today's news chatter" and "events (or people) of lasting significance".--Father Goose 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
another possible distinction is to differentiate the category of human interest stories from true new events. DGG (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe some sort of requirement for extended coverage, to exclude flash-in-the-pan news events? If an event is still receiving coverage a significant period of time after it happened, chances are we can write a real article on it. If it just got coverage when it happened and got forgotten, chances are similarly good it's an event of fleeting notice on which a real in-depth article isn't possible. I also agree with DGG, "human interest" type stuff should generally be excluded. Newspapers use all sorts of stuff as filler, especially when real news is slow. That doesn't mean that should be in an encyclopedia. Maybe also make use of soft redirects to Wikinews? Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Give it teeth. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. The vast majority of problems that I see with the project today can be traced back to difficulties making that distinction. If we stopped trying to be a newspaper, most of our sourcing and verifiability disputes would become moot. Human interest stories should definitely be excluded but I wouldn't necessarily stop there. Most "sensational" crimes or tragic accidents are not really all that sensational a year later. If a single event eventually has substantial long-term impact on society, we can always write the article then. We ought not to be trying to predict potential social impact when deciding what to write about. That is not an encyclopedia's place.
I do support soft-redirects to WikiNews as a way to make the point clearer to readers/editors. Rossami (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Time span of coverage is a weak index of whether something is encyclopedic or merely newsworthy. Some stories automatically get news coverage over an extended period as they advance: Phase 1: a person (child or white woman, especially) disappears. Phase 2: Body is found. Phase 3: It is the missing person. Phase 4: Friend/ family member/ neighbor/stranger is arrested. Phase5: trial. There is no way these can be time compressed enough that they would not exceed any time standard established to exclude "bear stuck in tree, falls on trampoline" or "cat with head stuck in glass jar" type water-cooler stories, which do naturally fade after a couple of days. But many of these violent crimes/disappearances have been deleted in AFDs, even though they had hundreds of papers and TV news channels reporting the progress of the case over weeks or months. The crime stories which have easily survived AFD have been those which had some lasting effect on society (such as a law named after the victim). Edison 18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

I was intrigued by a comment (several) left on the talk page of the main page. It seems Wikipedia is being systmatically censored to avoid putting nude pictures of women on the main page.

Due to this fact, either it should be listed as a policy that "Wikipedia is not a place to put nude pictures on the main page", or, the wording of the policy of censorship needs to be changed to reflect that Wikipedia censors nude images off the main page.

I find nude pictures very encyclopediac, among other things, and see no reason why they shouldn't be on the main page. Furthermore, I think that adding a line about the use of nude pictures into WP:NOT is a good idea too! 68.143.88.2 17:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The line in question is WP:NOTCENSORED. A certain amount of common sense is useful in addition: should penis ever become a featured article and appear on the front page, I still wouldn't want a picture of a penis there. I am personally entirely unsqueamish about such things, but I wouldn't even put a picture of a penis on the front cover of a medical text about penises -- such graphicness would distract from the purpose of the book. I would okay non-graphic nudity on Wikipedia's front page, however -- though how to define "graphic" is subjective.--Father Goose 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this discussion reminds me of an incident from a couple of years ago, when an editor uploaded a photo of two topless women, with Vancouver's Skybridge in the distant background, and then objected to its removal from the Skybridge article on the grounds that it was a photo of the bridge. Er, no, it's not.
Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean we want gratuitous nudity, either. A photo of a woman's breasts would be perfectly valid in the article on breasts; a photo of a real penis is valid on the article penis. That doesn't mean either photo should ever become a featured image or be used as the main page's primary image to illustrate the day's featured article, however — there's simply no reason for it besides nudity for the sake of nudity. Furthermore, sensitive images such as these are frequently used to vandalize pages other than their actual topic — so frequently, in fact, that the programmers have had to create a system of special privilege limitations to prevent some photos from being used for anything other than their intended purpose.
And anyway, I can't find any discussion of anybody undertaking a systematic effort to prevent photos of nude women from being featured on mainpage — the closest thing I've been able to find was one person citing nudity as theoretically inappropriate mainpage photo content in a discussion around a photo of a corpse. Not really the same thing, 68. Bearcat (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

TV schedules policy

If I read the Wiki policy for WP:DIRECTORY correctly, no schedules for stations or tv networks are allowed on Wikipedia articles. I noticed that the schedules were removed on ION Television quoting the WP:DIRECTORY policy, however a user reverted the changes back saying they are allowed. Who is correct, are these tv network schedules allowed to be included in articles?? Msw1002 (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems similar to CBS#Programming. Maybe a programming lineup is different from a day-by-day schedule ("Movie" is different from stating what tonight's movie is). (SEWilco (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
I think the problem with the ION one is that they were offering very little original programming, at least after 2005: many sources list the major TV network schedules, from 1946 to present. Brooks and Marsh (1985) list ABC, NBC, CBS, and DuMont's schedules from 1946 to 1985. McNeil (1996) lists ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, UPN, and WB's schedules from 1948 to 1996. Bergmann (2002) lists DuMont's from 1946-1955. Castleman and Podrazik (1982) list ABC, NBC, CBS, and DuMont from 1946-1956 and ABC, NBC, and CBS from there to 1982.
However, few sources are going to list ION's crappy Kate and Allie or Green Acres reruns. It's not original programming: the network has no upfronts, no series debuts, no series finales: just reruns of other networks' offerings. Prior to 2005, they were offering some original content, but their schedule now contains almost no original program content: it's not a "real" network schedule. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It's correct that the base schedule, at least for prime-time programming, is permitted under the current interpretation of WP:DIRECTORY. It's not appropriate, however, to keep the schedule continualy updated with that week's episode titles and guest stars and one-time pre-emptions for special airings of Olive, the Other Reindeer. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly stupid question...

I'm in a debate with another user about merging an article, citing lack of notability. This user states that as (general) Notability is not linked from Five pillars or this page (save for the specific issues of self-promotion, businesses, and news reports), that notability does not hold the same weight as a policy/guideline like WP:V or WP:NOR.

I certainly don't think he's right, but that calls into the fact that Notability as a general criteria for inclusion into WP is not spelled out here and may confuse editors. I'm wondering if there should be statement, in the lead of the IINFO section that is along the lines of "Wikipedia uses Notability guidelines to set a standard for the inclusion of a topic within Wikipedia." (or something to that language). --MASEM 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest? "Wikipedia is not for non-notable topics?" WP:N is a guideline. It may be frequently cited, but it's no policy. --Pixelface (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
At the start of the WP:IINFO section, the current quote is: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". I would suggest possibly something like: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia; Wikipedia has notability guidelines to determine content to include within the encyclopedia." (not married to the langauge). I know WP:N is not policy and only a guideline, but I've seen wikilawyering that its lack of mention on this page (the only part of WP:FIVE where notability applies) means it can be ignored freely; as long as we say "hey, there's a guideline to help you with this" here in that section, it doesn't make it policy, just that it exists. --MASEM 14:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Democracy?

How is wikipedia not a 'democracy'? It has a concensus system and other democratic protocols. Obviously just because it is not run politically, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a democratic protocol. If I am not mistaken, the Wikipedian founder directly said out of context, "Wikipedia is a democracy... although there are vandals... sometimes a little monarchy is required". He also mentioned that he meant it conceptually not politically. in the TED show (the one where all famous scientists and other profession gathered). --Storkian aka iSoroush Talk 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not a democracy in the sense that objective truth can not be voted upon. It does not matter how many people show up and vote that the article should say that the sky is green. That is not the primary decision-making protocol used at Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia. The fact that a few administrative questions are decided using structures that sometimes appear to be voting does not change the fact. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My take on it is this: Wikipedia is not a democracy in that democratic process is never guaranteed, and often other factors are involved in the final decision making process (as Rossami pointed out above). That's not to say that we never use democratic processes, or that a consensus building process doesn't resemble a democratic process in many ways. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm also confused on the fact that Wikipedia says it's not a democracy. There's a voting process. It doesn't just "resemble" voting. It's voting. It's called voting. It's why there's such things as "Vote for Deletion" and "Vote for Featured Article. I mean, duh facts can't be voted on and it's obvious by the definition of a wiki that it's not an experimental egalitarian democracy. It's just a database. But content inasmuch can be voted on. I mean, can't you use a democratic process for some things without being a democracy? I think that the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" thing should make that clear: there's a democratic voting system for articles, but not for facts. And unlike articles, users aren't kept or deleted based on a democratic consensus. ForestAngel (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is no longer a "Votes for deletion" page. After a great deal of discussion, we changed the name because it was creating exactly the confusion that you are expressing. Votes are decided by simple head-counts with every opinion weighted equally (after adjusting for suffrage). Deletion decisions are made through discussion and consensus-seeking with the opinions weighted by a large number of factors including but not limited to their connection to established policy, their connection to externally verified evidence, the user's contribution history, etc. A single well-written "keep" opinion that is based in policy can result in the article being kept despite a dozen "delete because I don't like it" opinions. No established system of Voting allows for that kind of outcome. Rossami (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In short, Wikipedia is not a democracy because in a democracy, majority rules. Majority doesn't (necessarily) rule on Wikipedia. Almost none of our processes decide anything based on a simple vote count. How things are usually decided requires a great deal of explanation, and perhaps a bit of debate -- but you only asked why it's not a democracy, and that's the answer.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:46, 12/20/2007

DISREGARD: Archives not happening

Is it just me, or is this page not getting auto-archived anymore? As I read it, the config says to archive quiet threads older than 30 days, and to keep 10 threads. I see 37 threads, some of which haven't seen activity since mid-September (90+ days ago). Am I missing something, or should this be reported to Misza13?  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Never mind, checking the history, that was just added. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's partly my fault, I didn't explicitly state in the edit summary that I was setting up auto-archiving. I like to try to sneak it in 'cause whenever I add it there are usually a whole bunch of people with different ideas as to what the settings should be and an edit war ensues. But now that the cat's out of the bag, it's set for 30 days, minimum 10 threads left on the page, 200k per archive. Hope everyone's okay with that.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:00, 12/20/2007

Usenet still a going concern?

In the propaganda and advocacy section it says 'You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views'. I question the relevance of mentioning something almost nobody uses anymore.--Nydas(Talk) 22:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It still exists, its still used, certainly not at the level in the early 90s. However, point taken, maybe one would want to add "forum" as well since that's the primary alternative. --MASEM 22:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not mention 'forum' alone, since usenet is for all intents and purposes a forum, even if it isn't technically?--Nydas(Talk) 18:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a very good question. It has been nearly a decade or longer since I posted anything to Usenet, and even that was for a "closed" Usenet group that wasn't widely propogated. Back when Wikipedia first started, it certainly made much more sense to mention it as an alternative as blogging wasn't nearly what it has become, or as easy to get started. The reason I don't use usenet any more (and I suspect for many others as well) is mainly due to the very low S/N ratio and how it has been killed by spammers.
For "historical reasons", keeping this clause on this page wouldn't hurt, and it might just cause somebody to think for a little bit if they never heard of the idea before. I certainly don't see any pressing need to remove this one part of a sentance. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Would we tolerate references to Netscape Navigator or 640x480 screen resolution in current policy pages?--Nydas(Talk) 12:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics: Fight songs

Should lyrics to fight songs be included? WP:NOT states that articles cannot consist solely of lyrics but many would argue that one excerpts from lyrics should be allowed and full lyrics be either linked to or on WikiSource. Please visit Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs. violet/riga (t) 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

this is getting over specific for a policy page. Details like that belong in a guideline. DGG (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly which guideline to add it to yet though and wouldn't want to create a new one. The discussion is at CENT because of this. violet/riga (t) 10:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Point of view?

Otto4711 has been quoting WP:NOT#INFO as a basis for deletion arguments (see here, here and here, as well as here, here, here and here). But, that didn't work out in the given examples, none of the explanations did fit the article he wanted to get deleted. Now he has edited the the policy itself putting in "Note that collections of information may be considered indiscriminate even if not specifically delineated here", making it more usable in similar deletion arguments. I am not sure if tweaking policy without discussion to fit my point of view is a good idea. Deletionism may be a common point of view shared by many editors, but it is not a guiding principle yet. I believe This type of policy tweaking to suit personal style poses a threat to the collaborative effort, and is subject to closer attention. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The page already says that this is not and never can be an all-inclusive list. That applies to all aspects of the page. I don't think the recent change added anything to the page (or to the section, really). Rossami (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Really? When DGG removed that edit saying - discuss first--attempt to slant the issue - in the edit summary here, Otto4711 just reverted it saying - rv, it is not an attempt to slant anything, thanks for the assumption of good faith. it's a statement of the way things are - here. While he is quoting good faith (another piece of guideline) he is still not responding to discussion, ignoring the basics of Consensus. This may be just a beginning of a disruptive snowballing of Wikilawyering, like he and another editor tried here while accusing another editor of lwayering. I really don't think I don't think the recent change added anything to the page. With that kind of good faith in action, it's bound to bring some change or other. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the new wording. There is no consensus for WP:NOT#IINFO to apply to anything outside of the enumerated items. Prior discussion has long established that this section is meant to be a list of various exclusion criteria that don't fit under any of the other headings. If there were consensus for any other types of articles to be included under this heading, we would add those examples to the policy. I challenged Otto4711 to produce even one article which was deleted for being being an indiscriminate collection of information without violating one of the enumerated items or any other policy, and he essentially responded that he has better things to do with his time. If he's not willing to back up his assertions about policy, then he shouldn't be changing policy to conform to his point-of-view. An WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:JUSTAPOLICY argument for deletion doesn't suddenly become valid because someone uses the words "indiscirimate collection of information" and tries to edit policy to say that those words mean something other than what we say they mean, but we won't say exactly what. Editing policy in order to bolster your point-of-view in deletion debates, especially without discussing the change in order to establish consensus, or demonstrating an existing consensus, is rather poor form. DHowell (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that "indiscriminate collection of information" is also a phrase that has meaning on it's own. The same with Wikipedia:conflict of interest. These are real world terms that we have adapted as policies. The policy specifically says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and never says "only these things can be considered an indiscriminate collection of information". Use common sense, not wikilawyering. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on that link to prior discussion, I have to agree with DHowell: Past consensus appears to have been that "indiscriminate collection of information" was to be interpreted relatively narrowly. Now, personally, I think there is merit in a more general interpretation of the wording. There's an awful lot of crap out there in the world, and a lot of it ends up here.  :) But I'm not really sure how to turn that sentiment into a clear statement that wouldn't be abused. • That said, simply pointing at WP:NOT#INFO (or any other policy) in an xFD should never be acceptable, for the reasons given in WP:JUSTAPOLICY. One has to explain one's reasoning as to how and why the subject of the xFD is covered by the policy, and why the deletion is a good idea in its own right. (After all, exceptions are permitted.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That discussion link is pretty weak when you compare it to most of the discussions on the matter. Something can be an indiscriminate collection of information without being listed on WP:NOT. The wording for the last few years about that section make it clear that what is listed on WP:NOT is simply what is widely agreed upon, nothing more, nothing less. However, I do agree with you that any comment in an XfD needs to be more than "per WP:OMGWTFNOT", and should have context to the discussion at hand. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I was very reluctant to revert Otto, considering our frequent disagreements; not wanting to start another conflict, I did not follow it up immediately. But. with a full assumption of GF, slanting this policy was in effect the result of the wording. I'm glad others are are agreeing with the way I saw it. WP:NOT is a powerful and therefore dangerous page--it has status as policy, but deals with a great many things in brief phrases for which there are guideline in more detail that are not always altogether consistent with it, and the wording must therefore be watched carefully. I'd like to change some of it myself, but it will always need discussion first, and will often be difficult to obtain consensus for important changes. I think the use of a general policy page like this should be kept from being overly prescriptive and overly expansive. It's been used much too widely as if it there were no room for interpretation. I agree with Ned that we need to consider how to use it; I agree with him that just citing it is not necessarily helpful. (my personal feeling is that we might want to admit that not all of it is accepted to quite the same degree.) But that would surely be controversial. Ottos change was well intentioned but is just a little too capable of misinterpretation, as the discussion here makes clear. DGG (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone up for renaming/dispersing #INFO again? I believe there was consensus the last time it was proposed, discounting the people who didn't seem to understand the issue. Based on this discussion, most still don't understand what it really means, literally. If I am wrong, no one has ever argued against the meaning me and a few others attribute to it.

Regarding Ned Scott's edit summary here, I contest that the implied meaning is totally changed by that sentence. Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information doesn't imply that an article can't be an indiscriminate collection of information. As an analogy, Wikipedia not being a dictionary doesn't mean that an article can't be a dictionary (doesn't make sense); rather, it means each article can't be a simple dictionary definition. Go through WP:NOT, read the section titles, and try to understand that each section title refers to Wikipedia, not Wikipedia articles. What Otto added isn't even talking about the same thing as the section title.

Secondly, "indiscriminate collection of information" is not the same thing as "collection of indiscriminate information", which Otto and others take further to mean "list of loosely associated topic". "Indiscriminate collection of information" simply means that we don't include every single fact there is about the world, 5 examples of which are listed under #INFO with consensus. There is no consensus about "list of loosely associated topic", and since it doesn't logically follow from WP:NOT, WP:NOT should not be cited in justifying deletion.

It may certainly be the case that articles shouldn't be indiscriminate collections of information, but there are at least two logical leaps being made for granted that is not actually said in WP:NOT. Please seek consensus before tweaking the wording, even if you think it's stating the obvious. And if you agree with my points above, let's rename #INFO to avoid confusion. –Pomte 11:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I completely agree, and I think that this confusion leads to a lot of wasted time. I think part of the unfortunate thing is that people really do want a way to legitimately delete crappy list articles for which no specific deletion criterion applies. It never made sense to use IINFO that way, for precisely the reason you explained so clearly. But, to rephrase it to clarify what it already says will be controversial because of the way it is already used (sometimes legitimately, in my opinion). I hope that question can be answered separately.
I think "WP is also not..." is an improvement, since it is obviously clear. One downside is that this section may then become a catch-all ripe for instruction creep. I think it is usually preferable to outline principles of Wikipedia rather than a list of No-Nos; principles are great medicine for instruction creep and also a good way to make sure our policies are consistent and well-motivated. I think that this section still has a principle, which is stated in the introductory sentence:
merely being true [...] does not automatically make something suitable
Therefore I like a section title like "Wikipedia is not just a collection of information" (or not only or not simply, etc.) even better. — brighterorange (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
"...not a mere collection of information," is I think what you're getting at. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would be satisfactory too. — brighterorange (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD shows a great many list articles deleted for having indiscriminate criteria. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
And many others kept despite that reason given.; it is usually cited when trying to delete any list whatsoever. What we need is a definition of indiscriminate. I propose one: "indiscriminate" means containing items without selecting only the important ones. If a list includes all the relevant items on a topic where all the items are important, it is not indiscriminate. Importance is judged by the standards for article content: it does not necessarily have to amount to W:N notability." 18:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk)
Now define "important".--Father Goose (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
define it in any way whatsoever. If the items are all selected on the basis of any reasonable definition of notability, importance, significance, encyclopedic value, or relevance, the list is not indiscriminate. The point is that indiscriminate is not distinguishing of the basis of any applicable criterion. As long as there is one, the term does not apply. so rewording:

' "indiscriminate" means containing items without selecting only the important, relevant, or applicable ones according to some reasonable criterion. If a list includes all the relevant items on a topic where all the items are in some reasonable way important, or meet any reasonable criterion for inclusion, it is not indiscriminate. The applicability of the criterion is judged by the standards for article content: it does not necessarily have to amount to W:N notability.'DGG (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, my point is that the policy is evaluated on a per-article level. There will always be those who incorrectly cite policy or reasons in an AfD. -- Ned Scott 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It's unreasonable to expect others to find and correct them at every AfD. Better to correct a cause of misinterpretation. –Pomte 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You're assuming most of them are wrong, which does not seem to be the case. For those who do misinterpret them, lets see what we can do to help stop that, but remember, there's a limit to correcting ignorance. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume a non-trivial number of them are wrong, and that a significant cause for this is the wording of the policy. "Let's see what we can do to help stop that..." How? With my suggestion! –Pomte 04:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Plot

Anyone know why the redirect of for WP:Plot was changed to direct to WP:MOSFILM? I've changed it back until someone can explain why. This change affects dozens of discussions that are linked to it. Ridernyc (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete "plot summaries"

Is there a non-stub article on any work of fiction that does not include a plot summary? Even if there is, at least 99% of such articles in my experience have a plot summary. This is like a highway speed limit that virtually nobody obeys. Therefore I propose removing mention of plot summaries. MilesAgain (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy says WP articles cannot "simply" be plot summaries. (the "simply" is way above, in the intro paragraph). This means that an article on a book that says "Bob is a farmer, Bob plants his crops, Bob dies" would not be acceptable, but that including a plot summary in a broader article is perfectly OK. The policy is fine as it currently reads. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I decided to rewrite this section to reflect our policy on fiction coverage in general, not just plot summaries. The underlying issue is a legal one; extensive description of copyrighted works have in the past been declared copyright infringements (see the Twin Peaks and Seinfeld cases mentioned here).
I hope I struck the right balance between "must contain real-world content" and "in-universe information is permitted" with my rewrite. It's possible someone will take objection with my broadening the paragraph to cover fiction in general, although such policy is already in place, and NOT#PLOT was only addressing a subset of it.--Father Goose (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a case of trying to lower the bar due to lack of enforcement. To continue on the speed limit analogy: If the speed limit is 75 and everyone drives 85, the solution is more police, not raising the speed limit to 85 (everyone would just go 95 then). Mr.Z-man 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I gather you're replying to MilesAgain's comment, not mine. He's sort of right, in that policies are meant to be descriptive of existing practice, not prescriptive (see WP:POL). However, in this case we have an underlying legal concern that restricts us from being completely lassez-faire about plots and other fiction coverage, even if that's what we wanted to do.--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
to the extent this objection to plot summaries is valid, the Copyright policy covers it, and it need not be mentioned here. DGG (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you objecting to the changes I made? I need more info.--Father Goose (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Careful on the wording here, as we are dealing with our main policy regarding plot summaries. While I understand we have actual fair use concerns with plot summary, that's really not the main issue at hand, which is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia grounded in the real world. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hold on. Let's compare the two versions side by side:
Old version New version
Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their 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. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. (See also: Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot) Descriptions of fictional works. Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should provide sourced information on the works' real-world context, such as development, production, distribution, and cultural reception and impact. Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article (which is a potential copyright infringement). This applies both to stand-alone works and to series. (See also Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot.)
Personally, I think the new version comes closer to community consensus and describes the legal and style issues better. The "main issue at hand" is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. However, when the notability of a fictional work is established, a summary of the plot is always necessary to properly cover the subject. Somehow, the policy needs to include the copyright issues, reference all fiction and fictional subjects, and point to the other relevant policies like notability and guidelines like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I agree that we need to be cautious in changing an official policy. I do not agree that works of fiction, fictional characters, or other fictional constructs can not meet notability guidelines or that they can only meet notability guidelines if they have "real world" information. I believe Harry Potter, as an example, has achieved some cultural relevance and is notable. You simply can not have an article about the character Harry Potter without some description of the character as described in the book series. I would not describe this information as a "plot summary." There is certainly secondary sources that speak to his cultural relevance, but I do not think that you should disclude the character description because you can not find a secondary source for it. Ursasapien (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The new version sounds nice to me - the focus on preventing crap articles composed only of plot summary while encouraging the use of plot summary in ones with appropriate content and sourcing sounds like a good plan to me. Among other things, it would provide a hedge against the "PLOT = BAD" witchhunt that often times flattens good articles just as much as poor ones. This way, it puts the impetus on creating good articles, not just trashing the worthless ones, and a positive (and sourced! WP:CITE, dammit!) information flow on Wikipedia is always good. MalikCarr (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that copyright/fair-use issue applies to works not in the public domain. I'm not saying cutting down on plot stuff isn't an goal, but there's nothing preventing us legally to put the whole of Romeo and Juliet on WP. Of course, we have the interestng dichotomy of the most notable works in public domain having the most real world content, while the newest works still in copyright lack the real world notability as to strengthen the fair use inclusion of plot information. Still, it makes sense to set the bar to the most restrictive aspect. --MASEM 06:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The copyright issue is actually a little to complicated to summarize in one sentence. I dont think the presence of non-plot content is necessarily decisive one way or the other--the interaction of the factors for fair use are quite complicated--and in fact WP has a somewhat stricter interpretation of what it allows than just the minimum necessary to satisfy US law. I think no properly written article would come near violating it, or even raise the question--I think the argument is generally a red herring by those who dont like such content. It certainly does not have consensus.
Neither does the general argument that there must be some real world content--my interpretation is that it must be clear that it is describing the fiction and not go talking about it in a confusing way as if the stuff actually happened. The revised version is not consensus as policy. I dont think it would even be acceptable as a consensus guideline. DGG (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the comment about copyright from the new version because I'm just not convinced that it's copying to describe a plot summary. Wikipedia does take a narrower view of fair use than the law, but that is only in cases where it's known that there is a copyright or that copying has taken place. If not, the content is free, and Wikipedia does not take a narrow view of free content. I think it's guideline (and might as well be policy) that a mere plot summary, without at least some additional information for context, is a useless article. For one, it would make an article speedy-able as having no claim of notability. So whether copyright is the issue or not, Wikipedia is #NOT a plot guide. With that in mind, what's the difference between the two versions? I don't see much. The proposed change is longer but a little clearer in my opinion. It should apply to non-fiction as well as fiction.Wikidemo (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the line about copyright was appropriate (though wordier than I would have liked). The law is quite clear on this issue. Plots are copyrighted and can be used here only under a fair-use rationale. There is no defensible fair-use rationale for a page which is solely or even primarily a plot summary. Having the comment in the paragraph added to its strength. Note: The comment above about public-domain works is true - we could legally have a page that's solely plot summary from Romeo and Juliet. But that's not the vast majority of our pages or our problems. Let's wordsmith the line but add it back while we work on it. Rossami (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't say the law is "quite clear" (fair use rulings in general can be somewhat unpredictable), though I agree with you that it's hard to see how we could call a page containing a long plot summary and nothing else a "fair use".
I've raised this issue in parallel over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#recent edit, and I'm willing to see how that emerges before I would push for a mention of WP:FAIRUSE on this page.--Father Goose (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
DGG: It's not a red herring for me; I like detailed descriptions of fiction, but I've come to see that there are probable limits on what we can do, and more importantly, how we do it. Although I agree I don't want to see content purged via spurious claims of copyright enforcement, we can't pretend it isn't, on some level, a real issue.
As for there "must be real-world content", I interpret this as meaning, at an absolute minimum, that fictional subjects should be talked about in real-world terms: "this is a character that appeared in this and was depicted this way" not "this guy lives here and does this". So certainly some rewording is in order to make this clearer. However, I'm not certain that that alone is sufficient to avoid copyright problems: The Harry Potter Lexicon is getting sued for doing nothing more than documenting what was used where and how within the Harry Potter fictional universe. Specifically because of copyright issues, we're probably obliged to go beyond just describing fictional content in great detail, even if we do it in a real-world style.--Father Goose (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"I interpret this as meaning, at an absolute minimum, that fictional subjects should be talked about in real-world terms" - yep this is definitely true. This is covered more in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), though, which is linked to from the "Descriptions of fictional works" section. --Stormie 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That much is uncontroversial. There remains the question of whether there are additional limitations presented by fair use issues. Further responses on that issue are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#recent edit.--Father Goose 07:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Just as a note, I reviewed this some more and my skepticism was unfounded. Plot summaries are clearly a copying issue under the law because they copy the creative elements of a script, so fair use analysis is necessary. To be fair use the plot summary has to be done in a critical way, not just as an abridged mini-version of the plot. That's been thoroughly discussed on several occasions and represents consensus. So I put the copyright comment back in and reworded somewhat to emphasize this and explain the reason. I hope it's not too wordy. I comment in more detail over on the NFCC talk page linked to above. Wikidemo 16:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're misstating copyright law here. (1) A plot summary does not have to be critical in order to be fair use. At best, criticism is one of the exemplary ways in which one of the four factors can be demonstrated. (2) Restating the plot is not necessarily even "copying" in the sense of copyright, which is reproduction. A plot summary may restate (and summarize, which is already a transformation of the original) the creative elements, but it does so for a substantially different purpose than the original -- the summary and the different purpose are both transformative aspects of the use which would tend to weigh towards fair use. A court would first examine to see if there was copying of any sort; and then look for fair use. A very significantly transformed "copy" -- such as a summary of a plot -- might not even be considered copying, and if it were considered copying, would then be a significant transformation for the first fair use factor. Other relevant doctrines include de minimis -- whether the copying is so trivial that it doesn't even amount to a legal issue -- and scenes à faire, whether the copying is of standard plots and fictional devices. (3) Consensus on Wikipedia, such as it is and to the extent it exists at all on this issue, does not reflect the state of the law of fair use in the US, but the state of wikipedia's approach to fair use. ... Lquilter 17:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is a little more involved than that. Copyright holders have, from time to time, published encyclopaedias based on their works. Most comic book companies have, as well as the Tolkien estate, Terry Pratchett and Julian May. Therefore, I think we have to use criticism to transform our plot summaries in such a way that we do not infringe the rights of the copyright holder to exploit their work. We're basically giving this stuff away, for anyone to repackage for any purpose. If we work up a number of articles on the Harry Potter universe which could then be repackaged as a Guide to Harry Potter, I should imagine Wikipedia would find itself named if a suit similar to the one now issued against The Harry Potter Lexicon. Our articles on fictional works need to have sources of substance other than the fiction itself. They need to have critical opinion cited in the text of the article, and they need to keep plot summation as brief as possible, so that articles on a fictional subject when viewed together do not become a guide to that fictional world, but rather an encyclopaedic treatment on the critical and cultural legacy of the work. All that said, I'm as happy with the new words as I am with the old. Hiding T 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
And for an example of what I mean, have a look at Saga of Pliocene Exile which up front states it is reproducing Julian May's A Pliocene Companion: A Guide To The Saga Of Pliocene Exile. Hiding T 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Resp: The law is always more complicated than a one-paragraph summary, and the summaries that Hiding T gives are similarly subject to complexifying. However, it is not the case that a court in the US has held that "A plot summary is only fair use if criticism is included". We should be careful not to make untrue and overbroad legal statements in order to support a policy point. Far better to say "we strengthen/hurt our case for fair use if we do X" (which is, in its form, a true legal statement) than to state that "we must/must not do X for fair use" (which is almost never true in its form). Sorry to be persnickety; but I think this is important as a legal matter as well as simply to keep discussions well-informed. --Lquilter 16:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you have missed my point. See Twin Peaks v. Publications Int'l, Ltd. 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).) My point is that any policy has to take into consideration Wikipedia as a whole as well as each individual article. Whatever laws and claims apply to any given article may also need to be considered with regards any group of articles. We have to consider the total effect as much as we do the individual effect. A large number of summaries aggregated together have been deemed to be copyright violation; a fair use claim was denied. A large number of small plot summaries on every character and location in a given fictional universe has been deemed to breach copyright. Hiding T 17:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm familiar with Twin Peaks and understand your read of it; I also well understand that WP wants to be on the far conservative side of these issues. Do you understand my point? "Overbroad and inaccurate statements of the law are not helpful to discussions." The original comments said that summaries had to have criticism to be fair use; no US court has made such a holding; to let that statement stand without clarification means that people will have a discussion with false understandings. --Lquilter 18:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not sure I missed your point to start with. I was expanding on it. After that it got muddy. I was saying that what is fair use depends on who we're being sued by, so it is hard to know how to strengthen our case for fair use. What strengthens it in one instance, i.e. short plot summary which is transformational is fine on its own. Taken together with five hundred other likewise short plot summaries, it might not be. I think we're arguing the same thing at each other, which wasn't my intent. I was going further from you, not against you. Hiding T 19:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Got it. At any rate, I think we've bludgeoned poor Wikidemo and every other editor into silence with our legal pedantry. Like you, I'm reasonably okay with the current general tone. I made (diff) what I hope is a minor wordsmithery change to the language that reflects what I think is all of our understanding: Changed "to qualify as fair use" to "to support our fair use claim". The revised wording doesn't imply (falsely) that this is, per se, necessary for a fair use claim but does make it clear that it there are good (legal) reasons for it, i.e., that it supports a fair use claim. --Lquilter 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the case law is clear that copying occurs as a matter of course in creating a plot summary and that we're therefore in a fair use analysis. Take a look at Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Publishing, 150 F.3d 132 (2nd cir. 1998)[3]. The fact that plot details are derived from watching the work is enough to establish copying. That there are numerous details is enough to get past the de minimus threshold. Various cases do turn on the question of there being commentary versus a non-transformative use. Pputting it in a real-world rather than in-universe context is the kind of commentary we provide here, perhaps a necessary part. What other kind of transformation do you want? Parody? News reporting? Comparitive advertising? Scholarship/education is out for reasons having to do with free content. Even if one could come up with counterexamples or counterarguments, we have to assume it is copying and assume that some commentary is required. That's not so painful becaues it aligns with the actual way that good film, video, and book summaries are written: from a real-world rather than in-world POV. No reason not to make that a style guideline requirement for plot summaries and/or a prohibition here. Sometimes we have to make bright-line rules on the conservative side of a legal issue rather than encouraging editors to stumble through the legal analysis for themselves each time. Wikidemo 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Lquilter's recent modification is a good idea for sure. Commentary (achieved by putting it in the real world context) doesn't make a plot summary qualify for fair use, it is just something we ought to require because it helps the case and our quality standards at the same time.Wikidemo 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems are not the reason why we have WP:NOT#PLOT. Copyright problems are an issue, but that's besides the point, because even if there was no copyright issue WP:NOT#PLOT would still exist. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ned, I've restored this for now because you haven't actually said what if anything is actually wrong with the new language. I don't mean to be contentious about it and if you think it's inappropriate I won't revert again, just querying what you think. If copyright risk is an issue then there are a couple of good reasons to mention it even if we would do the same for encyclopedic reasons as well. For one, mentioning the copyright concern prevents any misguided future changes to the policy. It's not unusual to do that in a policy page. Second, it helps interpret the policy. If there's any doubt about what the policy means, or if it's okay to leave naked in-world plot summaries pending article improvement (comparable to how we often leave trivia pending cleaning it up), a mention of the copyright concern should give more weight to it. The exact wording doesn't matter - I had earlier reverted the addition of a copyright myself, but put it back upon realizing that my reason for doing so was incorrect...in the process I thought I could improve the language. It's not an attempt to change policy but rather to be more specific and improve the language.Wikidemo 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the copyright issue should be mentioned here (even though I do think it is a real issue in some situations). There's also the whole "topic" vs "article" thing; The old wording was careful to say "topic" rather than getting caught up in whatever we currently define as a stand-alone document. The other reason I reverted back is because this is one of those points where some people will go after when they want to challenge the policy or guidelines, where consensus is almost always challenged. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's great (better, even) to leave them out altogether. (Although, as I said, if it's in I'm going to be very persnickety about how it's in.) Putting copyright in appears to be done more to scare people than to actually reflect the state of the law and I don't think that's productive. Actually just to be parsimonious it's also better just to keep the focus, here, on why we do it, which is frankly more because we are not IMDB or a fansite or whatever. I mean, even if there were no copyright issues, the plot summaries would need to be balanced because we're an encyclopedia -- not a plot summary-pedia. --Lquilter 13:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Okay, then I support the status quo too. Wikidemo 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I do think it's worth noting the copyright issue as long as it's done right. I feel I had the right approach with my first version of the rewrite, saying nothing more than "[it] is a potential copyright violation", which doesn't overstate the case, and leaves WP:NFC to lay out the details with the needed subtlety that cannot be done here. However, I won't push for that mention or link on this page until we can work out the right way to add a "descriptions of fiction" breakdown to NFC.--Father Goose 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The comment about copyright concerns strengthens the section. Finding a way to explain it clearly and in balance is better than merely deleting the mention. Rossami (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Section break for readability

  • Back to the original issue. Other than copyright, why does this point exist? This one point is being used to justify large parts of WP:FICT and (indirectly) a rather large number of AfDs. But I'm not seeing a clear justification. Is it due to copyright issues? Is it due to something related to notability? Hobit (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
because wikipedia is a real world encyclopedia that shows how things affect the real world. It's basically the difference between Readers Digest and CliffsNotes, one simply condenses the plot into a short story, the other offers only brief plot points to educate people about the importance and development and meaning of the work. Ridernyc (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't everything part of the "real world"? I've never understood this phrase as respects fiction. The important parts of the plot of Romeo and Juliet should be explained, because Romeo and Juliet is important, and understanding the plot is necessary for understanding the work. Obviously, we shouldn't pretend that the events in the story actually took place. But Romeo and Juliet's plot is as much a part of the "real world" as a painting, automobile, mathematical equation or other construction of humans. — brighterorange (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the plot is part of the real world just like an automobile but let me push your analysis a bit further. We don't have an actual automobile in the encyclopedia. We have text that talks about the automobile, explaining and describing it and, more importantly, explaining its implications within the context of the rest of the real world.
No one has said that we have to forbid all discussion of plot in an article - only that an encyclopedia article must be more than merely plot summary. If, after a reasonable period of time, no one can find anything sourcable to write about other than plot summary, that's probably a pretty good indicator that we don't have anything encyclopedic to say yet. Rossami (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll disagree here. A short plot summary can be enough to me an encyclopedia article. If someone wrote a book about dogs, a short summary of the book and links to a few reviews or sales figures should be enough. Same with fiction IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
On the Readers Digest and CliffsNotes I agree, but current WP:PLOT is used as an argument against CliffNotes-type summaries. Red Hand of Doom has been cited as having too much plot compared to real-world content. WP:PLOT would seem to indicate that even short plot summaries aren't acceptable if "real world impact" stuff isn't included. Is that the intent? Hobit (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes even short plot summaries are bad if there is no real world context in the article. Another problem is articles that add minor bits of real world context to try to support massive plot summaries. I don't have a problem with the article you linked to, I Have a problem when 3 sentences of information about a voice actor is used to justify a 5 page character bio. Ridernyc (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Other than notability (which I think is covered elsewhere) why would a pure plot summary be a problem? Is this just an attempt at defining notability? Hobit (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No it's defining what is considered encyclopedic, analysis of plot is, summary of plot is not. Ridernyc (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
How come? If we have a biography of a real person, must we analyze the important events of that person's life, or is it acceptable to simply recount them? I think the latter. What is the difference? — brighterorange (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Do i really need to point out that one is real one is a work of fiction. If you can't understand the difference, I'm not sure how to explain it. Ridernyc (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess you are not understanding my point. Of course we should not write about fiction as if it actually occurred, but I don't see why fiction needs "analysis" when we are otherwise willing to state facts without analysis. To say "At the side of Romeo's dead body, she stabs herself with her lover's dagger" in the synopsis of Romeo and Juliet is completely appropriate, is fiction, and needs no real-world anything or analysis in order to be encyclopedic. — brighterorange (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose: Not Features Guide

Proposed - Wikipedia is not a features guide to be used to compare the features of competing products.

The ongoing Guitar controller compatibility DRV and its associated AfD reveal a struggle to identify why articles largely composed of product feature comparison tables should not be permitted within Wikipedia. There are many, many of these product feature comparison table articles, most of which lack cites to independent reliable sources for the table contents. The information is taken directly from the product manufacturer, so it fails to meet the independent requirement for source material. While it seems that Wikipedia is not a features guide to be used to compare the features of competing products, WP:NOT does not seem to specifically cover this situation. Wp:not#sales was written to keep prices out of these product comparison table articles (see Price guide (again)), but I think that is as far as it goes. I would appreciate seeing other's comments on this proposal. -- Jreferee t/c 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you advocate deleting something like Comparison of vector graphics editors? I've used that article, and others like it, to get overviews of products in specific categories. They tend to be imperfect, but that's true of Wikipedia in general. What do we gain by deleting them?--Father Goose (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That article is full of apparent original research, is mostly unreferenced, and includes prices; probably not the best example of why we should keep them. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I don't think pages that are essentially comparison shopping guides fit under that definition, even with a long stretch of WP:NOT#PAPER. Mr.Z-man 22:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, I used that article as an example of something that is less than perfect, but still has some encyclopedic worth. It could be improved in many ways, which in itself is not a justification for deletion (AfD is not cleanup). I don't see the sense in proposing that any "Overview of products of type x" should be automatically declared "unencyclopedic" and banned. I marvel at how often deletion is being treated as a substitute for good editing these days.--Father Goose (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this might be lump-able with the price-guide part. Basically that we are not a shopping guide, and that would include both. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I oppose any tighter restriction on product comparisons, and I believe that prices sourced to news articles should be included in articles. Far too many "feature ads" run on the Main Page, which look like they were written by the computer game's marketing staff. Wikipedia should describe commercial products more in the context of product comparisons (categories) than in terms of individual product descriptions. Any problems with WP:NOR/WP:V should be addressed on the spot, not by condemning unrelated articles without such problems. 70.15.116.59 15:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think this is a good idea. Eusebeus 15:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Having seen a few attempts to use Wikipedia commercially, I wholeheartedly concur that feature guides and such are a bad idea. >Radiant< 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree here--I think prices are rarely relevant and can always be easily found on the web. Comparison articles are tricky because they tend to involve a certain degree of evaluation; articles specifically about notable products can be descriptive & therefore encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal. It would mean every comparison list would get deleted, even the ones that cite reliable sources. And editors may start saying that every list article that mentions products is really just a comparison list. I think Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising and Wikipedia is not a price guide already cover any concerns about "features guides." --Pixelface (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • And what if the products are not commercial products? Can they really be said to be "competing"? --Pixelface (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I oppose. per Pixelface's 12:28 comments. Hobit (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Not a picture book?

Take a look at St. Martin's Island, Pakistan Air Force, Independent University, Bangladesh, Haor ... there are more, many more. And, what do you see? Articles laden with images that add little or no extra information. As long as they are on the commons, no problem. But, why are we driving page sizes up, and reducing encyclopedic integrity of the project? There has been trmenedous outrage about trivia, and so little has been done about this picture book approach. Shouldn't something be done? Like, at least developing a template that says - "Unnecessary images and image galleries are not encouraged... please, put them to enhance information at appropriate places in the article, or reduce the number of images"... or something in that line. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Note - Haor gallery now removed by AK Johnbod (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe the articles Pakistan Air Force and Independent University, Bangladesh in current revisions make informative, appropriate use of images integrated with the text. They look good and they get the point across. Unfortunately the other two have "Gallery" sections with many redundant pictures. Personally, I think the "gallery" tag would be a good template for deletion, if it were a template. It pretty much always invites the proliferation of pictures without any thought for how they tie in to the text. But this is already addressed, in a more moderate way, in Image_use_policy#Photo_galleries. 70.15.116.59 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think galleries such as the one in St. Martin's Island are fine, in moderation. The Pakistan Air Force article goes a bit overboard, having 6-7 pictures of F-16s alone. They're nice pictures, though, so I'd move them to a gallery rather than get rid of them. In thumbnail form (and in moderate number), galleries load up quickly and are a good supplement to an article.--Father Goose 23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As someone who mainly edits art articles I am always amazed by the number of people who think galleries are already banned, or that they should be shot on sight. I agree far too many articles use pictures badly, but Commons, with jumbled up pictures a very large % of which have completely inaccurate information or no information at all, is absolutely no substitute. I sometimes use quite large galleries, but only if there is a significant point made by each picture, which is made in the caption. Any knee-jerk ban on galleries would be extremely foolish. Look at recent FA Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes - do you think that has too many pictures? Johnbod 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with galleries per se. The main issues would seem to be those of relevance, redundancy, and undue weight. Are the images vital supplements to the text? Are there repetitions among those pictures used in the body of the text and those in the lower gallery? Or, as noted above, a number of images of the same thing, which can get to be, and no pun intended in the case of F-16s, overkill. And finally, as can happen with lists and other supplemental material, have they become 'imagecruft'?, i.e, does the gallery take as much space as the text? As someone who is interested in visual arts entries, I'd rather err on the side of too few, rather than too many images--the text must do its job first (I always thought that a bio on a minor artist could have one or two images, with up to ten or so for a major master, but that's an arbitrary conclusion). Short of a definitive policy, which I don't see happening, one hopes that most editors will use good aesthetic sense when it comes to page format. JNW 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes has many pictures which splendidly make a point, but it contains no "gallery" tag. The exact same number of images that would form an oversized and redundant "gallery" at the end of an article can seem moderate and well integrated when they appear beside appropriate subheadings. (It's also true that the Pakistani article could cut a few F-16s, though) Basically, every image added to an article should have some reason for being there, though it doesn't have to be a very good one; every reason involves relevance to some line(s) of text in the article; therefore, every image should be placed inline somewhere in the article near that corresponding text. Q.E.D. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a good use of pictures is important. Some of the links you posted are actually quite improved with the pictures IMO. Hobit (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    I have to agree with Hobit, while I take the point that photo galleries are not encyclopedic, I don't find too many edit wars over their inclusion/exclusion and certainly don't want to discourage the inclusion of photos where appropriate. I will say though, an outrageous number of photos of people's cars cycle through the articles pertaining to their respective make/model. :p - CheshireKatz (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Statistics

I'd like to see some expansion & clarification to this section. I frequently find articles on broad subjects referencing arbitrarily taken opinion polls. They are presented without context, allowing the reader to infer that the poll content is broadly representative and the careful selection of included polls can result in POV Pushing. For example, I've recently encountered a problem regarding the inclusion of opinion polls on the Anti-Arabism page. Initially presented in a section listing poll results, I rewrote the poll content in readable prose and then redistributed it to relevant sections per WP:MOS. Afterwards, I realized that such polls were included quite arbitrarily (in particular see Anti-Arabism#France). I tried to simply remove it per WP:NOT#STATS and WP:Notability, but was met with resistance for removing sourced content. The reverter argued that WP:NOT#STATS doesn't apply, because a "long and sprawling list" requiring remediation does not yet exist and that published in newspapers is sufficiently notable. That doesn't seem right to me, but I can't draw enough from the WP:NOT#Statistics section to support my intuition. What say you on the subject of opinion poll results, fellow editors? - CheshireKatz (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd still really like some feedback on this. WP:NOT#Statistics seems to restrict the inclusion of polls to those where the the poll itself is analyzed in the reference and that analysis is included. This makes sense in an effort to curb original research (original synthesis in particular) but I'd really like to see it clarified to say so explicitly. - CheshireKatz (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin censor negative comments towards him (and ban that person afterward)?

Resolved
 – Banned editors must use proper channels to dispute their ban. - CheshireKatz (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion initiated by banned sockpuppet removed per policy. - CheshireKatz (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do we have a What Wikipedia is article? Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of these:
–Pomte 04:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Jimbo Wales violates section 2.2.4 of this policy on the talk page for Wesley Willis 216.164.51.162 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're picking on Jimbo for a single edit made back in 2003 - long before this policy clause existed. Congratulations, you've found evidence that the project has matured and that we are now more professional than we were years ago. I imagine you'd find the same in most of the older history pages. Rossami (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Snitch!--Father Goose (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It used to be that articles didn't even have talk pages, discussion went on the bottom. See for example some of the history here. Mr.Z-man 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
He should probably be de-opped. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:52, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

To the section "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought I have added the following:

  • Reviews. Wikipedia does not review works of fiction or non-fiction, or provide digested summaries such as might be associated with reviews.

We do sometimes meet newcomers to Wikipedia who expect us to provide content similar to that provided by newspapers. This new addition is intended to support those who want to emphasize our encyclopedic mission.

Please hack up and edit mercilessly. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I find that addition ludicrous and I'm glad it's been removed. --Pixelface (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
And your concern over content similar to newspapers is already covered by WP:NOT#NEWS --Pixelface (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if "digested summaries" means what I think I'm reading it as. We want to encourage terse(r) plot coverage in most points, and a good terse plot description could be taken as being a "digested summary". --MASEM 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's poorly stated. Please remove and I'll try to explain what I mean. I guess a first attempt would be "the kind of description you read on a DVD box or in a magazine when you're deciding whether or not to watch the movie." --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"Promotional summary"? --MASEM 04:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, give us an offending example so we know just what it is you're trying to prohibit, 'cause I don't understand what this addition is aimed at.--Father Goose (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
He's trying to reinforce the fact that we include spoiler material in our plot synopses, by saying "We don't provide promotional reviews", promotional reviews being things that omit spoilers. This is part of Tony's ongoing campaign to make sure the decisions reached at WT:SPOILER never get overturned. Head over there for some context. Tony is also trying to get WP:SPOILER merged somewhere, and probably figures he can eventually do that here if he effectively adds the spoiler guideline in here, albeit in different words.
This addition doesn't make much sense to me, as what he's really trying to say is "We don't not include spoilers." We already have a guideline for this. Not every policy needs to be stated as one of the "not"s here. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:05, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of the history of this issue, and disgusted by it, but I'm willing to assume good faith on the chance that Tony isn't attempting to do exactly what you describe. If that is indeed what he's up to, this is a non-starter.--Father Goose (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevant facts are already in the content disclaimer and have been for some years now. I agree that it isn't always necessary to put every policy point into this one, but I think there would be some value in this case.

The wording I have proposed has no bearing on Wikipedia:Spoiler, which merely determines whether we duplicate the content disclaimer in articles as an exception to our No disclaimers in articles guideline.

Another way of putting what I've proposed is simply this: Wikipedia is not a review site.

I can't even begin to understand what Equazcion says I'm doing, or what purpose I could have in doing so. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What does "Wikipedia is not a review site" have to do with digested summaries? Wikipedia does not review works of fiction/non-fiction but it does contain citations to those reviews. If you say "Wikipedia is not a review site", that could mean the removal of all Critical reception sections. Plot summaries can only be provided under a claim of fair use and plot summaries without analysis may be construed to be a derivative work, so I really don't see any good reason why this page should contain your proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the fact that Wikipedia isn't a review site doesn't mean we don't want to report on the critical reception of works of fiction--rather the reverse. I haven't raised the question of non-transformative use of a copyrighted work, nor is a transformative use necessarily a review, so your comment on copyright is moot. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You still haven't mentioned what your aim is with that addition. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:10, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I could give some examples of promotional language such as "to find out what happens, read the book" or "Will Brett find true love?" which are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. However the style guide is probably adequate here. "Wikipedia includes spoilers" is already in the content disclaimer and not, as Equazcion appears to believe, the spoiler guideline. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to start arguing about spoilers here. The question is whether or not your addition belongs here, and by "the style guide" being "adequate" I'm assuming you no longer think it does, so I think we can consider the matter closed. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:30, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think such matters belong in the style guide. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Which it already is. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:19, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I think what Tony is aiming for is already covered by WP:NOR, unless I'm missing something. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Content ratings

I've posted a policy question regarding "Wikipedia is not censored" and content ratings to the Village pump. Morphh (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not perfect

I'm proposing to add a new section to the project page. Anyone who has been contributing to the Wikipedia project for a few years, as I have, comes across a steady stream of disillusioned users. Whether it is inability to agree on article content, reaction to perceived arbitrary Admin action or a paranoid clique defending their patch, or just good people being worn down by the vast number of defects to fix and lack of support in carrying out their work, the loss of valuable contributors all comes down to one thing: disillusionment at the realisation that Wikipedia is not perfect. Much better to learn this at the beginning. Wikipedia is not perfect, and it is not possible to fix everything all at once. But rather than give up and leave, it is more rewarding to make friends and/or move on to other areas of this vast project where your talents are appreciated and welcomed. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good content but does it really fit on this page? You can already refer them to meta:Eventualism, WP:REPLIES, WP:DEADLINE and WP:INSPECTOR (to name a few) which discuss aspects of what you're trying to say. Rossami (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
As you mentioned below, the page is getting quite long. This idea is of a different type from those already listed here. And of course the problem with listing it in all the other areas you suggest is that no one will find them until it's too late! Perhaps this idea would be more suitable in a how-to introduction page. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Nomic

There's a bunch of people who seem to think it is a nomic. (and no, it's not calvinball either :-P )

Would the page get too cluttered if that is added? Or do we have a whole "what else wikipedia is also not" page someplace? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We used to have a section by that title on the page. Back in 2005-ish if I remember right. I'm not sure why or when it was removed from the page. My only concern about adding it back would be instruction creep. This page is already quite a bit longer than ideal. Rossami (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It's kinda important. We have new people around again, who think that editing a policy page changes the rules.--Kim Bruning (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kim, people read policy pages so that they can understand the rules. When you change the description of a rule, then you change people's understanding of the rule and thus modify how it is applied. If you change how it is applied, then you have changed the rule. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia actually doesn't have rules, even though some people call them that. Pages in the project namespace summarize consensus reached across large parts of the wiki. Consensus can change long before someone finally decides to document what the consensus is. Like I said, wikipedia is not a nomic. (and this has in fact been policy for a long time, and likely still is, even though it isn't currently documented, for some reason :-P ). I know this to be true, and I am somewhat (in)famous for organizing calvinball matches at wikimania (calvinball is a kind of nomic) to illustrate how dangerous playing nomic can be to an organization. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Will you be in egypt, this year? Come play! :-)
Kim, you used the word "rules" and I responded in kind, now you switch the discussion to that nomenclature here and at my talk page, and are trying to lecture me on off-topic issues. You are being semi-clever, but not convincing. If you seek to persuade me you fail. If you seek to ridicule me, I don't think that anyone will be impressed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's an easy trap to fall into. My apologies. I notice that I have actually used the word "rules" incorrectly on talk:Consensus. Let me fix that. After that my nomenclature should be consistent. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kim, Thanks. I do think that you are trying to move to a positive conclusion, and I appreciate that. The nomenclature is not important. Too much time is spent on euphemisms at WP. We don’t' have rules, we don't vote, we don't push POV. And if you really believe that .... OK, let's stop splitting hairs and get some meaningful issues on the table. --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have surprised many people who thought that those things were mere ideals. Wikipedia guidance is based on 7 years of experience. If you pay attention and apply things correctly, you can attain extremely good results in very short time frames. --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kim, you’re in fantasy land. You need to spend some time in the trenches and not in the ivory towers telling people how it should be. Go volunteer at Third opinion, try to save some articles nominated for AfD, or try to do some cleanup in a moderately controversial topic, and watch how people interact. --Kevin Murray (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a word of caution. You're not going to win many other opinions by casting aspersions against one of the project's most experienced editors. I may frequently disagree with Kim but credentials are not an issue. Rossami (talk)
I agree with kim, and I am in the trenchs that Kevin invited kim to. Kevin, Ive got 60,000+ edits and most of those are doing "trech" work, Ive been there done that. and Ive got the scars to prove it. instead of making attacks that have zero ground, try having a reasonable content based discussion. βcommand 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. I respect your opinion and maybe I'm wrong, but at a minimum I would like to see broader comment from people before significant changes are made at our policy pages. I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong if people come forward to support Kim. But I am very concerned when I see a lot of activity by one editor at many policy pages without demonstrated consensus. If WP really worked in accordance with Kim's vision it would be a much better place, and you and I would have fewer scars. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone else recently said something similar, about how wikipedia would be a better place. So then, I went ahead and just showed him.
Let's do the same here. What's a particularly tricky 3O case that you're worried about? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I'm encountering more and more people who I need to explain to that wikipedia is not a nomic. If someone has time, can they look why the Wikipedia is not a Nomic was removed in the first place? If there is no real reason other than to keep the page short, it would be nice if we could put it back, it's getting really necessary. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Nomic. Found the original addition, at least! I'll look to see why it was removed, later. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

At a guess, I suppose it was redundant with "not a bureaucracy". I guess we can merge the text in there. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Nomic seems to have had some influence on Wikipedia culture, even if Wikipedia isn't one. The mere fact that this fairly obscure game, which appeared in a 25-year-old Scientific American column and in a little-known academic book on self-reference in law, is familiar enough to Wikipedians that it can be used and debated as an example of what Wikipedia is or isn't, or should or shouldn't, be like, is evidence that the meme of Nomic is particularly catchy among the sort of people who are also attracted to Wikipedia. Ask out on the street and you probably won't find a person in a hundred who's heard of Nomic, but among active Wikipedians the proportion is much higher. What exactly this indicates I'm not sure. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement, not policy

I created a new template to reflect the fact that this page does not give procedures or instructions and is thus not a policy, but simply a statement. Hyacinth (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

this is a policy. you dont need procedures or instructions to be a policy. βcommand 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you need more than an assertion.
Policy: 2 a: a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions b: a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body
Hyacinth (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures covers it, it says what is not acceptable. βcommand 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What does one do with that information? Hyacinth (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion pages

are we "allowed" to share our thoughts about the topic / subject of the article? what should we do if we make posts about things related to an article on its discussion page (for example, if we make a post about how the history channel had a show on nostradamus and portrayed osama bin laden as "the anti-christ" that nostradamus predicted on the "osama bin laden" Discussion page) and then someone deletes our posts, and cites this policy? what if they also deleted a post pointing out a grammatical error on a protected page that cannot be edited by everyone? isn't there a no revert wars policy? what should we do? Jaguar Verde (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The talk pages are provided for the sole purpose of building and improving the articles. We tolerate a small degree of cross-talk from new users who don't yet know better (and we try to assume good faith when we do so) but it is not at all unusual for irrelevant tangents to be removed from a page.
The grammatical error example would seem to be an appropriate use of the Talk page. Can you please provide a link to the edit in question? It would help to see if there's something else going on. Rossami (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I've reverted this edit. It changed this section:

Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project. Wikipedia is not the white pages.;;

to this:

Biography articles should only be for people with clearly established notability, as demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project. Wikipedia is not the white pages.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of enshrining the rather vague, often self-contradictory "notability" guidelines in the heart of our policy. This policy sets out Wikipedia's purpose (and what it isn't for). To say that those guidelines are definitive is incorrect. Sometimes they don't work, and that's why they're guidelines. --Tony Sidaway 07:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I know its a guideline, but would it not make sense to suggest that these exist in not-so-strong language for reference?. For example, from the original version, I would add after the 3rd sentence and before the last. "Notability guidelines are available to assist in judging the appropriateness of the inclusion of a biography." (note BIO which is specific to people. I would recommend a similar change (not a strong assertion that notability guidelines are perfect) in the IINFO section. --MASEM 12:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think something like that might work. --Tony Sidaway 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not objective.

See the claim put forth at WP:NPOV/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity and my edit that was reverted [5]. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT people's philosophy theses, either. Policy is hard enough without incorporating the nihilists, no? Chris Cunningham (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The point isn't for it to be a philosophy thesis, but for policy pages to actually be rational and self-consistent. Claiming Wikipedia policy says nothing of objectivism, while at the same time invoking the idea in euphemisms across several policy pages, and claiming to put forth a reliable encyclopedia, is probably the largest contradiction in Wikipedia policy there is. On the one hand, nobody wants to say, "Wikipedia is not objective," (as demonstrated here) because that would make Wikipedia look bad. But on the other hand, nobody wants to say, "Wikipedia should be objective," either, because then that would violate WP:Anti-elitism.

If Wikipedia policy is descriptive: WP:NOT should contain a section, "Wikipedia is not objective." If Wikipedia policy is prescriptive: WP:NPOV should emphasize objective analysis and directly use that word -- not just hide it behind euphemisms. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consider objectivity. Rather, we consider neutrality and verifiability. Thus it is unecessary to use the term "objective" and possibly unwise given the irrelevant philosophical can of worms you open by doing so. Hyacinth (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I do, however, feel that it in no way makes Wikipedia look bad to claim it is not objective any more than it makes Wikipedia look bad to claim that it is not omniscient. Hyacinth (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hyacinth, that begs the question: Should users objectively verify material in accordance with WP:NPOV? Or should they do it subjectively (also known as POV-pushing)? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have little to do with what Wikipedia is. Hyacinth (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Forum

I think that the what wikipedia is not article could be improved by saying that people are free to discuss articles on the discussion pages of the articles. Why can't they be discussed? I feel that this would greatly improve the article because wikipedia has the advantage of BEING online, and thus, to discuss intellectual encyclopedia articles with people throughout the world. It is a given that this a great advantage, but some wikipedians do not want this. Why? What is the major disadvantage to this? BriEnBest (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Deal with "game guide" content more directly

Currently, the section entitled "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook" (linked to from WP:GAMEGUIDE), is broken into four pieces. Game guides are covered in the first section, Instruction Manuals: "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks." (emphasis mine)

The problem with this is that it implies that game guide content is restricted to "how-to" information. True, many game guides are filled with this sort of information, such as tips for beating a level or earning a high score, but game guides go beyond instructional content. For example, suppose someone created an article that listed the monsters found in a video game, together with statistics, such as how many hit points each monster had, amount of experience and gold awarded for defeating, etc. This isn't instructional—it doesn't say how to defeat the monsters—but it is clearly game guide material in my opinion. Whenever I find such content and remove it, I usually link to this section and say that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Often, someone will revert and say that it's not game guide content because it doesn't instruct the player on how to play the game.

I would like to split game guides out from instructional manuals as a fifth part of this section to deal with them more directly and explain them more clearly. The proposed section would state that Wikipedia is not for detailed descriptions of how to play a game (whether a video game, pen-and-paper role-playing game, or other), not for tips and techniques such as glitches or detailed strategies that are only useful to those playing the game, and not for lists of statistics or minutia such as one would expect to find in a game guide. Pagrashtak 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the split, and new proposed section. I've personally cleaned many articles up, and seen some reverted because they don't think it's game guide content. If a better section was made, this problem wouldn't be around as much. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the split also, though not necessarily the proposed language. This does need separate treatment. Given that NOT is policy, the actual wording will need a much more general discussion than just here. The discussion should involve at least the relevant WikiProjects, and probably should be announced at the VP. In thinking about what is appropriate, consider the articles on chess, many of which are very strongly supported by reliable published sources, and also very detailed. DGG (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, something about easter eggs and secrets should be listed in it. I've seen many "secrets" and "easter egg" sections on video game articles. Nothing out of control (that I've seen at least), but I think it's right to put it in this proposed section as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe. Certainly DGG is right that this needs more discussion to develop consensus. Although the example of monster hit point data is a good one (and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia), it is already covered with WP:NOT#STATS (and probably other things). Since "game guide" is used so frequently as a reason for deletion, it probably makes sense to spell out what we mean by that, but it is also a sometimes contentious claim—so I'm not sure we're justified in expanding its scope. For example, I would disagree with a prohibition on descriptions of strategies or easter eggs; both are things that are sometimes notable and widely written about. From my perspective, the reason that "game guide" appears here in WP:NOT is more of a stylistic issue than a content one: We must write about things in an NPOV, external manner, not by walking the reader through a tutorial or giving advice. Still, we can write about games and their noteworthy aspects (which might include easter eggs and bugs and strategies), as long as we do so using an encyclopedic style and employing our other various policies of neutrality and verifiability. — brighterorange (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Should this statement by Jimbo be referenced or linked to? It is relevant to what Wikipedia is not (especially pertaining to game materials). Jappalang (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
A NPOV manner is not incompatible with giving instructions on how to play a game, unless you mean we should also give instructions on how to play it poorly. NPOV doesnt seem to apply here at all, except as we would list the available sources in an even handed manner. Other things do, of course, but the only way to intelligently talk about a game to someone who doesn't know it is to explain at least in summary how to play it. actually this is the same as fiction: you have to explain the plot in order to know what you are talking about even at the very most basic level. On this I dont think Burtorange and I disagree in practice. There are articles with too much detail. where I think people differ, based on AfD discussions, is whether a list of the game objects is appropriate: I think that';s how a game is defined: the rules, and the objects, like the plot and the characters. Obviously again, we dont want to give all the detail--but there are not all that many articles here that give the detail to the extent I would expect in an actual guide to playing the game. DGG (talk)

This debate seems to hinge on the meaning of game guide. Wikipedia is certainly not a guide to games, irregardless of what a game guide itself is. Hyacinth (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games addresses this issue in detail at Wikipedia:VG/GL#Content. That may provide a starting point for discussion. Anomie⚔ 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I suspect my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons) helped to bring this discussion up. And I want to be sure that we don't see articles like the one debated there be considered a "game guide". I 100% agree that things like stats (hit points, AC, etc.) don't generally belong in a write-up (though something like Lloth's AC and hitpoints in Q1 might be relevant as showing how the D&D game has changed). But I don't want this to become "notable information that is part of a game doesn't belong here". I'd also like an explanation as to why Ruy lopez does belong here (which I think it does) even in the face of WP:NOT as it stands. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with this proposal. I think it could be solved with a reword - remove the "how-to" implication and just make it a bit more broad. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree with the proposal. As Hyacinth suggested, perhaps a lot of the confusion over this comes from terminology as well: "game-guide" can imply an actual guide to playing games (like a walkthrough or strategies), whereas "guide to games" can cover the broader elements such as in-game statistics, unit and weapon lists, Easter eggs, and all the other undesirable unencyclopedic information. I'd recommend using the latter in any new versions. -- Sabre (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(To Hobit) That's an example of the type of response I'm discussing, although I agree that the actual article in question there does go beyond game guide material. For the sake of argument, consider this old revision of an article about dragons Dungeons & Dragons. If I called that game guide material (which I do, and I think you might agree) and someone were to give the response you cite above, how should I reply? The response is somewhat correct—it's not instructional and it's hard to fit it into one of the four currently listed types (instruction manual, travel guide, internet guide, textbook) but I would definitely call it game guide content. That's why I'm proposing this change. Pagrashtak 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I view that article as a stub currently looking a bit like a game guide. I'm not being sarcastic. What I mean is that if someone had a list of characters from a show, or list of "minor" theories and only listed the roughest of details about each, it would be a worthwhile stub for people to fill in. I think the same thing is trying to happen there. The topic need not be a game guide, and once filled in (if it ever were) would not be. It may not be notable, but that's a different (and I'd claim the right argument. Again, I'm opposed to topics being off limits if they are notable. Ruy lopez should be in wikipedia because it is a notable strategy, even though WP:NOT might (I'd say _does_) imply otherwise... Hobit (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the AFD for that article, you'll see that notability was in fact the reason I gave for deletion. I mentioned game guide content secondly, since the article was entirely composed of such. I think we're getting a little off-topic, though, as this discussion shouldn't have anything to do with notability—that's for Wikipedia:Notability and its subpages to handle. This is about article content. Pagrashtak 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the premise of this section. If a subject is notable, it belongs here. I don't see a need to add an additional "set of rules" for game related material. In other words, I don't see the need for this, and if you are going to propose additional standards for game-related material, you really should inform all relevant wiki-groups before you proceed. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you're still confusing the issue. This has nothing to do with notability, so there is no need to bring it up. Notability concerns the suitability of topics. My proposal is related to article content, which notability does not cover. I'm not trying to change anything about the way Wikipedia editors operate, I'm just trying to clarify the language that describes it. The "set of rules" you refer to is already being practiced—I am not adding any standards that are not already in effect. Pagrashtak 17:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fan site

There should be a section here called "Wikipedia is not a fan site", so it would tell people that Wikipedia is not a fan site. Mythdon (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be true. De facto consensus is that Wikipedia is a fan site and an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't like that, but that's another story. User:Dorftrottel 09:41, January 26, 2008
"indiscriminate" needs to be defined, and I think it can be done in a compromise fashion. I do not give up on having high standards. Making them too rigid is what causes them to be unrealistic. DGG (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we would better focusing more on what Wikipedia is than is not. The more elitist we get, the less our readership and the smaller number of contributors. If we should delete anything it is words like indiscriminate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I doubt you are seriously supporting deleting that entire section 2.9 , nor that you want it to say Wikipedia is not a collection of information. so how would you suggest it be worded.?DGG (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT is wishful thinking

I propose removing #2. of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, related to plot summaries.

The section says "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply [...] plot summaries."

I'm afraid that this is merely wishful thinking and that in reality, consensus is to tolerate pure plot summaries. Anyone who believes I'm wrong, take a look at our nice collection of Star Wars articles, then come again. User:Dorftrottel 09:47, January 26, 2008

It says "not solely plot summaries", rather than "not simply." That sentence can be seen to represent the actual current consensus, with a flexible interpretation of "solely" and a recognition that the articles about a complex work of fiction are a grouping--some will discuss some aspects, some others. I'd rather change "brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate" to "a reasonable plot summary is appropriate". (with reasonable defined, of course, in guidelines elsewhere. I think there is consensus that some of the over-fanlike summaries have been much too long and inappropriately detailed, but also that one that adequately describes the work is a necessary element. DGG (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The existence of a long term problem is one of the reasons this point was added. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that, believe me. But as long as it isn't enforced (and it isn't, ever) this point is literally worse than pointless. User:Dorftrottel 04:57, January 29, 2008
An article initially comprising nothing but plot summary would be deleted if not expanded to discuss significance. There is quite strong established consensus for this. --Tony Sidaway 03:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You and I wish. In case you haven't noticed, there is a new crop of users who do not know the very first thing about encyclopedic standards, and doesn't care about them, but who have instead learned and adopted aggressive blocking practices in AfDs, and how to adapt guidelines to their ends. User:Dorftrottel 04:54, January 29, 2008
Well if there are such users I haven't noticed. Looking around at random to find valid invocations of WP:PLOT, I see that it usually occurs in conjunction with other "indiscriminate collection" problems, and what's more I see plenty of unanimous or near-unanimous deletions on that basis:
--Tony Sidaway 05:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fun

Wikipedeia is not fun. 69.202.119.212 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Or spelled that way ... a comment that you would probably place under "not fun" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is too! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines in NOT

This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate
content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars.

I'm worried that this makes guidelines on the same level as policy because policy (NOT) says you must defer to guidelines. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the single most important sentence in WP:NOT. The instant we tolerate unencyclopedic content, Wikipedia will cease to be an encyclopedia by any stretch of imagination. I suppose making it even more clear by adding something along the lines of "Wikipedia is not not an encyclopedia". User:Dorftrottel 05:01, January 29, 2008
The thing is there is an obvious disagreement in our community as to what is encyclopedic. As an online encyclopedia adervtised as one that anyone can edit and the "sum of human knowledge", is it really accurate to compare ourselves with what's in say Britannica? My feeling tend to be that articles on stuff that I don't personally care about don't and shouldn't really bother me. So long as editors are willing to work on such articles, sources exist whether primary or secondary, and there's reader interest, the more inclusive and comprehensive we are the better. The more narrow and restrictive we become, the more elitist we become and the less useful as a reference. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no "obvious disagreement". There is a vocal minority that has no idea about encyclopedic standards, and no intention whatsoever to learn about or follow them, and instead is increasingly successful at undermining them at every turn. But we do have thresholds of what is and what is not encyclopedic. And we do have thresholds of what can and what cannot be considered human knowledge in the first place. And secondary sources are not an "optional luxury", they are absolutely necessary. If you do not understand that, or cannot accept it, you're in the wrong project. "The more narrow and restrictive we become, the more elitist we become and the less useful as a reference." — That's what you actually believe, isn't it? Just the opposite is true: The more open and indiscriminate we become, the more mobocratic and less of an encyclopedia. What you people want is not an encyclopedia, but an indiscriminate collection of information. But that is utterly incompatible with the notion of creating an encyclopedia. See also Eternal September and, once again, this rather interesting article. Again, there is no controversy, there's just some kids who need to learn but have no interest in doing so. User:Dorftrottel 06:47, January 29, 2008
If anything, I notice more of a vocal minority of editors attempting to delete as much of the project as possible. The majority of editors focus instead on writing and editing articles. If you look at the first encyclopedias from the Enlightenment, you'll notice that they use primary evidence initially and as secondary sources become available, these sources then become cited with greater frequency. Wikipedia is a community and as such, it shouldn't discourage good faith editors from contributing and expanding the project just becausee some segments of the community do not like articles that others believe are indeed worthwhile. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And if you look at something else unrelated and irrelevant to what we're doing from history, you'll find that people used to use horses rather than cars for transportation. That doesn't mean we should do it today. I don't understand why you continually bring up what was done several centuries ago, as that is irrelevant. Secondly, your assertion that exclusion will make us no better (or broader) than Brittanica is both a straw man and a false dichotomy, as is your assertion that anyone wants to delete "as much of the project as possible." Do you really think I, or anyone, would delete carbon or Earth or Bill Clinton even if we could somehow get away with it? Do you really think if we remove television and character episodes we won't be broader than Britannica? (Hint: They don't have an article on Art Garfunkel, and I've not seen anyone propose deleting that.) If you'd like to be taken seriously, please make reality-based arguments that apply today, not that applied a few centuries ago. But kindly stop the handwaving. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Then as a new kind of encyclopedia we should go beyond what any encyclopedia has ever done before and not turn away our contributors. Articles on episodes and characters that can be sourced and written in a well-worded and well-organized manner only help to make our project more attractive to our readership and may inspire readers to edit other articles that some editors believe are more "encyclopedic." I for example frequently use the Random article button to learn about new things and help improve articles that I may otherwise have never thought of helping improve. It is way more rewarding improving and building things than removing them. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And it's great that you do that. (I don't mean that to be flippant or sarcastic, it is intended quite seriously.) I've certainly taken a few articles under my own wing and done what work to them I could. Brine pool, for example, looked like this when I first saw it on newpage patrol. I thought it looked an intriguing subject, and while no FA, you can certainly compare that to the current edition. Yet, a major part of editing is to trim, and challenge, and cut. Some may not find that rewarding, and that's quite alright—we would no more force a person to work at that if they don't want to then we would force them to work on articles about Russian fauna if they'd rather write articles about galaxies. What should happen, however, is when the cleanup crew comes in, they should be treated as fellow editors, not "oh, THEM," and have some would-be owner of the article prevent cleanup, and treat them as some less-than-editor of the page. Those who clean and trim are editors, not something else. We presume they have good intentions, we do not call names such as "Destructive! Deletionist! Hates the project!" If someone comes in with a sourcing concern, don't handwave them off, go look. If they're wrong, and tons of source material is out there, great. But if they're right, stop trying to obfuscate the issue—articles lacking significant independent material need a delete or a merge, as appropriate, not a protracted discussion of how it's REALLY alright this time. It's REALLY not. We're a tertiary source, we write from secondary, independent ones. If those aren't there, we don't second guess their decision not to write, and we don't give the subject more weight than they do. Period. As to your specific assertion, I fully agree that well-written, well-sourced episode articles are quite alright. On the other hand, poorly-written, unsourceable collections of trivia need to go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
According to our own guidelines we use both primary and secondary sources and not just secondary sources. What frustrates me is that numerous AfDs I've participated in our nominated with a "no sources to be found rationale" followed by quick "per nom, no sources" arguments and then relatively easily I have found sources resulting in the articles being kept when the discussion would have been unnecessary had the nominator just done a simple online search. That is what frustrates me. Believe me, I do not think everything that has been written for Wikipedia should stay and I do think that editors do need to be on the look out for certain things. For example, I am definitely willing to vote delete on occasion, as I did here, here, here, here, here, and here, although I tend to avoid many discussions that are obviously going to be deleted and probably do not need another post in favor of deletion. In those instances, I would rather look for an article to improve or welcome new users as a member of the welcoming committee and kindness campaign. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
True. However, we use primary sources as supplements, not solely. Secondary sources are required. Primary sources can then be used, once those are established, to provide additional material. They may not be used as the sole basis for an article. And while I do agree it is frustrating to see those who could have easily found sources not do so, one asks the same of those who write the article. Sourcing is a requirement, from the very first edit that creates a mainspace article, not a nicety, not something to get to someday. It's unfortunate that such misunderstandings occur, but a great way to avoid them is to find and cite your sources in the first place. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Many articles appropriately use only secondary sources. But there is not one single article, not one, that could do with only primary sources. Sometimes only secondary sources are needed, but never only primary sources, never. Never. Only. Primary. Sources. And there are simply too many AfDs where people vote keep and say that reliable, third-party sources "probably exist". User:Dorftrottel 08:54, January 29, 2008
It's just distressing when one goes to AfDs and sees such deletion rationales as the following: "The movie is crap", "Seems damn uninteresting too, unless you're 5", "Oh and the current revision of the article is shit, by the way", "None of this unnecessary extra geek shit", "Shitty article and probably self-promotion to an unknown band", "ridiculously generous admin closure", this discussion, this discussion, etc. Such comments do not encourage editors to want to contribute if their good faith volunteer efforts will be ridiculed in such a fashion. We should all work together to source articles and we should do so in a civil fashion. Anyway, I'm logging off now due to neck pain. So, I hope everyone has a nice night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • While that discussion is interesting, I think it misses my point. Policy should not be deferring to guidelines IMO. Hobit (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The same thing occurs for WP:V depending on guideline WP:RS. The way I would see it is that, policy here is stating that WP is not a indiscriminate collection of information. As policy should change at a much slower pace than guidelines, the policy defers to the guideline to define what is the present definition of "indiscriminate information" (similarly, verifiability defers to reliable sources to state what is an RS). The policy is still maintaining that there's a way to determine discriminate information from indiscriminate, but because this can potentially be a "flavor of the month" issue, it should not make any exacting statements on what that distinction is. --MASEM 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Good point, but that makes guidelines a policy as I read it. I still feel that from a "rules" viewpoint, a stronger rule should not defer to a "weaker" one. I'd suggest:
This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies, 
in particular those covered in the five pillars.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, although it would be wikilawyery, one could argue from the original statement that WP:NOT (policy) states that all articles must abide by guidelines. This would give guidelines all of the strength of policy. (This is different from the acceptable situation that Masem describes, where the policy refers to guidelines within a particular scope and purpose.) I don't think anyone would take this argument seriously, but it certainly is preferable to have rules that are consistent and logical. We could delete the reference to guidelines as Hobit suggests, or say something like "must follow policies and should follow guidelines." — brighterorange (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm considering making that change in a day or two (the one I stated above) in "code". Please comment here.... Hobit (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Brief plot?

Above, it was proposed to: change "brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate" to "a reasonable plot summary is appropriate". I agree with DGG that this more accurately represents consensus on fiction articles. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I obviously support it: what I primarily have in mind is finding something like this which will let us get back to writing and editing articles.DGG (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree - we don't need 900 word summary for an episode of The Suite Life of Zach and Cody, but it's a bit unfair to have to cramp a plot that's hard to explain in 800 words into 400 words. Will (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to ask people to be concise. Brevity is always good. The few plot summaries I've tried to edit always had plot creep...everyone would pitch in and add five or ten words and before you know it the plot was growing like grass on a summer lawn and had to be mowed again. So whether the right length is 100 words or 700, the more you can stick to the important facts that explain the work rather than retell every side plot in the story, the better. Wikidemo (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Many plot summaries are overlong by themselves and particularly with regard to the often enough completely missing rest of the article. No need to encourage and justify that bad behaviour yet further. User:Dorftrottel 02:54, January 30, 2008
"Reasonable" is subjective. One can argue 15,000 words is reasonably necessary to convey a 30-minutes episode or a 5-hours action game's contents. To prevent such arguments, it would be better to tag on what would constitute reasonable right after the statement ala "The summary could include major plot points but should not contain minor plot details and trivia" or such. Jappalang (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Subjective is good? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Subjective can be good or bad, which is why I suggest appending further clauses to the suggestion. What can be construed as "reasons" include minute detail which are interesting, "it doesn't hurt to add it in", or introduces flavor into the article, etc (yes, those are taken from arguments to avoid in deletion but...). Adding these tend to bloat the article and go against WP:NOT, but "reasonable" without additional clauses gives ammunition to their advocates to do so and be contentious. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
"The summary could include major plot points but should not contain minor plot details and trivia" — fully agree. Qualifying a plot summary to strictly follow WP:DUE seems viable and useful. User:Dorftrottel 02:54, January 30, 2008
  • I would rather include something along the lines of "Provide only a very concise outline of the plot for overview. Then discuss the plot along reliable third-party secondary sources instead of merely reproducing it. User:Dorftrottel 03:27, January 30, 2008
  • I think there are two parts of the current wording that are better than the proposal. First, "brief" is less ambiguous than "reasonable". "Brief" sets the clear expectation that an encyclopedia article must primarily focus on real-world impact, not in-universe recapitulation. Second, the current wording says "may sometimes be appropriate", not "is". Not every article on a work of fiction needs or is improved by a plot summary. Rossami (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am prepared to agree that there may be some such special cases. But even in the instance you give in the section below, a sentence saying what the book is about would seem apppropriate: "Blah is a book which was published in January 2008 by Johnny Jazz, a science-fiction story set on Mars. " But if that were all that were in the article, how would the book be notable anyway?
The point of "reasonable" is that it is ambiguous enough for all to agree on it. "Brief" is not acceptable to a sizable number of WPedians. , limiting to major plot lines is appropriate for episodes but certainly not for major works of classic fiction. "very concise outline of the plot for overview. Then discuss..." is again not appropriate for major works. there has to be a sufficiently full account of the plot to support the discussion. To put it bluntly, readers come here for plot summaries. Yes Reasonable is subjective. One can argue 15,000 words is reasonably necessary to convey a 30-minutes episode or a 5-hour game.", but One can argue anything. But almost nobody thinks plot summaries of that length of such things are reasonable, and they cannot be defended. If I had the sentence i really though best, it would be "In general, describe the plot fully enough to provide an understanding of the work, and support a discussion of it"--that's essentially what we try to do on all other topics. But Im willing to compromise from that. But I think any acceptable compromise that will actually be acceptable will be pretty vague. DGG (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Brief is perhaps less ambiguous, but I think more accurate to what is actually deemed acceptable. Articles on fictional subjects tend to have rather large plot summaries because that's what is generally wanted by our readers. And I have a hard time thinking of a case where a plot summary of a work is inappropriate. Do you have an example? Hobit (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus regarding Plot summaries (WP:PLOT)?

{{RFCpolicy| section=Consensus regarding Plot summaries (WP:PLOT)? !! reason=Whether the current wording of the [[WP:PLOT]] section of [[WP:NOT]] actually has consensus !! time= 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC) }}

I see that Hiding added "Plot summaries" to WP:NOT#INFO on July 9, 2006 after a discussion on this talk page. I want to see if that sub-section of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information currently has consensus. If not, we can rewrite it, or even remove the whole section. I see the section links to two disputed guidelines, WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT — I think those links should probably be removed. The section as it is currently worded affects articles such as Jean Valjean, Cosette, Holden Caulfield, Clevinger, Pierre Bezukhov, Elros, John Galt, Luke Skywalker, etc. So, do you think the section is fine as it is? Could use some editing? Should be removed? --Pixelface (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It should be put into stricter words to prevent the galopping decline of encyclopedic standards. And the links are fine, although I would add e.g. WP:WAF. User:Dorftrottel 03:32, January 30, 2008
As I brought up a couple of months ago here, extremely detailed plot summaries, especially in the absence of commentary that touches upon those details, is a copyright violation. I marvel at how we have thousands of articles like There Will Be Blood that contain a scene-by-scene description of an entire work (fair warning: if you haven't seen the film yet, don't read the article), and nobody bats an eye at this -- yet if if a single screenshot or even promotional photo were added to the article without following an extremely restrictive and bureaucratic process, it would be summarily deleted. Sooner or later our fair use guidance will take this into account, but for the time being, it's something of a blind spot on Wikipedia, with WP:PLOT being our only stopgap.
The fact that this proposal to remove WP:PLOT is being made as point doesn't help the situation any.--Father Goose (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I asked if the section currently has consensus — I'm not trying to disrupt Wikipedia. I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen no statement to indicate that extremely detailed plot summaries are, in fact, copyright violations.
The guideline WP:WAF says [6] "It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation." The guideline WP:FAIR says "It is illegal (among other things) to reproduce or make derivative works of copyrighted works without legal justification." but it also says "Copyright law only governs creative expressions that are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," not the ideas or information behind the works. It is legal to reformulate ideas based on written texts, or create images or recordings inspired by others, as long as there is no copying (see plagiarism for how much reformulation is necessary)." The policy WP:NFCC seems to appear mainly to images and media files.
Plot summaries do not require a fair use rationale. I'm unaware of Wikipedia being sued by anyone for providing "extremely detailed plot summaries", so I doubt that they are copyright violations. --Pixelface (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea, until we are told that there's a legal issue or the Foundation says that there's a problem, we should not fear the copyright cops on this. (I will point that there have been show guide books that have been sued and lost under derivative work/lack of fair use laws. However, again, until we're told this is a copyright problem, we should not think of the legal ramifications.
However, plot summaries are still derivative works, and thus are non-free (as in thought) content, which can hamper Wikipedia's mission to be a free content encyclopedia. There's some line between saying "'Fahrenheit 451' is a book about limiting free thought", and giving a highly detailed chapter-by-chapter account of the book, where one moves from being an appropriate free content description to a non-free content description, and erring on the side of "brief" (or whatever word is used) is a better way to go to maintain this. --MASEM 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Pixelface: sorry, my criticism was directed at Dorftrottel, who suggested removing it because he was upset that it wasn't being enforced strongly enough (an archetypal WP:POINT). However, there is unmistakably an underlying copyright issue. I'm not urging copyright paranoia, but what we have right now is copyright blindness, and we'll have to give up on that eventually. I strongly recommend you read up on the subject of fair use (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html), because these blow-by-blow plot descriptions fail all four of the "fair use criteria" that the US courts use. The fact that we haven't been sued yet should not be taken as an indication that there isn't a problem.
I am personally a copyright-paranoia-hating inclusionist, so if you see me raising this as an issue, that's because it's a real one. I'd really prefer we do something wise about it now before the Foundation has to get involved: the more they get involved, the more restrictive the outcome will be, which is something I'd like to avoid.
One can say with confidence that short summaries are okay, but complete plot descriptions qualify as nonfree content. Read up on copyright law if you doubt this (see the link above). I would really prefer we come to terms with this before it's pressed upon us by external forces.--Father Goose (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I went hunting around to find the discussion specific to the plot summary section that happened on this talk page:

That's just the discussion on this talk page. Other discussion also played a part in this, such as Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items, WT:FICT, WT:WAF, and others. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What is most bizarre is the statement that brief plot summaries 'may sometimes' be acceptable. Surely they are acceptable?--Nydas(Talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's weird. I can't think of a case where a "brief" (or whatever word here) plot summary is not acceptable when it is accompanied by real world info. Maybe language like Brief plot summaries, covering the major plot elements of the work, are acceptable.? --MASEM 16:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
How about "Brief (or succinct) plot summaries are often acceptable"? -- Ned Scott 06:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that sorta is back against what Nydas mentions: is there ever a case that, if real-world information was provided, that you would never include a plot? (that is, "often" here implies there's rare cases it is not, and I can't think of any.) --MASEM 06:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
When they unbalance the article. Basically, the thinking behind adding the section was that an encyclopedic article is not a plot regurgitator. If all you have in an article is "Blah is a book which was published in January 2008 by Johnny Jazz" followed by a 2000 word plot summary, to my mind you do not have an encyclopedic article. An article which basically states "Blah is a book which was published in January 2008 by Johnny Jazz", to my mind should not have a plot summary. Wikipedia is not a plot summariser. There's quite a few concerns here, from copyright to encyclopedic approach to advertising. Hope that helps. Hiding T 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"Basically, the thinking behind adding the section was that an encyclopedic article is not a plot regurgitator." What about the articles Jean Valjean, John Galt, and Lord Capulet? I suppose they could use some analysis but the articles will still be mainly "plot regurgitators." --Pixelface (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that the article at Jean Valjean is unecyclopedic and needs improvement to be so. I believe that view is supported by WP:NOT. I haven't glanced at the others. Looking through the history of the article, I see that for almost five years the consensus was for it to redirect elsewhere. Hiding T 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you think the character Jean Valjean is notable enough to have its own article? What about the character John Galt? --Pixelface (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and yes. Jean certainly, is is a figure discussed in his own right as a representative of social injustice perhaps as much as the book himself. John Galt, perhaps, again for use based on political reasons. Agreed that the article need improvement. Most WP article on fiction need improvement. I wish people would let us go about improving them, instead of having to rescue them at the lat minute. Lord Capulet, tho a much more minor character than the others, is by an author whose work is discussed exhaustively in academic and other sources. I'm not sure he would be, if by any other playwright. DGG (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I try to avoid discussing what is a notable topic. My opinion tends to be that we should just write encyclopedic articles, and if an article isn't that right this second, that's okay per the editing policy. If they were up for deletion I would oppose that, although I could see a case for redirecting. The thinking behind WP:PLOT was that we should say we do not want opur articles to look like this. It was not to say that we should delete articles that look like this, but that they should be improved. Now the methods of improvement differ from person to person, but the idea is that that is the argument to have, not the argument over whether it is notable. Notability is a red herring. We need more featured articles. The goal of policy and guidance and indeed Wikipedia is more featured articles. Therefore guidance and policies should push people in that direction. In the knowledge that perfection is not required, of course. I don't believe we are too far apart in our views, Pixelface. I simply think we are a long way apart in how we express and pursue them. Hiding T 15:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Copyright is an issue only at the extreme end, which is not what is in question here. I think it clear from the discussion in the above two paragraphs that there is no present consensus on the current wording. I proposed a compromise, and there seems to be no consensus about that either. The alternative is to remove the section altogether if we cannot agree on the wording. altogether. I would be open to another compromise solution, but not one that has the word brief concise or any synonym. I dont think there is consensus for that any more. Consensus has to be something everyone can at least live with, and from manifold discussions it is clear that a sizable number of wpedians in good standing cannot live with this one in its present wording. DGG (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand the wording of brief, but without stipulating some size limitations or restrictions, editors will wikilaywer and run with it to provide pages and pages of plot info by that. However, combining ideas above, how about restating it as: A plot summary covering the major plot elements of the work are appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." and defering to WAF about in-universe writing to deal with anything more? --MASEM 19:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Longstanding consensus isn't easily overturned by the appearance of a few objections on a talk page. Let's discuss this more to see if consensus really has changed on the matter. If necessary we can advertise the subject at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion (WP:CENT). --Tony Sidaway 01:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I accept Masem's wording. It's not what i would choose exactly, but it is an acceptable compromise. It's in any case preferable to the present wording. DGG (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What exactly are we proposing to swap for what? Hiding T 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Exchange the current "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." with "A plot summary covering the major plot elements of the work are appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." and deferring to WP:WAF for detailed guidance. User:Dorftrottel 04:47, February 2, 2008
Could I at least suggest "A plot summary covering the major plot elements of the work is appropriate"? That seems grammatically correct. So we're just swapping the one sentence for the other and leaving the other sentences intact? Hiding T 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I fully agree with MASEM's suggestion. User:Dorftrottel 04:47, February 2, 2008
  • I disagree, as I think the notion of a fictional work being primarily something other than a fictional work, is well, silly. A fictional work has non-fictional parts, but the notion that those non-fictional components should be the focus of an article meets neither common sense nor what seems to be consensus (given the articles we actually have). Hobit (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What should be the focus is what other sources have stated, because it's very hard to write an article on a primary source and stay within our policy on original research. Points have to be explicit and not require expert knowledge. Anything which speculates is strictly out without a secondary source. Hiding T 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This is certainly true to some extent: many of the plot summaries give what amounts to an evaluation of the action and motivations which needs to be sourced. Usually there are perfectly good sources, in the reviews of almost any work significant enough to be in WP at all, but people do not always bother using them. or, worse, (judging by the style that sometimes appears) they may sometimes use them by copying and pasting them or paraphrasing without a citation. But a plain description can be taken from the primary source, while anything not blindingly obvious does need sourcing. I'm not after keeping low quality plot summaries, but improving them. We can spend our time arguing about deleting, or we can work on improving. One of them helps the encycyclopedia. DGG (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think the only real bone of contention tends to be length. That's why I'm going to oppose the change. We need to guide that the summary should be limited in scope in some way. Brief is a bad word, but it guides in the right direction. I'm ears to other ideas, limited, although thinking about it, maybe we should go the other way and simply say they should not be extensive. Hiding T 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That alone isn't enough; it's easy to write a completely verifiable plot description that still amounts to nothing more than an abridged reproduction of the work. OR is always a no-no, but it isn't the root problem here.--Father Goose (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Copyright issues and style issues in this case overlap. An unstinting plot reproduction is neither what an encyclopedia should offer nor legally what it can offer (if it's a copyrighted work). And I most certainly do avoid copyright paranoia. You have read the link I posted above, right? I'd really rather address this issue before studios and publishers notice the problem, which will trigger greater paranoia in the long run than if we do what we ought to be doing already, even if only for stylistic reasons.--Father Goose (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You are aware that only a court can decide what is copyright infringement, and that this is a top-down issue rather than a bottom up issue, and that the nature of Wikipedia in some senses protects us from a number of disputes. Have you by chance raised the matter with Mike Godwin and the board? Hiding T 12:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been dreading that step, because I'd rather we handle this issue with our own good sense instead of calling in the truncheons. The courts have indeed decided in the past that the kind of content we've been discussing here is copyright infringement. Surely we could indulge in an ounce of prevention.--Father Goose (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You've met the community? We can't even get agreement on how to categorise ourselves. This one needs to come from the top down, just like the image copyright issue eventually did. The issue is too complicated with shades of grey, there are too many factors involved that I think an assessment can only be made by legal counsel. Hiding T 10:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have too. Well, I left a message on his talk page, which he expressly asks people not to do, so maybe I haven't gone about it the right way, but the effort is there. I prefer to keep it on wiki if I can. Hiding T 11:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • His response, excerpted: "You're missing the fact that we are not receiving DMCA takedown letters regarding plot summaries, and that plot summaries, in general, are not taken to be copyright infringement so long as they do not include any great degree of the original creative expression." So that shitcans my argument.
    I know what you mean about keeping it on-wiki, but I guess Mike doesn't live on-wiki like we do -- just as well for him. ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • At least you tried. As to living on-wiki, I would hate to be Mike Godwin and live on-wiki. It would probably cause some sort of melt-down. :) Hiding T 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Once more, nobody is defending the unsophisticated barely abridged plot description. A good description of the plot of a Sopranos episode can take quite a while to write, and thee are two easy ways to doing it quickly and poorly: write a one line overview-- and try to paraphrase everything that anyone says or does in it. what we need is high quality articles, and the question is how to write the rules to encourage them. Let me give an example from something i do know more about--in the years around 1800, literary magazines reviews of fiction typically gave extended multi-thousand word selections, not even paraphrases, concentrating on the dramatic high points of the story. the point specifically was to provide a substitute for reading the original--because books such as Jane Austen's novels cost the equivalent of several hundred dollars each. This finally ended with the development of lending libraries. DGG (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)