Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 17

Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Images on category pages

On the Category:Images of synagogues page I added: This category should include Non-free content. Public domain or Free license images should be uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons as I thought the proper place for images is commons. However, when noting WP:NOT#REPOSITORY it only mentions if an image is in an article, not on a category page? Should images be left on category pages? Please advise. Chesdovi (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to abandon WP:PAPER

Suggestion

It's become clear to me in recent months that WP:PAPER simply is no longer a valid policy. This is being made clear with the current proposed revisions to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) just to name one example I've seen, plus the ever-narrowing application of WP:N which is biased against obscure topics, and topics for which main sources are blogs or other new media (Wikipedia policy needs to be updated for 2008 with regards to what's considered a valid online source, but I digress). Technically, the core philosophy of WP:PAPER, that there is no limit to the topics that can be covered, has been rendered pretty irrelevant by the existence of the AFD process at least as it currently is used; I don't think anyone would argue that the discussion of problematic articles that may be considered legally dangerous or WP:BLP-violating isn't valid, but we're seeing far too many AFDs that are being posted by people who want to mould Wikipedia into what they feel it should be. I'm posting this here because I'm seriously considering starting an RFC on this issue, because if we're not going to follow WP:PAPER there's no point in having it as part of official policy. Maybe it can live on as a guideline, since guidelines may be ignored. So many people are ignoring WP:PAPER it may as well be a guideline. However, before I go further I'd like to know if this topic perhaps has already been proposed and if so, where the discussion is being held so I can contribute. No point reinventing the wheel. (PS. I feel what I have written above conforms to the Five Pillars cited in the WP:PAPER section of the policy; I'm not advocating blanket inclusion, but feel the increasing restrictions violates WP:PAPER and the Five Pillars.) 23skidoo (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Replies and comment

so you are saying WP:PAPER should outweigh WP:V, because notability guidelines are basically an out growth of WP:V, that's what's getting things deleted. Notability is the red herring that people cite and blaim, but really everything deleted under WP:N is being deleted because of WP:V. Ridernyc (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that PAPER is no longer valid. Our policies still allow us to cover a much wider range of topics than what a printed encyclopedia can, and in details and timeliness that printed encyclopedias cannot keep up with. However, while the range of topics that we cover is unlimited, topics and their coverage must still conform to the core policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, as well as meet with other aspects of what Wikipedia is not. The notability requirements are there to help insure meeting these - if we cannot source a topic to a reliable third-party source, then we violate these. While newer revisions of notability guidelines may seem to be taking away coverage, the goal is not to lose discussion of a topic but to make sure that the level of detail that it is covered is appropriate for what sources can be found for it.
Now, there is the question of what we do with new media, and I think it is appropriate to reconsider, to some extent, online sources. Blogs, forums, and personal web sites are still in question (per WP:SELFPUB), but we should be more lax to non-commercial but large web sites run by users that have gained a reputation in a given field, because there are more things moving away from print to online only versions. However, this question itself belongs over in WP:RS. --MASEM 16:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:PAPER will always remain valid, by simple, technical fact. Wikipedia does not face the physical constraints that apply to print media. It has a different set of technical constraints, plus whichever social constraints we choose to adopt, which are detailed on this page, among other places.--Father Goose (talk)
I think you should re-read WP:PAPER. It says "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" — yes, that's obvious. It also says "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." Could you tell me where in the five pillars "notability" is mentioned? --Pixelface (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT under "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information" - and yes, before you read it note there's no exact mention of notability, but consider the spirit of the policy and not the exact words it states. --MASEM 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That has less to do with notability and more to do with unencyclopedic facts. There are many things which are not "notable" as defined on Wikipedia but which can still be covered in an encyclopedic manner. Hiding T 17:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Self-cleaning glass spamming

This discussion comes from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Self-cleaning_glass_spamming, as it seems that the definition "Wikipedia is not yellow pages" is not clear to everybody, readers are invited to join the discussion on this page. Mion (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC), as for what was used to create a yellow papers article, the discussion on internal link spam is reopened Wikipedia_talk:Spam#Internal_link_spamming. Mion (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion about Self-cleaning glass on Talk:Self-cleaning glass, which needs third person imput, User:Mikkalai, removed the speedy delete templates on brandname SunClean and Pilkington Activ he started himself, wont agree on removing the manufacturer part on the article, however i believe its an active editor, so what to do. Mion (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What you didn't mention is that both are not articles he started, but simple redirects, one to the company that makes the brand and the other to the generic product article. Is it even possible for a redirect to be spam, or speedily deletable? In any event I don't see that this is spam at all. Plus, the user listed both competing companies - he's obviously not shilling for one of them or the other. I cleaned up the Self-cleaning glass article slightly to mention the manufacturers in prose (and avoid the links to redirects) rather than listing them so it would be less of a list. Beyond that, I don't see how this is possibly important enough to worry about. I'm not an administrator so I'll let the administrators decide if this is worthy of intervention. Wikidemo (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Like i said, he started the redirects to extrapromote the brand, i didn't say Mikkalai started the articles, so i didn't mention that, now to prevent editwars, the speedy delete template states, you can add {{hangon}} and give your argument to an admin, there is no exception for that. Mion (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the new edits on the article from user Wikidemo, moving the disputed content from the left to the right of the article is not changing anything in my opinion. However it gets interesting, even if internal spamming is not seen the same as external spamming, the page is used as yellow pages, and for that, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Mion (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC).

User:Mion has to be explained that their notion about "spamming" are nontraditional, to put it mildly. What I am doing with the article is kinda "industrial espionage" rather than "advertising" or something. Also, I would ask someone to advice them that a better good is in expanding articles instead of messing with formalities and bickering in talk pages. 'Míkka>t 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Does Mikka work for both Pilkington and PPG? I don't think so. I'd call those plausible search terms, and therefore reasonable candidates for redirects. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, my notion of SPAM is not so nontraditional, Wikipedia_talk:Spam#Internal_link_spamming, it might not be covered by WP:SPAM, which is used as an argument now, it still is in conflict with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and to be traditional, brandnames are copyrighted and non free, use of them is not advised/discouraged on wikipedia, this might change if you deliver proof of permission to Wikipedia:OTRS. Cheers Mion (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
To follow the advice : I ask an admin to rollback them all, add a speedy delete template on the brandname redirects and posting a warning on the user's talk page that the editor is not only being disruptive but should read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Mion (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Brand names are trademarked, not copyrighted. And you're misinterpreting that "internal link spamming" definition. —Random832 14:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
And trademarks are copyrighted, however this might be different per country. Mion (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That might be, but for me yellow pages provide productinformation, and related company names and brands, according to the yellow pages definition it looks like this article Self-cleaning glass. Mion (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that this is SPAM or a yellow pages article. Many brands are represented on Wikipedia, from Pepsi to Kleenex to Cheerios. Trademarked/Copywritten brand names can still be articles, can still be referenced, and can be found all over Wikipedia (and print media). It would be laughably impossible and inadvisable to remove them all, and to that end I would include Self-Cleaning Glass. If it meets N, V, and NPOV it should be good to go. --BizMgr (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR, WP:CENSORED and WP:NOTCENSORED shortcuts

The section title has changed from "Wikipedia is not censored" to "Wikipedia is not censored for taste". However, the policy shortcuts still point to the old section name. They should be updated. --W2bh (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I've reverted the change to the section title in order to restore all the old links while the proposed change is discussed here. (Note that the inbound section-links go far beyond just the ones using those redirects.) While I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the change in wording, I do note that changing the wording of that title been proposed and discussed here many times before and has never yet achieved consensus. Being bold is usually a good idea but probably not in this case. Please discuss it here first. Rossami (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I've never yet eaten Wikipedia, so I can't really comment on its taste. However, I think perhaps the change is a semantic one, and unnecessary. You can say that any censorship is done to suit someone's taste. Hiding T 17:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Not censored", no qualifier, is best. One might argue that it's censored for other reasons, but aside from editorial choices (we don't put pictures of penises on pages that aren't about penises), and exercising legal prudence (such as WP:BLP), Wikipedia isn't censored, full stop.--Father Goose (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. the policy is and remains not censored for anything at all, taste, politics, religion, sexuality, whatever. We abide by the legal restrictions on obscenity and libel according to the law of florida, but that's about it. Any change , softening, weakening, or modification of this is a basic change in our principles of operation, and would require very full community discussion and consent--which it would be most unlikely to obtain. The change is absolutely and totally unacceptable.DGG (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The sign in the uncensored section.

Maybe the image should go? And the Wikipedia:How to set your browser to not see images should instead be a see also?

I apologize that I messed up the page, I never meant to do that. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A "see also" would probably do the trick even better than the image.--Father Goose (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, we shall add it if nobody objects. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image galleries?

I really don't understand... are articles that consist of nothing but image galleries appropriate for Wikipedia? This page seems to rule them out pretty definitively, stating that Wikipedia should not contain 'Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles.'. However, take a look at Category:Wikipedia image galleries: we have hundreds of them! Is this an example of a case where many people just ignore the official policy, or have I misunderstood it somewhere? I've nominated a couple of examples I found for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A3 ('Any article consisting solely... of images'), and I don't see why basically everything in that category and its subcategories shouldn't be deleted on those grounds. Terraxos (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article space category from what I can see and going by the name. Most of the pages in Category:Wikipedia image galleries are either in user space or Wikipedia space. There certainly needs to be some sorting out. However, bear in mind that A3 only applies to articles. User and Wikipedia space image galleries are fine (in the sense that they aren't speediable) if the images have an appropriate license. Some of the pages look miscategorised, for example The Public Catalogue Foundation shouldn't maybe be in that category tree. I suggest you bring this up at either the village pump or the talk page of WP:CFD to get the input of editors with more experience of the category structure. Hiding T 14:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to admit to being confused.
AFAICT:
So is that last one an attempt to create an en: version of the commons? Colour me confused. - jc37 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
After looking at an admittedly small sampling, it looks like Category:Wikipedia image galleries is being used to gather image cats and reference pages that are using free images. Since the "No gallery" restriction is just applied to non-free images, most of what this is catching looks safe.
There is also a case that can be made that things like Gallery of Africa coins and Gallery of current first-level administrative country subdivisions maps are things that you would find in specialized encyclopedias or reference works. And by extension, and since they are relatively neutral, here.
That being said... hopefully there is someone, or someones, looking after these things to make sure non-free images are being slipped in. - J Greb (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Band pages

I have reverted this addition to the policy. While I agree with the sentiment, it doesn't seem to add anything that isn't already covered by the general notability guideline, the notability subguideline for music, WP:COI, and/or WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not#Crystal clarification

What's to be done in automotive articles which include speculative statements? It's easy enough to cull unsourced statements like "Chrysler will release an all-new Crossfire for the 2010 model year", but what if that statement is formally supported, as for example by citation of an article in "Car and Driver" magazine? My tendency is to take a very critical view of such speculation, even when cited. The motoring media in general tend to parrot and hype-up automakers' press releases and PR buzz, and therefore are in my view extremely marginal in terms of reliability as a source for events that have not yet happened. Nevertheless, the automotive articles on Wikipedia, perhaps to a greater extent than other areas, receive a lot of activity from editors whose enthusiasm for their favourite vehicles and/or automakers outweighs their interest in adhering to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Certain of these editors react very badly when text they've contributed is removed or altered, even when a valid and explicit reason is given. Without the ability to point to a particular policy (or to a consensus on the application of a particular policy in a particular kind of situation), the likelihood of incivility and edit warring rises sharply, as it seems. Discuss? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite it as an announcment or plan, not as a fact: "Chrysler has announced that they will..." or "intends to" or something of that sort depending on how firmly they express it.--Father Goose (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This revert

I highly disagree. "The" penis isn't good enough because that article isn't about one particular penis it's about penises in general. So I find it inaccurate say it's article about THE penis. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be "a penis". "The penis" means "the penis in abstract", much as one might say "the vagina", "the brain", and so on. The use of the definite article does not imply a specific instance in every case.
Further, "the articles about penis and pornography" isn't actually grammatically valid. "The articles about penises and pornography" would be, but would sound worse, be less conventional, and just stranger than what is currently there. SamBC(talk) 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"wikipedia is not a social networking site" or "not Myspace"?

Under "not a social networking site, the first line reads "Wikipedia is not a social Networking site such as myspace or facebook." I think this is redundant with the immediate title, and the intro of several months ago was better; "Wkipedia is not Myspace." The first sounds a tad more authoritative and blunt, and the second sounds as if it is trying to be politically correct with respect to facebook. Don't get me wrong, facebook is actually better in my opinion, but Myspace is more connotive, and would make a better opener. I'm changing it to Wikipedia is not myspace. Rustyfence (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the whole thing is silly because anyplace that section of policy really applies is probably a place it doesn't have consensus. We don't have to worry about being myspace or facebook - no application widgets, friends lists, or superpokes. There is a question about how much people can and should identify who they are, engage in banter, crack a joke, personalize their page, and so on, and I don't think the policy settles it. It's just used as a bludgeon when the real argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Like it or not, Wikipedia is a social medium that relies on trust, reputation, collaboration, etc. It is clearly, obviously, and fundamentally a social network in the classic sense of the word, even if it is not a social networking service.Wikidemo (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we can agree that there are cases where this provision of WP:NOT clearly applies: for instance, a userspace discussion board about users' favourite celebrities. The fact of the matter is that some pages are inherently oriented toward social networking or away from encyclopedia-building, and this issue is distinct from any "I like it" or "I don't like it" concerns. Black Falcon (Talk) 08:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I agree. Wikidemo (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That said, I don't mean to deny that WP:NOT is often used to mask - consciously or subconsciously - "I don't like it" or "I don't know it" arguments. Having reread what I wrote, I saw that I'd failed to note this point. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"wikipedia is not a social networking site" is a lot better. MySpace is not the only blogging site out there, and it's clearly not the only well-known one either. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

NOT#NEWS

I've removed this - it's regrettably never ever enforced, even on BLPs. Will (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted. It's used on AfD frequently. Corvus cornixtalk 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is brought up in AFD, yes, but there are loads of articles about *minor school shooting that got on CNN's Breaking News for a few hours* that are kept despite it being used. Will (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
And if you want a prime example, Amish school shooting, which was speedy kept two months ago. Will (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is needed. Wikipedia can be easily mistaken for news as it gets updated a lot every day. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Just because we have still articles about mostly-forgotten events that were once in the news, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't discourage editors from treating encyclopedia articles as news articles. I think there's a difference between articles about current events and news itself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my opinion on the subject. You said it better than I could. I was trying to formulate my thoughts.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What the guideline really needs to say is that articles about events must have some impact either outside of or after itself - for example, the Terri Schiavo case sparked a lot of public debate over years and years. Dunblane is still a talking point ten years on and a law was passed restricting firearms directly because of it. If you look at the Amish school shooting, all the article says is that the school was rebuilt. That's about it. I don't think articles like that follow the existing guideline, to be honest. Will (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of one book that has been written in response to the event (Forgiveness: A Legacy of the West Nickel Mines Amish School) and there may be more. In addition, news coverage of the event extends well beyond just the first week (see here and LexisNexis news archives, if you're able to access them). Black Falcon (Talk) 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
More power to you to include them, but my point remains: articles should not be saying "such and such" happened and not discuss what came of it. If articles could be rewritten to the standard of Virginia Tech massacre, that's great. Will (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do agree that articles about events should be able to demonstrate that the event is noted and has significance that extends for more than a few days; however, I think we disagree about how stringent inclusion standards should be for events. (For instance, is the presence of substantial continuing coverage enough or should it have some type of major societal effect?) Still, I think The Fat Man Who Never Came Back is correct to note that the NOTNEWS provision serves an important role in orienting the focus of editors. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As currently written, NOTNEWS seems to strike the right balance, but is a bit convoluted and long. I tried streamlining it but couldn't figure out how best to approach it. I invite someone else to try.
As for Amish school shooting, that event got quite a lot of attention, extending to a recent retrospective on Good Morning America, and as Black Falcon pointed out, an entire book. The article itself is poor and needs a complete rewrite for tone and neutrality. The problems with the article, however, don't disqualify it under NOTNEWS; they are editorial issues.--Father Goose (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to make a proposal: that coverage that lasts more than one week and involves more than one country is evidence of continuing notability. DGG (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Support Will (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with that, I do not think the imposition of an arbitrary minimum requirement is beneficial. More importantly, it should not be taken to mean that the absence of such coverage is evidence of non-notability. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my feeling too. Plus, "involving more than one country" is wrong on its face. "National coverage" would be my normal threshold, but even a story with "mere" regional coverage could already be of interest to millions of people. The general principles of NOTNEWS are uncontroversial (no routine news coverage), but the specifics can really require a judgment call.--Father Goose (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that even that sets the bar too low. Lots of topics get "coverage" that is still trivial. Two 15 second mentions a week apart in the human interest sections of a national TV program on a slow news day still has not demonstrated the encyclopedic importance of a topic. "Interest" to lots of people is not the right standard either. Encyclopedic topics have long-term impact. And that usually can't be measured until well after the fact. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The assessment can't be reduced a single word, whether that is "interest", "importance", or "notability". A straight read of WP:Notability would let too many "fluff" stories in, and at the same time, "importance" is not the sole basis for inclusion either. "Impact" is perhaps a little better, but what kind of impact, and on whom?
I have in mind, say, a high-profile state government scandal that is too large to put in a single politician's article, but that never generates national interest (let alone international). Mechanistic criteria would just miss the mark, in both directions.--Father Goose (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Second that thought. Very well put. And I agree with Rossami as well - the bar is consistently too low and AfD too inconsistent, resulting in travesties like Hal the Central Park Coyote. Actually, I should bring that back to AfD. Eusebeus (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, I can't find anything wrong with having that article in the encyclopedia. It's more than just another animal story; the fact that wildlife in Manhattan is almost unheard of speaks to a larger theme -- I daresay a notable one. Additionally, it exemplifies the resurgence of coyotes across North America; the Hal article is linked to from the coyote article for just that purpose.--Father Goose (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the general issue a bit more. "Routine news coverage" describes it pretty aptly. I think I'll move that line to the top of NOTNEWS, and cut the redundancies out of the BLP-related stuff.--Father Goose (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, done. I think I managed to make it tighter and clearer without changing the underlying advice. If I got anything wrong, hopefully it can be fixed through further editing or discussion.--Father Goose (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WI

Also links to this page!--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow I wonder why, WI doesn't seem to stand for anything relevant to the title of the policy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Explanation for the abbreviations above: WI links to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Helpfully (I hope), GeorgeLouis (talk)
Can you perhaps bold the relevant letters? Because I'm still confused. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Isn't, I presume. Pretty useless shortcut: NOT is the only memorable one. WIN is not much use either; I more strongly associate it with "Windows" or "winning" or something.--Father Goose (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
So it's NOT useless? I see. Nah, just messing around.
Seriously though, I agree, the WP:WI isn't notable enough to be listed with the shortcuts on this page. So it's agreed then, we will not include it on the policy page. But I still think the shortcut could be handy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

not experiment

Regarding this, which I just deleted for a second time[1].

As I said in my first edit summary, Wikipedia actually is an experiment in copyright law. Specifically, the free content movement. This was once a non-mainstream issue promoted by Lawrence Lessig and others in establishing the creative commons, the idea that one could create a bunch of copyrighted stuff then give it to people under GDFL, being careful not to incorporate anything copyrighted by other people. That's the "free content" pillar of WP:5P, the foundational principle of the project.

But that's all theory. For policy we have WP:NONFREE which says, counter to the proposed change, that we do not admit everything that complies with US fair use law, but rather have much more stringent standards. Whatever you think about that decision, and whatever the exact contours of the polciy, it's about as close to bedrock policy as you can get that we place restrictions on fair-use content. The proposed new language says otherwise so I think we can reject it as not having consensus, and being very unlikely to gain consensus. Any change really belongs at WP:NONFREE, not here, or more likely as a board-level discussion within the Wikimedia Foundation Wikidemo (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed change misrepresents Wikipedia where it says "It is an encyclopedia that uses any media that it is legally allowed to if that media will help illustrate or accentuate an article and make it more educational, useful, and accurate for the reader." It's simply wrong. Wikipedia is a project to produce free content. When we use something on this site that isn't free, we're limiting the uses to which the content can be put, and thus failing in our declared purpose. To write our primary purpose off as "an experiment in copyright law" is very misleading. We're very successfully producing free content, and using "any media that it is legally allowed to" in a given context isn't in the interests of the project. We should always avoid using non-free content where free content is available to do the job, because if we use non-free content then we're failing those who will re-use the content. --TS 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, we should not write Wikipedia off. What I meant is that we're an experiment in copyright (or more specifically, free content) the same way America is an "experiment in democracy" or the Internet is an "experiment in communications." We are at the forefront of a new movement. The common-sense gut feeling that we should give 100% attention to writing an encyclopedia rather than trying anything novel, is a little misplaced when it comes to the issue of free content. This is one of several places where Wikipedia really is doing things differently: being noncommercial, allowing anyone to edit, being status-averse (particularly with respect to off-Wikipedia credentials), and avoiding bureaucracy and hierarchy.Wikidemo (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
furthermore,, and it is also trying to be the best possible encyclopedia that can be done under its methods--which requires using the best possible material; if material that is only partially free is the best in other respects, and the difference is significant, then the question becomes one of a difficult balance, which different people could answer differently, while maintaining the same principles. Myself, I would go for a dual approach--the best usable content permissible under fair use copyright at the servers,and the best obtainable free material for those who need it, as for encyclopedia operating under other copyright regimes, or those wishing to use the material commercially. The hope of course is that in most cases we wont have to make the distinction--the best content will, increasingly, be fully free.DGG (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

About not being censored...

If Wikipedia is not censored, then why is there such an overt adversion to pornographic images? (In pornographic articles of course.) I've yet to see a porno have a relevent screenshot (is Deep Throat (film) really complete without a screenshot of the deep throat?), the large majority of articles on sexual acts use drawings instead of images (e.g. Cunnilingus), and even the very article that this page uses as example of containing offensive content, pornography, is extremely tame−a crude cultural relic and a stag film that must be played to see anything is all that exists in the article. This is obviously not from a lack of material. I'm not saying I need Wikipedia for my porn fix or anything, but what the hell? It's as though an entire policy is being ignored. Pornographic images appear to be chosen based on "least offensive, but still informative" mindset instead of "most informative, but more offensive". Now if that's how we want the policy to be applied, I'm fine with that. But that's not how it's worded now, and it annoys me.--SeizureDog (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the doggy style article, which contains the aforementioned crude cultural relic, also contains a modern illustration of the act, which to my eyes is just as informative as a photograph of the act would be.
Deep throat (sexual act), on the other hand, would probably be a better article with a photograph of an actual person performing the act, or even better, a video or animated gif. It's one of those things where seeing is believing -- an illustration wouldn't quite do it justice.
However, there are several hurdles to jump over for such a picture to be added to the article. First, we'd have to find someone willing to submit such an image under some sort of free license. Second, the people submitting it would have to contact WP:OTRS, confirming that they are above the age of consent as well as the rightful owners of the image. Third, we'd have to make sure it complied with US and/or Florida obscenity laws. That's potentially tricky because it's not entirely clear what laws are in force: the Child Online Protection Act, for instance, would ostensibly prohibit even mere nudity from Wikipedia, and although it's been shot down repeatedly by the courts, the federal government still actively seeks to enforce it.
Even if all those hurdles could be cleared, I think I still wouldn't put the image in the article "inline", but rather, link to it. Even though I should not be surprised by anything I might come across when reading an article about deep throating, I still wouldn't expect to see a picture of someone sucking an erect penis in a general-audience encyclopedia... linking to it would at least give me a chance to consent to seeing it first.
Now, if all that happened, I'm sure there'd still be a huge battle over whether it should be kept, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were deleted by the Foundation on the basis of "fuck it, we don't need this drama". So, perhaps the most accurate expression of the principle would be, "Wikipedia is not censored... but we won't embrace controversy if it distracts too much from the purpose of building an encyclopedia."
I don't think there's a need to add such a line to WP:NOTCENSORED -- better to just ignore it according to how much a situation calls for it.--Father Goose (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
All the above blather in a nutshell: Wikipedia is not prudish, but it may still choose to be prudent.--Father Goose (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That was perfectly summarized, Father Goose. That should probably go in there. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well said, Father Goose: "fuck it, we don't need this drama". :) I think Wikipedia shouldn't be intimidated by prudes, but on the other hand, we should be careful not to push the envelope too far. "Community standards" is a vague U.S. legal standard for obscenity, and we don't have the money to waste fighting a legal attempt to shut down Wikipedia due to violating obscenity laws in Florida where the servers are. I don't even understand U.S. obscenity laws as concerns which states have legal standing to attempt to prosecute Wikipedia. Is it just the state with the servers? The whistleblower site WikiLeaks was ominously shut down recently by a U.S. court. See WikiLeaks.org#Bank Julius Baer suit. We should study that case to understand the legal implications. It may foreshadow further government attempts to censor the web. Maybe we need a WP:CYA policy acronym - for "Cover Your Ass".
WikiLeaks is hosted in Sweden. The Wikileaks.org domain was shut down February 18, 2008 by Judge Jeffrey White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The wikipedia article states:
"Alternate domain names, such as http://wikileaks.be/, were not affected.[1] Wikileaks is also available via the IP address http://88.80.13.160/. To shut down these access methods, it would be necessary to pursue injunctions in the jurisdictions where they are registered, or where the servers reside, which are deliberately scattered to make this difficult."
So it looks like injunctions can occur also in states where domain names are registered. I am not sure at all about any of this. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I read about that case, and most of the commentators said it was unconstitutional, and that rulings like that in the past have been shot down by appellate courts. Self-censorship can be just as chilling as external censorship, which is why we have WP:NOTCENSORED. The Wikimedia Foundation, as our legal face to the world, is the one tasked with covering our ass -- and they do, when needed. The rest of us should just busy ourselves with writing a good encyclopedia.--Father Goose (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a doctor

I think this subject needs a specific section, since it is something that needs to be emphasized in almost every disease-related article. As it is now, many people diagnose themselves by using Wikipedia articles as a means of self-diagnosis. This may have hazardous results if made the wrong way. Therefore, I propose the following section: 

===Wikipedia is not a doctor===
Wikipedia is not a way to make a self-diagnosis.
It has information about diseases and conditions in general, 
but doesn't concern individual diseases and conditions. 
For a proper diagnosis professional healthcare providers must to be consulted.

This may then be inserted in all the articles needing it, see Pain_and_nociception#Some_possible_causes_of_pain_by_region for example. Or perhaps something else than "doctor"? Perhaps "Wikipedia is not a hospital"? Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting directly on the proposal to add another WP:NOT criterion, I want to note that articles should not contain disclaimers (Wikipedia does have a specific medical disclaimer). Black Falcon (Talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That disclaimer contains just that small sentence I want in this article. It's good that it is clickable at the bottom, but I'm afraid it's too hidden to be of any help to most readers. It's actually a question of life and death to have it more visible, self-diagnosis isn't reliable, so I still propose including this header in the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody disagree? Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to include the disclaimer in an article or in the WP:NOT page? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that "must to be consulted" is proper phrasing. Proofread your proposal. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT describes content that does not belong in Wikipedia. What you're proposing addresses user behavior -- not even editor behavior -- and does not belong on this page. The proper place for a medical disclaimer is amongst our disclaimers.
As for putting a disclaimer right where the medical advice appears, as WP:NDA points out, "The lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits." We can't predict when someone's going to do some damned fool thing based on something he read on the Internet. Hopefully Wikipedia's reputation as an unreliable source of information is an asset in this instance.--Father Goose (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
To answer Black Falcon, it's in WP:NOT that I'd like the text to be inserted. And, to you others, I realize it needs rewording. I understand that it, as it is now, isn't really targeted at editors. Nevertheless, it is IMPOV still important to note. On the other hand, this article is still probably the wrong place. But when I think about it, the subject is also worth noting to editors - many edits, especially in Talk-pages, are actually written by people just wanting to know the prognosis or treatment for themselves or a relative. So therefore I still suggest inserting the piece of information. Besides, it would be the proper place to guide readers and editors to the proper medicine Wiki, i.e. the one actually dealing with individual cases. After all the projects I've seen out there which are at the planning stage I think it's only a matter of time before there is one. But, until then, the first sentences are enough:
===Wikipedia is not a doctor===
Wikipedia is not a way to make a self-diagnosis.
It has information about diseases and conditions in general, 
but doesn't concern individual diseases and conditions.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not...

...a knot to be tied up in arguments ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong! You're wrong! Get the rope, boys.--Father Goose (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists

Policy amendment request - addition to what Wikipedia is not

A list has no place in an ecyclopaedia unless it actually conveys information other then its entries. Without the standard encyclopaedic entry, a list is called a catalogue.

I am going to suggest that all lists in Wikipedia must have, like all other articles:

  • an introduction
  • a definition
  • a statement of scope
  • a statement of notability
  • the encyclopaedic purpose (what does it inform the reader)

Wikipedia is not a catalogue--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What type of "lists" are you talking about? There's a lot of different interpretations. Also, consider that many lists are completely appropriate breakouts per Summary style that many not necessarily alone have all these parts (relying on the parent article to do that). Also check WP:NOT#DIR which already mentions some no-nos in list formation. --MASEM 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This change is neither desirable nor needed. The lists we have created under current rules are just fine, but there is always room for improvement (the same as with all WP articles). Having this new rule would just prompt a new round of mass deletion of information from WP. Information includes the relationship of one article to another in whatever order the list maker has placed the articles. Hmains (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories
  • No need for this. Lists are just another info presentation format. Just like images, tables, charts, diagrams, bullet points, tables of contents, "see also" sections, paragraphs, sentences, etc.. List policies and guidelines are already covered in detail in various guideline and policy pages. Much of the deletionist frenzy concerning lists comes from groups of rude (see WP:CIVIL) tendentious spam fighters and their closely-associated admins. A simpler solution to spam is to make a policy forbidding unregistered users from adding external links to the external link sections of articles, or to lists. Then all registered users could enforce the policy, and control of articles would go back to the registered editors of the articles. Wikipedia as a whole, and especially admins outside spam central, need to step in and rein in this spam-fighting group of tendentious tag-team disrupters on wikipedia. They parachute into many articles and disrupt carefully worked-out consensus agreements, and/or delete large sections of articles that took years to create. There needs to be some sort of equivalent to Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists, Spam, and Free software. Free software and freeware seem to get frequently deleted from articles by spam fighters in their evident support of Microsoft and other "notable" monopolies or commercial software. All info in articles has to meet wikipedia guidelines. See the table to the right. Lists shouldn't have to meet a higher standard arbitrarily set up and enforced by outlaw spam admins and their followers. It took multiple WP:ArbCom rulings, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, to finally control several outlaw admins, and those who followed their example, in that topic area. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would have though that with improvement in mind, the articles that contain only a list would need to be expanded by adding these sections. Lists are not Summary style expansions pear definition there. As an example, List of people born at sea seems to be a catalogue that conveys no other information then how to reach articles of these particular individuals. What is the purpose of this list? I appreciate that the individuals are notable for some other achievement, but is their location of birth in some way relevant to their notability? Can this list teach humanity something? Does being born at sea contribute to any field of knowledge? None of these issues were considered when it was discussed as an article for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people born at sea.
The List of people from Danzig is similar. Everyone had to be born somewhere! The cut off dates reflect Danzig being a part of Germany (1308, it was overrun by the Teutonic Order - 1945, end of the Third Reich). Is the scope restricted to German births? Clearly not, so why stop with 1945. Has it been determined that no one notable is going to be born in the city now that it reverted to Polish sovereignty and changed names? This article was a compromise based in a very contentious conflict which took a year to resolve. So much for consensus! No notable person born in the city after 1945 can be listed even if they were born in the same building as someone notable born in it in 1944! The only thing the list teaches humanity is overt discrimination!
"Bare bones" lists are not like "Just like images, tables, charts, diagrams, bullet points, tables of contents, sections, paragraphs, sentences" because all these are elements of a standard article, and support article content. Lists have no content to speak of other then the single sentence incorporating its title.
Are you suggesting (assuming) I am a "deletionist frenzy concerning lists comes from groups of rude (see WP:CIVIL) tendentious spam fighters"? That seems fairly uncivil from where I stand! I have nowhere made a delete suggestion! I advocate expansion of existing lists, if they are indeed encyclopaedia material. Please remember that an encyclopaedia is not a dump for any and all data, but is a reference work for conveying information contextualized in terms of human knowledge. If a list has this context, why can't it be presented in the article? Are there "carefully worked-out consensus agreements" in lists? Have a look here Category:Incomplete lists! What on Earth is the purpose of the List of children of clergy?! It seems to discriminate against notable people who had atheist parents, or maybe a parent who was an accountant, or notable people who were orphaned! This entire Category:Playboy Lists is only useful as a catalogue for Playboy collectors! The only notability of Neva Gilbert (aside from publication of her photographs) is that she did not become aware of her own notability for over two decades! Maybe a starter for List of people who didn't know they were notable?
In any case, it is very clear that views expressed by Timeshifter are based on personal experiences, and are not very objective in terms of approach to my proposal.
Consider mentioning that there needs to be some sort of equivalent to Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, twice! However, this represents a political view if I'm not mistaken.
Here is an example of what I mean by my proposal.
Thake the list List of Mountain Men.
Current contents are
  • "This is a list of explorers, trappers, guides, and other frontiersman of the American frontier known as "Mountain Men" from 1807-1848."
  • The list.
The rest of the information on the Mountain man is elsewhere in an article that is by no means long, and contains:
  • 1 History
  • 2 Mode of living
  • 3 Notable figures
  • 4 Further reading
  • 5 See also
  • 6 External links
Why can't the list be included in the Notable figures section? After all, if they deserve to be in the list, they must be notable!
Another example is List of explorers. Surely the subject of exploration is closely related to the area being explored?! So why have an alphabetic list when numerous articles already exist here Category:Explorers? Do you think anyone will want to know how many explorers who had a name which started with K ever lived? This occurred because no scope for the article was ever shown! Subsequently the article is owned by the
Portugal Portal
List of explorers is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.!!!
This is because the Geography Portal found this list useless! Clearly someone in Portugal though it was a great way to promote Portuguese explorers, but is this encyclopaedic for an English language encyclopaedia? I would make a wager that every Portuguese ship captain that sailed outside of the Mediterranean during the 15th - 17th centuries is listed in this article. Since during this period all commercial ventures to find new trade markets and commercial goods were sponsored expeditions, virtually every such sailing venture qualifies!
Speaking of the sea, here is a "goodie" List of maritime explorers. It says "The era of European sea explorations began in the late 15th century and lasted for a little more than three full centuries." Not surprisingly it is also "List of maritime explorers is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles."! And guess what, the talk page says that "Just to state that this list is part of the paralel (sic.) goal of the WikiAward for Greatest Sea Explorer of the period of the discoveries." submitted by the author who commented "Have fun, see the results, watch Wikipedia grow..."--Gameiro Pais 04:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) This User:Joaopais is unsurprisingly a Portuguese editor! The statement above is COMPLETELY erroneous and CLEARLY bias towards Portugal! The era of European sea exploration begun with Phoenicians who were the first to sail in the Mediterranean, having established colonies on the European coast. European sea and ocean exploration is still ongoing! There are numerous articles that relate to the many commercial and scientific vessels that explore the coastal areas of the planet, and the seas and oceans themselves.
Had the article included
  • an introduction
  • a definition
  • a statement of scope
  • a statement of notability
  • the encyclopaedic purpose (what does it inform the reader)
the list would have never existed in this shape and form.
This state of affairs with a clear intent to misinform, and a national bias (not even a POV) would not have been possible. As it stands now, the authoring of lists is clearly subject to exploitation. :The lists guidelines are obviously inadequate.
I look forward to further comments.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Your questions are mainly about the notability of various articles that contain lists, or consist solely of lists. I suggest you bring up those various articles at WP:N, or articles for deletion. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
More generally, most of what you're advocating here seems to be style recommendations, and should go in Wikipedia:List#Lead_sections_in_stand-alone_lists. Furthermore, we already have WP:NOT#DIR, which I believe covers the "catalog" phenomenon you're complaining about.--Father Goose (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
My point is not that the list articles are lacking notability. They are obviously dealing with notable subjects. My point is that their existence is not justified in terms of encyclopaedic content. Without this justification it is impossible to judge the article notability.
There are not very many lists in history before 20th century. A notable list is one found in the Genesis showing line of descent. It had a purpose, a context, and a scope. Lists of Roman emperors existed. That served the purpose of the Roman calendar. Lists of commissioned officers existed...do determine rank seniority. When people make lists, they serve a purpose. In Wikipedia, currently, anyone can create a list that serves their own purpose. Its a POV by other means! --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability applies to the topic, not to the article. If the list is introducing a new "topic" then arguably yes, you need to provide why that new topic is notable. However, if a list is an article that supports a topic that is already notable, there is no reason to require all the excess weight that is already outlined in a parent article. --MASEM 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well. The above mentioned list of births is at least linked to the notable subject of the international law on Birth aboard aircraft and ships. However, that discussion is only about the post-1961 implications in the adoption of international law on reduction of statelessness. All the subjects of the list on births at sea were born before 1961, and mostly in the 19th century! Indeed, since 1961 the concern of being born on an aircraft has become more dominant, so properly the list ought to be called List of births aboard aircraft and ships! So, the list has no relationship to the parent article aside from the word birth. It would be more appropriately linked to Obstetrics & Gynaecology (history of?) if there was any greater significance to being born at sea prior to 1961. This is largely because the guideline on the introductory section to the article is not followed. In this case the topic is notable, but the article, bearing to relationship to the topic, is irrelevant to it. Its only notability is to list people who were born at sea. Because travel by sea was the only way to get around before air travel, and because it took substantially longer, the chances of being born at sea were very good for many notable persons. In fact, it was not a rare event. It was not notable.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Explain how List of people born at sea is non-neutral.--Father Goose (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This list is just not relevant to the parent article. Other lists have different "issues" which is why my proposal has several points to it.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A list is not simply a catalogue. A list can serve many purposes beyond the purposes of a catalogue.

In wikipedia, lists can serve as a useful means for navigation, especially browsing. At the moment, navigation is one of wikipedia’s weak points. Search functions, and google searches of wikipedia are fine if you know what you are looking for. It’s when you don’t that things like lists, tables and categories become particularly useful. We need more of these things, not less.

Such lists, tables and categories that exist for content navigation should be reserved for existing content, or content that needs to be added. In this respect, notability is not an issue, because everything in the list relates to other content. The feared catalogue phenomenon, and related fears of spam attacks, occurs where the lists contain external links. Such lists are a different matter.

Most of mrg3105’s comments, where he has a point, relates to the need to improve lists. Often stuff in a list belongs in an article. However, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t also belong in the list. There is going to have to be redundancy. The explorers name will need to occur on multiple pages. Zero redundancy is very user unfriendly. Too much redundancy is also bad. The encyclopaedic content about the explorer should belong in one place, with summaries located elsewhere being relatively brief. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said that lists are catalogues, but only that some become catalogues. "Lists, which usually have linked terms in them, naturally serve as tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." A table of content is an introduction to a topic; and index is a way to find something in a large body of content. In both cases the "lists" are defined by the content. Generating a list because it "sounds like" it belongs to a topic or another structured article is not really the intent behind the lists as I understand it. If the proposal is not useful, then maybe I should just go around tagging for deletion any list that can't be linked to anything in Wikipedia? In any case, it seems to me the Wikilistomania is a bit out of control. I have looked at several lists now, and I'd say that I could spend 24/7 on commenting on what's wrong with them in terms of encyclopedic suitability, never mind content of which there is usually none aside from the bare links.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 06:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
“Lists that can’t be linked to anything in wikipedia”? These are not the lists I have in mind. Do you have some examples? I haven’t encountered wikilistomonia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not getting into a list-by-list discussion here. Please comment the proposal. Again, if the proposal is opposed, then I will take the earlier advice and tag articles for deletion as I come across them--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 06:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I was actually just about to ask for a list-by-list discussion. If you want to press for a rule that disallows a certain type of list, we will need to discuss several examples of "that type of list" to make our own assessments. Unless you can demonstrate a large-scale problem, we will consider a large-scale solution to be unnecessary (and destructive).--Father Goose (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how many lists do you need? It will have to be a reasonable sample, but I have no idea how many list there are. You can pick portals or categories; I don't care. By reasonable, I mean something I can handle without spending several days on it, ok?
Meanwhile, can you comment on the examples above?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the list examples you already provided. I can see your point, but think you are overreacting. There is a lot of room for improvement, but I think that neither AfD nor a WP:NOT draconian rule that facilitates deletions at AfD is the way to go. I suggest that, rather than writing top-down rules, you fix some lists, and if you succeed, write a guideline on how to fix bad lists. You mentioned lists “that can’t be linked to anything in wikipedia”. I would like to see one or two of these, or were you exaggerating? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on list examples (arbitrary break)

(commenting on the examples) Here's how I'd assess each:

  • List of people born at sea - The general subject of being born at sea has some historical importance; a quick Google Books turns up 770 references to it. Looking at several of the individuals on the list turns up the interesting phenomenon that many of them were born to immigrant parents (in the act of immigration). In the long term, the list should explain why being born at sea is some kind of notable phenomenon. I won't presume that it isn't, and won't delete it on the basis of that presumption. There is no deadline.
  • List of people from Danzig - There's an ongoing debate on Wikipedia on when something should be handled by a category and when by a list. Wikipedia's implementation of categories is still very rudimentary -- there's no way to browse entries from all the subcategories of a parent category, there's no way to provide any contextual information along with the link to the article, and few if any options for sorting and searching. You can't even choose to view more than 200 entries at a time. So even though there is a Category:People from Gdańsk, it's a worse navigation tool at this time than a list can be. Same for List of Mountain Men. The existence of a category doesn't invalidate having a list crafted by a human editor, and vice-versa.
  • List of maritime explorers - That's a list that needs sorting, expanding, prettifying. To accomplish that, you need to do the work, not write some legislation somewhere. And if you do mandate that people write better lists, how will you enforce it? By deleting lists that need fixing? Wrong approach. List of explorers is a good example of what the maritime list could look like.
    The edits you made to list of maritime explorers didn't fix it up at all; it's now five sections worth of self references, WP:BEANS ("the use of force is not considered a reason for exclusion"), unsourced assertions ("A maritime explorer is the noted leader of the expedition"), followed by a list that still needs someone to wade in and improve the thing.
(Oh, wait, you did start sorting the list as well -- that's a definite improvement.)--Father Goose (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Category:Playboy Lists - These are each completely appropriate for something that would appear in, say, an Encyclopedia of Playboy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of Playboy. And an encyclopedia of physics. And of the state of Alabama. And steam railroads. And video games. And that's a good thing. If the Playboy articles bother you so much, you don't have to read them. And let's face it, nobody reads Playboy for the articles.
  • List of children of clergy - The opening sentence does provide a reasonable declaration of scope, but the individual entries could do more to explain how the connection influenced the lives of the listed individuals. There's work to be done on that list. Legislation is not some magic bullet. People have to roll up their sleeves and do that work.--Father Goose (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well, I can only repeat that I did not initially advocate deletion as a solution. The entries I made in the list of maritime explorers are not self-referenced. Since individuals and not expeditions are name in the list, by definition the individuals are the leaders of the expeditions, which is their source of notability. I would agree that list can be improved in the same way other articles are, but how? There are no guidelines for improving lists!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣♥♦ 03:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:LIST or WP:MOSLIST. As I've said before, you might get a better response if you were proposing these changes for those list-specific guidelines, not for WP:NOT. You are probably getting a lot of "deletion is not the answer" responses here because NOT's purpose is to specify types of content that should always be deleted, regardless of how it is formatted.--Father Goose (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for comments. I will take the proposal to those two and see what reaction I get. I would rather see the articles evolved into something more reference-like then left as is or deleted.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣♥♦ 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Use them as a Table of Contents

Why not just change the title. Instead of "List," call it "Wikipedia References"? And don't allow Red Links, which by their very nature are Not Notable. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is only one specialized type of list. Take a look at Wikipedia's featured lists and see how few of them fit that role. Further, redlinks are not "by their nature" non-notable; see WP:REDLINK.--Father Goose (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

FORUM-only accounts?

I don't want to name names, but I have occasionally come upon user accounts that could rightly be called "forum-only" in that the only edits they make are forum-style comments on Talk pages. A warning and pointer to WP:FORUM occasionally crops up, but nothing is really done. This is not the kind of thing people get blocked for. But it kinda annoys the crap out of me ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Or write whole articles of OR on their talk pages, possibly as a place to store and then publicise them.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Length of a plot summary

Is there a Wikipedia policy on how long a plot summary should be? Recently I had a discussion about the length of the plot summary in Blood Meridian, see Talk:Blood_Meridian#Length_of_the_plot. I maintained that the rules for the length of a plot summary are the same as those for any other section; and Cuchullain maintained instead that plot summaries must be very short. Strangely we both claimed that WP:PLOT supported our position. Can somebody clarify this point? And could the policy be amended to make it clear? Eubulide (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Looking at that, I think the plot section is clearly too long. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. So Cuchullain is largely correct. The plot should only be as long as required to provide a reader with the necessary context for the real-world significance that should be the focus of the article. Currently, the plot description exceeds that purpose. Eusebeus (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no bright-line rule. For films, you're looking at 10 words per minute, for TV, the rule is around 500 for up to 45 minutes, and 10 for each minute after. For books, 20-25 words a chapter should suffice, I think. Will (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
As average Wikipedia articles go, the ratio of commentary to plot in Blood Meridian is pretty high, actually. My feeling is that anything beyond a very general description of plot (one or two paragraphs) should be accompanied by commentary specifically relating to the additional details provided. That's clearly not the approach we're taking now, but I do hope we adopt something like it eventually.--Father Goose (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Blood Meridian looks about two paragraphs too long to me. — Deckiller 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


suggested wording tweak change brief to concise There can be reasonable argument about how brief a summary should be, but I think everyone would agree that it ought to be "concise". As a policy page, this should not be over-specific. I'm trying to find a minimal change that would be generally acceptable and would meet at least some of the problems raised.DGG (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection, these are loafers

"A concise plot summary may be appropriate as part of a larger topic."

What exactly does that mean? Surely we could phrase that better.--Father Goose (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A concise plot summary is appropriate in coverage of a work of fiction and elements within that work.? --MASEM 23:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Definitely. I think the section needs a complete rewrite; it just reads funny IMO. Ideally, I'd like it to read something like "In articles on works of fiction, a plot summary should be concise and balanced with real-world details, such as the work's development and impact. This applies to both stand-alone works and series." — Deckiller 23:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer Masem's shorter wording. Once you get into details it becomes more for the guidelines. His wording, in particular, allows for the existence of subarticles which contain the plot primarily. I'll vote for his over mine, as I usually do. I think its certainly an improvement over the present. Policies should be concise. :).DGG (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my version would be the entire rewritten bullet. Masem's wording just covers that sentence. — Deckiller 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


It is appropriate to provide a concise plot summary as part of the larger coverage of fictional works.

Thank you everybody for your clarifications. However, I find the formulation still unclear: saying that an article should be "not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot" doesn't exclude that it could be a detailed summary with lots of real world content as well (the adverb "solely" allows a weak interpretation of the statement. Similarly, "may" in the next sentence doesn't enforce that the summary must be concise. Apart from that, how does one judge when something is concise? Setting a fixed chapter/words limit seems too procrustean: different books have chapters of different size and some don't have chapters at all. We should stress that the summary must also give a good outline of the plot: there may be articles with long summaries, because they contain irrelevant details, but still missing some key plot elements. I think this is the case with Blood Meridian and this is my main issue with that article: some parts of the summary give minimal details while others, chiefly about the last part of the book, completely skip entire chapters. Shouldn't we stress the quality of the summary rather than simply its shortness? And if it is deemed too long, shouldn't a more selective policy be in place, rather than deleting any new addition because the article is already too long? Eubulide (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No, you are missing the point. The main focus of Wikipedia's content should be on the real-world impact and significance of the work in question and that applies to Hamlet, Don Quixote or For Whom the Bell Tolls as much as more obscure works. That a single narrow formulation cannot cover all potentialities is obvious. But general language advising concision is clear enough. The real place for this in specific application then is at the talk page of the work or works in question where a consensus can be derived that satisfies the best practices advised by the guideline. Per our standards, the Blood Meridian plot outline is currently too long and detracts from the encyclopedic nature of the article. Eusebeus (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to call your attention to the fact that there are featured articles with plot summaries longer than the one in Blood Meridian. Especially articles about video games tend to have detailed descriptions of the storyline. Take for example Final Fantasy VIII. It has a plot summary that is longer than Blood Meridian (and it is made even longer by using the References section to quote verbatim several dialog fragments. Am I wrong in saying that either both Blood Meridian and Final Fantasy VIII violate policy or they both respect it? Eubulide (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Deal. You asked a question and every editor who has weighed in on the question has suggested the plot summary of Blood Meridian is too long. It seems like rather than accept this response, you are fishing around until you get an answer that is more amenable to your personal preference, which is unlikely to happen. I don't think continuing the discussion here is fruitful. It needs to be worked out on the article talk page. If it helps, I'll weigh in there in favour of reducing the plot summary based on your query here. Eusebeus (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about articles for deletion. We are not talking about that here. And my "what about article x" argument cited an FA, not a just created article: so I am justified in assuming that it respects policy. OK, my query about Blood Meridian has been answered clearly. Now I am asking a new question: is the plot summary of Final Fantasy VIII too long? The discussion above clearly suggest yes. Eubulide (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Final Fantasy VIII is a 40+ hour RPG with over a dozen hours of cutscenes and hundreds of thousands of words of dialogue, as well as a complex story involving time travel and whatnot; it has a 800-word plot summary as a result. I wrote most of the FF8 plot summary as an example of an appropriate plot summary. It's a case by case basis, hence my wording above. — Deckiller 04:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I wasn't criticizing FF8, on the contrary, I was citing it as an example of a good article with a long plot summary. By the way, I find your formulation of the policy clearer than the present one, it should be adopted. I accept the fact that these things have to be decided case by case and that the policy can give only a vague indication, so I will not bother you anymore with my questions. Eubulide (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest that the proposed It is appropriate to provide a concise plot summary as part of the larger coverage of fictional works. is a solid replacement. Does anyone object? Hobit (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd gladly accept that wording of Hobit's also. DGG (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about concert tour pages

I noticed that Wikipedia does not have any pages for past concert tour information. It seems that a page like this wouldn't break any of the guidelines, if it included an explanation of the tour, events that occurred on tour, a list of tour stops, setlists, additional touring band members, etc. Can anyone think of a reason why a page like this would go against the wikipedia guidelines?Brain seltzer (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What you describe sounds like directory information to me. Depending on the tone and timing, it could also come across as advertising rather than proper encyclopedic content.
Since you're not talking about the music or the artist but are talking about the narrow economic activity of delivering the product to a particular audience, I think any article about the tour would best be governed by WP:CORP. The kinds of detail you describe would definitely not meet those guidelines. Only the most exceptional tour would normally survive as a stand-alone article. The rest should be discussed in the article about the artist who is touring. Rossami (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep it short

I agree with Rosami's latest edit. What do you read, my lord? Words, words, words. In gratitude to the wisdom of William Shakespeare, your friend and fellow editor, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding [2], Rossami, I think my edit did explain why these policies are there. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As I tried to say in the edit summary (and probably did not say well enough), I don't disagree with anything that you added. The content is all true. But I also didn't think that it added any explanation or meaning to the page that wasn't already there. This page is already longer than ideal. When we get too wordy, our new editors simply stop reading the page. Not only do they fail to get the benefit of the subtle nuances of the discussion, they miss out on the core content that is central to the page. We need to keep this and all our policy pages as short and concise as possible. Instruction creep is a real and continuing problem for us.
If you really think that your changes were a material improvement to the page and would help reader understanding more than the added bulk would inhibit them, please explain it here so the rest of us can also understand. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments: removing information for medical reasons

(this is a discussion started at Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles#Request for comments, but moved here for lack of replies)

I am wondering if some editors who are interested in the topic of WP:NOTCENSORED could comment on a discussion which has happenend several times already, without apparent consensus. I don't think this has been mentioned here before, sorry if I missed it.

Suppose that a medical procedure requires that a patient does not know some particular detail (in this case, an image) for the procedure to work. Should we take steps to hide the image on Wikipedia (or remove the information altogether), so as not to spoil the procedure for a patient who may see this information without wanting to know about it ?

If you want the details of the discussion, they are on this talk page. Policy and guidelines have been cited countless times in the discussion, so I thought posting here could potentially bring either some new contributors to the discussion, or some clarifications to the guidelines, helping to solve the problem in one way or another. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What header would that be under on this talk page.? Puzzled, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would be tempted to say "the whole page", since this is a discussion that has dragged for a long time and involved many headings, but this section is the one that seems most involved with discussion on policy. This one may also be of interest; both sections are quite long though. Schutz (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC

None of those links helped. So many words. There seems to be a "hidden image" somewhere, perhaps an ink blot on a page dealing with the Rorschach test, but how can an image be "hidden"? What's the gist of the argument? Why can't we have a link to this "hidden image"? Sorry I can't help; maybe somebody else wants to take it on. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Having read through most of the discussion dealing with this one particular example, I think it would actually be a very bad idea to try to make a policy decision just because of this one case. As several lawyers have told me at different times, cases at the margins invariably make bad precedent. Laws passed because of a single incident, no matter how notorious, are almost always bad laws (though we pass a lot of them because it's so easy to play to the notoriety of the one case). I think you have a very similar situation here.
There are too many issues which are very specific to this one inkblot example to try to make a general rule about all spoilers. Only once there are several different cases all attempting to address the same issue will the community have a decent chance of identifying the core issue(s) and finding the right long-term policy answer. In the meantime, I think this is a good forum to advertise the Talk page discussion and to gain more comments and opinions which can focus on the very specific issues of the one case. Rossami (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia not (in principle) be censored if it has to comply with the law of the U.S. state of Florida?

Count Iblis (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe we have a winner in "largest number of words without indicating what the heck you're talking about" award in the "section head" category. -
  • The plainest answer is to think of this in terms of the usual meaning of "censorship". Censorship generally refers to some central authority pre-inspecting speech/writing before it can be published/aired/sent. An example would be a military censor going through all of a soldier's mail before it can be sent home, lest it contain any government secrets. Another example would be reviewing the script of a TV show to screen out profanity not allowed on broadcast television. Wikipedia does not have that sort of centralized control. Therefore, readers are on notice that they may find things here that have not be censored.
This does not mean, however, that Wikipedia can do/print whatever it wants. Wikipedia must abide by applicable laws in Florida and other applicable jurisdictions (possibly California now that there are employees in that state? certainly US federal law, and their are mirrors elsewhere as well).
Nor does it even mean that Wikipedia should do everything it legally might do. There are other valid editorial concerns besides simple what the law allows us to do. 06:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

File Storage ←→ File System

In "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site" (short and precise, right?) "File Storage" links to "File System". I think that is not a good idea: the term here refers to "storage" as in "hosting", not as in... File System. Therefore, remove it. --89.61.67.70 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Meant "remove the link". --89.61.67.70 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NOT CENSORED applies to what?

The language used in the "not censored" section is slightly ambiguous. It seems to only refer to article space, but it doesn't expressly say this. I think it might be time to decide one way or the other, particularly when it come to whether or not this rule applies to userspace. Despite the apparent spirit of the rule to encourage the full disclosure of all relevant information in articles, people also use this as rational to keep things in userspace.

The freedom to completely cover a topic in full, versus the freedom for an individual to "speak their mind", ie. posting whatever content they want in their userspace despite its shockingness or offensiveness, are two completely different things, in my opinion. The latter shouldn't be implied by the former.

PS. I'm not suggesting we must decide whether or not userspace is indeed censored. However I think we can (and should) at least make it clear that NOT CENSORED doesn't apply there, so that people will need to use WP:UP to determine what can and can't go there. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:38, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)

it's not a rule and changing it here won't actually change anything in reality. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean exactly, are you asking whether or not you are allowed to use this word? Well, it shouldn't really be a problem if they use it in a polite way (yes, I can think of countless polite ways to use it) I'd like to answer your question, but I don't really know what you mean. If you're asking whether or not photos on tits or penises should be allowed on user space, I wouldn't allow it. I hope I answered the questions you asked, I'm not a policy expert, so I just try to answer with my point of view. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to hazard a guess as to what Kim means. You can't use your user page (or any other page) to stir up shit. That is true even if you try to wikilawyer NOTCENSORED to claim that you're allowed to post whatever you like on your user page. And it's true whether or not we add an exception to this page pointing out that you can't do it... though as Kim likes to point out, it never hurts to document how things work on Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Er, no, this is getting away from what I had in mind. I'm not looking to place any additional specific userspace rules here. I'm just saying people use "Wikipedia is not censored" as a defense at MfD. Really, "Wikipedia is no censored" is only meant to be a core principle for our articles, to mean we can cover topics completely without worrying about minors and whatnot. It was never meant to say that users can express themselves freely via userspace pages etc. Whether or not certain things should be allowed in userspace is a larger debate, and not my immediate concern. It would just make it easier if we could immediately shoot people down when they claim NOT#CENSORED at MfD to defend userspace content (or project space content, for that matter). Again, "Wikipedia is not censored" was never meant to refer to anything but articles, and I just think that should be explicitly stated. It pretty much is stated already, just not explicitly. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:56, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I think everyone here agrees with you. NOTCENSORED applies to the article space (and to a lesser extent to the article Talk space). WP:NOT does not trump WP:UP. On the contrary, in the userspace WP:UP clearly has precedence.
Your earlier comment seems to imply that you think we should clarify the wording to confirm that point. Is that correct or are you just looking for an endorsement of that opinion here on the Talk page? If you think we should change the wording, what change are you proposing? I (and I suspect others) have constant concerns about instruction creep. I'd like to feel sure that the clarification will be helpful enough to justify the extra load. Rossami (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, yes, I'm suggesting a change in wording. Something along the lines of "'Wikipedia is not censored' does not apply to any namespace other than article and article talk space. Other namespaces have other rules regarding acceptable content. " Equazcion •✗/C • 04:22, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I agree both with the principle and the proposed clarification, but I think that the distinction ought not to be between articles and non-articles, but rather article-related namespaces (including articles, categories, images, portals, and templates) and project-related namespaces (Help:, MediaWiki:, User:, Wikipedia:). Black Falcon (Talk) 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, that should be the distinction. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:35, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

We're trumping things now? --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Meh, could we play Texas hold 'em instead?

RE: WP:FORUM

Wikipedia is not a forum. However, discussing the referent of the article can help lead people to searching for the juiciest reliable sources. If you don't know it ever happened, how can you research it? Jwray (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy on the inclusion in articles of external links to discussions on the topic of the article? Seems like it would be useful to have such links more widely and would help discourage the use of Wikipedia as a forum. Fholson 03:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)

NOT#DIRECTORY/Sales Catalog and online video game "funny money" costs

We're asking this same question at the VG project but to get other input here:

Many of our video game articles that involve content that can be purchased through the various online stores (Xbox Live, Wii Shop, PlayStation network) include the cost of these products. For the case of Xbox Live and Wii Shop, this is "funny money" in that you pay for points, then spend the points; the PS Store is directly cash. A recent article brought for review suggests that such prices are inappropriate in the more general case per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, specifically the sales catalog point. There are cases where including the cost is relevant (one game's downloadable content was noted by secondary sources to be expensive, for example, so stating price helps, or that stating that in the general case for items from one shop are in a certain price range, but not in reference to a specific title), but in general, a lot of the uses of these are just a number. Nearly all of these numbers can be sourced. This can be seen as a problem for the various "list of games" articles that we have, and could be seen as the same for individual topics.

Is this an acceptable use, or should we consider purging these numbers from the articles? --MASEM 16:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

if its relivent (that note about outside sources saying its expensive) otherwise the prices should be nuked. βcommand 2 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Even the outside sources stuff does not justify including something as variable and irrelevant as prices. 1) They change; 2) they vary by country, venue, etc.; 3) they simply are not encyclopedic content. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is part of the argument against it: Wii and Xbox prices are "funny money" points, and the cost does not change (save for sales) nor vary by country/region (the cost of the funny money, on the other hand, does). Not that I don't agree with this reasoning, just that this is presently what others see as being the means to keep them. I will argue, however, that the "justified by outside sources" is something to consider, see this article, 4th paragraph of the Reception section as an example where a general price point (but not specific to a game or specific bit of content) should stay. --MASEM 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The "prices" will change whenever the manufacturer chooses to do so; and do change whenever there's a sale, etc. This is the kind of ephemeral triviality that gives Wikipedia a bad name. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Straw polls binding?

It used to say straw polls "should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding." Now someone has changed the statement to say straw polls "should be used with caution, if at all, and will NOT NECESSARILY be treated as binding." (my emphasis). Is that an appropriate change? When is a straw poll ever binding? Operation Spooner (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the new language is misleading, and should be reverted. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Orangemike on this one. Straw polls are just a tool, after all. And when is anything ever binding (except foundation policy) when we ignore all rules? SamBC(talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Lots of things at Wikipedia can be binding. WP:IAR does not mean what most people think it does. That said, I thought the recent change was trivial - "may not be" and "will not necessarily be" are semantically equivalent. I don't see those two phrases as having any different meaning or even different connotation.
But since it's been brought up, I'd like to propose going back to much older wording. Not just "straw polls should be used with caution" but "polls are evil". Some are uncomfortable with such blunt wording but I do not think we can overestimate the damage that gets done to the consensus-seeking process when people attempt to impose a voting-based process on top of it. Polls are almost never the right answer for Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Rossami, yes, some of us are uncomfortable with such blunt wording. "actively evil", "not think we can overestimate the damage", etc are exaggerations to the point of being incorrect under close examination. It damages your/our credibility to make incorrect statements, especially as they will be quoted out of context. Polls can be useful, though I cannot think of an example outside AfD, MfD, RfA, etc (where, of course, the !votes are weighted by the accompnying rationale). Also, as a rule, in a concensus driven community, there is rarely such a thing as a "right answer". Agreed, polls should never be binding. What if we agree that result was a bad idea? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You've qualified your wording so thoroughly that you've come all the way around to what's actually said in "Polls are evil". I don't think we damage our credibility to say so. But yes I do recognize that I'm currently in the minority on this point. Rossami (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've actually found it very useful, in complex disputes, to break down the points of debate into small units and poll on each; this helps to see where people stand and where there is and isn't real disagreement. I think polls are overused, but they do have a place and a value. SamBC(talk) 10:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Therefore, all content hosted in Wikipedia is not:"

The above is from WP:SOAP. Could we have this in English please? Perhaps "Therefore, no content hosted in Wikipedia should be:" --agr (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Shortcuts are good. Like redirects, we should have as many shortcuts as make sense to help our readers quickly find the right section of the page (as long as the shortcut is not patently offensive or misleading).

That said, I have concerns with the recent trend of showing every conceivable shortcut to the page or section. In some cases on this page, the linkbox showing the list of shortcuts is longer than the text it's describing. In the interest of avoiding clutter and improving readability, we should prune back which shortcuts we choose to advertise in the linkboxes.

Pruning the linkboxes will not impair the functioning of any of the existing redirects. The shortcuts will function properly whether we choose to advertise them or not.

Following the principle that we should keep the one that is most immediately obvious and memorable shortcut (and where two are about equally clear keep the shortest), I recommend pruning the following from display in the linkboxes. Any thoughts or changes? Rossami (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Section Leave Prune or hide
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia WP:NOTPAPER WP:NOT#PAPER, WP:PAPER
Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICDEF WP:NOT#DICT, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY
Wikipedia is not ... original thought WP:NOT#OR, WP:FORUM, WP:NOT#CHAT, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT, WP:NOT#PUBLISHER
Wikipedia is not a soapbox WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTADVERTISING WP:SOAP, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#OPINION, WP:NOT#ADVOCATE, WP:ADVERTISING , WP:NOT#ADVERTISING
Wikipedia is not a mirror ... WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NOTREPOSITORY WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#LINKS, WP:NOT#MIRROR, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY
Wikipedia is not a blog ... or memorial site WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTMYSPACE, WP:NOTMEMORIAL WP:NOT#BLOG, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, WP:NOT#SOCIALNET, WP:NOT#MYSPACE, WP:NOT#FACEBOOK,WP:NOT#MEMORIAL
Wikipedia is not a directory WP:NOTDIRECTORY WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:DIRECTORY
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:NOT#MANUAL, WP:NOT#TRAVEL, WP:TRAVEL, WP:NOT#INTERNET, WP:NOT#TEXT, WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK, WP:GAMEGUIDE
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:FUTURE WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, WP:NOT#CBALL, WP:CBALL, WP:BALL
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate ... WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#FAQ, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#LYRICS, WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOT#INFO, WP:IINFO
Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED WP:CENSOR, WP:CENSORED, WP:NOT#CENSORED
Wikipedia is not a democracy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, WP:DEMO, WP:DEMOCRACY
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY WP:BUREAUCRACY, WP:BURO, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY
Wikipedia is not a battleground WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:BATTLE, WP:BATTLEGROUND
Wikipedia is not an anarchy WP:NOTANARCHY WP:NOT#ANARCHY, WP:ANARCHY
And finally... WP:NOTSTUPID WP:NOT#STUPID
I agree there are way too many on the soapbox one for example. I believe we need at least a week of discussion before taking action though. I have to think if I agree 100%, but I know you're right. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Also agreed. Toss all the NOT# ones out completely; they are probably holdovers from before the MediaWiki software was capable of redirecting to article sections. In fact, I'll do that right now. The others I'll leave in place pending further discussion. Hmm, well, some of them need to be replaced by new redirects, so I'll hold off on that. But the whole # style is ugly and archaic.--Father Goose (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If the shortcuts function, why not list them on this page? I see no reason for removing them. I don't think clutter or readability is an issue here. --Pixelface (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Father Goose about the #s. Otherwise, i suggest that just as Wikipedia is not censored has WP:NOTCENSORED rathe than WP:CENSORED, the other ones should also have NOT eg WP:NOTDEMOCRACY rather than WP:DEMOCRACY. The abbreviation shouldn't imply the opposite of the policy.
But I do not think we should actually remove the existingre directs, just deprecate them. People accustomed to them will undoubtedly go on usingthem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Yes, we're not proposing to delete the redirects (that would create redlinks on old discussion pages for no reason), but just to keep the number of policy shortcuts listed on the page to a minimum.
In response to Pixelface, I believe clutter is an issue here. Given that there are dozens of NOT criteria on the page, one or two memorable shortcuts for each NOT criterion is already an absurd amount.--Father Goose (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've created some new ones in the "WP:NOTFOO" format as suggested by Father Goose. The ones left on the list in the old "WP:NOT#FOO" format usually had a slightly different redirect already at the name. We can probably clear those up with some disambiguation notes. Rossami (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Section merger

As I was going through the analysis immediately above, I noticed that we have two sections saying basically the same thing. WP:NOT#JOURNALISM is a subset of "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" and WP:NOT#NEWS is a subset of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I don't have a strong opinion about where the topic should go but it does seem like the sections should be merged. Rossami (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot

In response to Pixelface's removal of the plot section with edit summary "this contradicts WP:PSTS": Allowing primary sources doesn't contradict disallowance of certain material from them or with specifying some rules for how they should be presented. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:07, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my thought when I reverted. There's no logical connection between allowing primary sources (now and then), and permitting articles to be wholly plot summaries with no real-world context! Moreschi (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Primary sources like books and films are acceptable sources per WP:PSTS. Articles sourced from those works often will be nothing but a detailed summary of that work's plot early after the article is created — and even much later after the article is created. However, such articles do not make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. Any recommendations on what else the article needs can be explained in WP:WAF. Articles like Pierre Bezukhov are not against Wikipedia policy. --Pixelface (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, it's been held that large plot summaries are derivative works. We have short, if not no plot summary at all, to comply with fair use restrictions (talking about it scholarly, e.g. Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (which is B-class), and continues to talk about how that episode was made and what people thought about it.) Will (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC), modified 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:FAIR 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)." And WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't mention derivative works at all so I doubt that's why it's included under WP:NOT#INFO. --Pixelface (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
And last month Father Goose contacted Mike Godwin who said "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."[3] --Pixelface (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So the issue can't be argued on a legal basis (at least, at this time). Nonetheless, giving a lengthy plot summary without any form of additional commentary doesn't make for a particularly good encyclopedia article.--Father Goose (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I think there's a difference between an article that's not good and an article that violates policy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
A bad article is (or at least, ought to be) against some policy or another. The whole point of our policy is to help us write better encyclopedia articles. Like an article that is mere plot summary, a page that is nothing more than a mere dictionary definition is also an example of "an article that's not good" but might be repairable and a policy violation. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Being a policy violation just means we have to fix it. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has over 2.2 million articles and many of them are bad. An article being bad isn't against policy, because Wikipedia is not finished. Being a policy violation is more often than not used as an excuse for deletion. Bad articles just need to be cleaned up. How do articles like Pierre Bezukhov, that are simply plot summaries, make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information? --Pixelface (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That is fair; Pixelface raises a valid question as to whether or not WP:PLOT belongs in WP:NOT or if it should be a subsection of WP:WAF. This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy. I wouldn't be surprised if WAF didn't exist back when WP:PLOT was added to this page, so maybe it's time to rethink where we should be offering this guidance.
Alternatively, I would welcome a guideline dealing with issues of plot only. Our approach to (excessively long) plot summaries in general is in bad need of reevaluation, and WP:PLOT isn't doing the trick.--Father Goose (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As for plots, all we ever needed was common sense in doing good ones, but we got caught between those who didnt like them at all, and those who couldnt think of anything to do but write down everything they saw. (The Pierre B. article even as it is is a little more than plot & much less than a full plot summary of a very complicated novel--it needs major enlargement using the immense critical literature). More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there. Even more generally, I think that page needs to be split up between the things describing content , and the ones describing nature of WP, and the details moved elsewhere. It's absurd to have ourt most used policies expressed in a negative way. DGG (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT is the result of community consensus. It is not here because of copyright reasons or sourcing reasons (which may or may not play a part, depending on the situation), but because that's what was decided. If anyone wants to remove or change the section then they need to show a change in consensus. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Decided among a handful of people on this talk page or in article space? If it said Wikipedia is not a plot database, I could maybe see how WP:PLOT belongs in WP:NOT — but that would pretty much mean the removal of all plot material. Plot summary-only articles don't make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:PLOT simply doesn't belong in WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely the point is the word "summary" in the heading. It should give the rough gist of the narrative, not more than that. Also editors who can think of nothing to contribute other than Plot should think carefully before contributing. This is an "Encyclopedia" for goodness sake. Real world material should predominate. Having said that I do agree with "summaries" being included, but in balance with the rest of the article. The WP:PSTS issue should mean that the summarization is just that, summary: no comment, no analysis, no review, nothing negative, nothing positive - just précis. Anything else can go in other sourced sections.  :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors who contribute plot summary information make valid contributions. Articles are usually not written by one person alone. How can you turn "real world material should predominate" into something that Wikipedia is not? Wikipedia is not a recap service? --Pixelface (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content. There are works that fully justify a chapter-by-chapter synopsis and there are works that can be covered in a short paragraph. But having it under WP:NOT gives editors license to violate WP:NPOV and make their own judgement call as to what is appropriate. MoS would be able to be a bit more specific. 23skidoo (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the (many) reasons for this guidance is that it is difficult to do an in-depth plot summary without it becoming analysis or synthetic—ascribing reasons to character actions or author decisions, for example, that are not "patently obvious" from the original text; this would then be OR unless it's sourced, in which case you should be talking about the coverage, not just referencing it (more or less). Detailed plot summaries are a minefield so caution against them is a very good idea. It doesn't belong in MoS because it isn't a matter of style&mdashit's a matter of content. SamBC(talk) 13:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced analysis and synthesis is already covered by WP:NOT#OR. --Pixelface (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are four aspects of what WP:PLOT states presently:

  • An article that is solely a plot summary (of whatever length) is not appropriate for WP
  • An article that is a plot summary (of a certain length) with real-world aspects is appropriate for WP
  • The "certain length" of the plot summary in case two is defined elsewhere.
  • "Real world aspects" include several possible sources.

The first two points fit with the rest of WP:NOT - they describe what is and is not appropriate for a page's content with WP. The third and fourth point is a MOS (WP:WAF) issue and should not be spelled out in NOT in depth, just like we don't spell out what reliable sources are in Verifiability policy, though giving a hint of what both proper length and appropriate real-world aspects helps to "preview" the underlying MOS for this. I think implying that more details can be found in the MOS on length and real-world aspects is fine, but the language pertaining to the first two statements needs to remain given that it reflects consensus and matches with other statement on WP:NOT.

To the case in point, in that does PLOT contradict WP:PSTS, again, breaking it apart like this shows that there's still no contradiction. Primary and some secondary sources can be used to source a plot summary, but even if secondary sources are used, if it still remains just a plot summary, it's not acceptable. Real-world content is going to come from secondary, and at times, primary sources. There's no apparent conflict in these. --MASEM 13:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP. The first two points raised by Masem say that: An article should not consist exclusively of information of type A, but should have also information of type B. Why is there a restrictive policy only when A is plot details? For example, articles about planets should not consists solely of physical characteristics, like mass or distance from the sun, but should also have information about human discovery and exploration. An article about an historical figure should not consist uniquely of a chronology of her life, but give also a description of her work and its influence. Nevertheless nobody ever deleted the mass of a planet or the date of birth of an historical figure on the ground that there were not enough information of a different kind. This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest. Eubulide (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the treatment of plot information in this way, it's simply the case that the community has reached a consensus that this is the case. Consensus can change, but a small number of people raising an objection does not mean that it has.
Regarding the "fix it rather than delete it" concern, that is a general point on wikipedia; it's always better to fix something rather than delete it, and this page does not suggest that any offending material should be deleted. All it says is that articles (or sections thereof) that have certain characteristics shouldn't be on wikipedia; this can be rememedied equally be removing the article, or by adding and/or removing material from the article, depending on the precise case. This page does not give an preference to any of those methods, as far as I can see. SamBC(talk) 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:PLOT is not being treated any differently than WP:NOT#DICT, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:NOT#STATS or WP:NOT#NEWS. All of those clauses say that An article should not consist exclusively of information of type A, but should have also information of type B. Topics make the list here not because they are unique circumstances but because they are demonstrated problems - areas where lots of new users have confusion and need clarification. Nothing on this page has ever said that pages which violate WP:NOT must be deleted rather than fixed. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT is often referred to in AFD nominations (because it's mentioned at WP:DEL#REASON) and WP:PLOT's inclusion in WP:NOT turns a cleanup issue into an inclusion issue. People don't say, "Hey this how-to guide would be really great if it contained some sourced analysis." No, how-to guides are something Wikipedia articles are not. People don't say, "Hey, this personal resume would be great if it contained some sourced analysis." No, resumes are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Many articles contain plot summaries, many featured articles contain plot summaries, and many stubs contain plot summaries. A stub with just a plot summary is not against policy because Wikipedia is not paper. When new users write plot summaries they need to make sure not to insert their own personal interpretations, but that's already covered by WP:NOT#OR. --Pixelface (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
An article like Cosette (which is just a plot summary) is not against policy. Articles such as those don't turn Wikipedia into an "indiscriminate collection of information." The book Les Miserables is an acceptable source to use when writing an article about the character Cosette. Any additional info the article may need is an issue for WP:WAF, not WP:NOT. The article needs cleanup tags, not deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT doesn't say that it should be deleted. SamBC(talk) 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet WP:PLOT is frequently cited in AFD nominations. --Pixelface (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The mere presence of a statement at WP:NOT seems to enable it to be used as a deletion criterion. While I would be inclined to delete an article that is solely a plot summary, I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So is WP:WINAD. Neither policy section requires deletion unless there is consensus that the page can't be fixed or that the fix would require such a complete rewrite that the discussion participants feel that none of the current contents would be useful. (Note that lack of repair after a substantial period of time is often considered de facto evidence that the page can't/won't be fixed but that's a case-by-case decision made by the discussion participants. I'm still not convinced that WP:PLOT is being used any more adversely than any of the other clauses on this page. Rossami (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
We should remove the plot section of what Wikipedia is not. A brief plot summary is perfectly in line with encyclopedic standards as passed down through the centuries. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No one is arguing against the inclusion of a plot summary in part of a larger article discussing other parts of the work. The issue is that plot only articles do not convey the importance or notability of the work to anyone unfamilar with the work to begin with. --MASEM 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's really a big deal or problem if we have sub-articles that provide plot elements. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd go a step further, and claim it would be a good thing. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As has been the consensus for a long time WP:NOT#PLOT absolutely needs to stay here. We have a horrendously bad proportion of articles that are nothing but plot summaries and one of our most important content policies needs this further bit of explanation that coordinates with WP:WAF. WP:NOT#PLOT is the perfect example of what "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" means and that is why it is here and needs to stay here. - Taxman Talk 12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
How do plot-only stubs make Wikipedia an "indiscriminate collection of information?" --Pixelface (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If plot-only stubs are ok, then at what point do we say that the work itself isn't notable to be included? A prime time TV show? A local cable show? An unaired screenplay? A high school orignal play production? A 5th grader's short story? If we don't require additional information, then we could literally have billions of articles on fiction that is never published beyond one person. Requiring some demonstration of real-world aspects in addition to plot show why the work should be known to the world at large and thus shows at least some degree of publication. I will point out, however, that merging plot-only stubs into appropriate list of episodes or the like is an acceptable approach to those that want lots of plot and those that rather not see it. --MASEM 01:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa. Why are you talking about "notability" on a policy page? This is a list of things Wikipedia is not. For one thing, Wikipedia is not The Notability Project that anyone can edit. --Pixelface (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Because in lieu of just plot summaries, WP:PLOT states that demonstration of notability should be present alongside concise plot details. Remember, WP:N is derived from WP:IINFO, because not everything in the world is appropriate for inclusion, and some standard must be set, fictional work or otherwise. (also see comment below)--MASEM 13:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Notability shouldn't be mentioned anywhere in this policy. WP:N didn't come from WP:IINFO. WP:N came about from people saying "nn" in AFD debates, which was then misguidedly twisted into "Everything should be worthy of notice" (without specifying who exactly it's supposed to be "worthy of notice" to). It's true that everything in the world is not appropriate for inclusion, but plot summaries obviously are. If someone began an article on War and Peace tomorrow, and it was just a plot summary, should the article be expanded or deleted? If it should be deleted, then the Plot summaries section should stay in WP:NOT. If it should be expanded, then the Plot summaries section belongs in WP:WAF. --Pixelface (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
On what is in PLOT right now, the details beyond just plot in the current version are was passes for notability for publicized works. Basically, PLOT spells out that an article on an aspect of a publicized work (the work itself, an episode, a chapter), etc. must ultimately have notability to retain it. This is primary to prevent the use of primary sources to be a replacement for verifiability; while primary sources can be used for some aspects, they cannot be used as the only means for verification. Thus, PLOT is a combination of satisfying WP:NOTE and WP:V for articles on publicized works. As for the War and Peace example, obviously a new article on that would not be right away - there is a good faith assumption that a new article should ultimately conform to PLOT, particularly once the fact that PLOT is not met is related to the editors of that page. Mind you, based on the group experience of WP, there's certain cases where PLOT is likely expected to be met (classical works of literature), while other areas where PLOT is unlikely to be met (many contemporary works of fiction) - we need to give every case the benefit of doubt to show it (which is why PLOT is not a CSD) but it cannot go forever once the lack of PLOT requirements is recognized. --MASEM 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If PLOT is a combination of WP:NOTE and WP:V, then it *definitely* needs to be removed as soon as possible, unless WP:NOTE became a policy when I wasn't looking. The book Les Misérables is a reliable source for the article Cosette, and is an acceptable source per WP:PSTS — as long the article only makes descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source. If the article Cosette only cites the book Les Misérables, it is only a plot summary, and I see no reason why such a stub would be against policy. If someone wants more information in the article, like interpretations, they should add it and cite secondary sources — but that sort of advice does not belong in WP:NOT. If PLOT is meant to be treated with exceptions (for classical works of literature for example), it's in guideline territory and better suited to WP:WAF, not WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Primary sources are acceptable in conjunction with other secondary or third-party sources and should be used to prevent OR/NPOV when describing the character or plot element, but by WP:V they cannot be the only sources to support an article: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. But it is not that classical literature or major Broadway productions are getting exceptions, it is that there are likely to be more non-trivial information besides just what can be found from the primary work to describe them more, such that further dissection of the topic on that fiction to the major individual characters is very much possible. This does not true for all works of fiction, or even elements of major fiction; I would suspect most fiction falls that way in that while the work may be notable, specific aspects of the work are not. Since we are not a collection of indiscriminate information we need to only cover, in more than passing detail, elements of fiction that can be described beyond the primary source; otherwise, we would have easily tens of thousands on articles on every minor, one-shot, cameo character, every little item in any work of fiction ever produced, and so forth. PLOT is the way to make sure we don't have kudzo like growth of articles dealing with published entertainment. Other parts of NOT does the same for other types of articles: geographic articles do not expand to become travel guides, articles on manufactured items do not become consumer guides, and so forth. --MASEM 05:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, I will add that the way that PLOT is written, it does enforce notability without considering possible additional guidelines for it. If we instead stated that Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should not solely contain a detailed summary of that work's plot, but instead should include coverage of the work's notability in conjunction with a concise plot summary as defined by WP:NOTE, WP:FICT (and other applicable notability guidelines that I haven't listed here)., what this does is say that we ask for notability demonstrations, but exactly what those are should be defined in the appropriate guidelines, in order to separate the policy from the guidelines. This is similar to the appropriate for WP:V and WP:RS. Mind you, overall, this does not change what the grouping of PLOT and the notability guidelines mean all together, but it does improve the policy to avoid the convolution of notability into it. This also, potentially, opens the door for additional means of what it means for something to be notable to be agreed to be consensus for some articles (emphasis on consensus, however) --MASEM 05:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Masem, the editor who proposed PLOT also added "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." to WP:V, as can be seen at this RFC[4] you started, and they admit that PLOT "has nothing to do with notability, never has, never will. It has to do with article content. WP:PLOT doesn't apply to this question, even though a vast number of people seem to assert it does." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is just a generality to keep people from putting their weekly grocery lists on Wikipedia. To say that the plot of Hamlet doesn't belong in an encyclopedia is false. "PLOT is the way to make sure we don't have kudzo like growth of articles dealing with published entertainment." What's wrong with articles dealing with published entertainment? Wikipedia is not paper. And we have CSD, PROD, and AFD to get rid of articles that the community doesn't want here. Putting something in WP:NOT turns it into a reason for deletion. Nobody says "This resume would be great if it could be expanded" or "This advertisement could become a featured article." PLOT is totally antithetical to literary character stubs, and articles about characters in written fiction, fictional characters, and fictional works. PLOT may have been intended to guide readers to improve articles like Madame Defarge, but PLOT is instead being used as a criteria for article deletion. It was influenced by WP:WAF and that's where it should stay. --Pixelface (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Because like other poorly organized, planned and presented topics, we have decided by consensus that they are an example of what we don't want. - Taxman Talk 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus can change. And it appears there is no consensus that Plot summaries belongs under WP:IINFO in WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It can, but as discussed below you have not demonstrated a change. That would require far more, particularly for something that has lasted for so long. - Taxman Talk 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll chime in by saying I don't think issues of plot summary should be here. Further, I think per WP:PAPER this is something we should have here. Fiction is an important part of our society, and to cut plot out of wikipedia is foolish IMO. Hobit (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I reverted the revert of the revert by Masem. Not sure if that was the right thing to do, but I think at the least WP:PLOT lacks consensus and shouldn't be here.... I plan on not touching it again for quite a while (no revision war here). Hobit (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • This is incorrect, particularly with policy pages. WP:BRD needs to be followed: the PLOT section has been part of NOT for a good while with consensus, and removing it was met with a revert; those that want to have it removed need to demonstrate consensus that it should be removed. (Note, opposition to the policy is not the same as lack of consensus; consensus cannot make everyone happy). --MASEM 01:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • How about you demonstrate consensus here that plot-only stubs make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information? --Pixelface (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
        • First off, while I have only been on WP editing for 1.5yr where PLOT was already present, the fact that it is only being challenged recently, and primarily as the result of actions of User:TTN and the ArbCom cases, tells me that yes, there may be something to question the PLOT phrase but historically, the statement has consensus and it is up to those that want to remove it to show that consensus has changed to have it remvoed. However, since removing it was challenged, the appropriate course of action is to mark the section "disputed" and direct people to the talk pages. Policy pages absolutely need to stick to WP:BRD editing approaches moreso than any other page.
        • I did some digging on this since PLOT was added before I was here. here is the talk page discussion, forwarding to this change, the aspect formed after WP:FICT was created in July 2006, after the result of Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. From reading these and considering this, I can see some aspects as to why PLOT could be considered as part of WP:WAF, but the thing is, at the core of that statement is why PLOT falls under IINFO: because that statement is basically strongly supporting WP:FICT (a guideline) as policy so I can see the concerns for it. Mind you, I don't think this means that PLOT goes away completely: there needs to be a better way to state this that does not make FICT as strong as policy (it shouldn't be), unless consensus is there that WP:FICT should be upheld as policy (I'm not saying it should be, I'm just considering how strong notability arguments come into play for the AfD of fictional characters and the list).
        • Here's the thing to consider: there was a recent article in the Economist called "The Battle for WP's Soul", and PLOT and FICT are firmly at the center of that. If we absolutely stick to PLOT, we'd have to get rid of all non-notable "Lists of characters"... which will cause a significant subset of editors to leave the project. If we remove PLOT and weaken FICT, we'll have an explosion of articles for every character,episode, and whatnot, and I know there will also be a significant subset of editors that will leave the project. We need to tread very lightly here before making a sweeping change here that will have profound impact on the project.
        • Just to toss out a change, I would state that I think we could change PLOT to restate it as "WP is not a reading or fan guide for works of fiction" - we can still provide concise information on characters, story, etc, in context of real world aspects, but the spirit of PLOT is that we don't give every single character and episode detailed coverage unless there is notable information to talk about that further in an encyclopedic manner; "WP is not a replacement for reading or watching the work". Note this doesn't prohibit plot-only articles, but there is some context that these need to be in (aka FICT's spinouts) and that commonly there use should be at high discretion. Mind you, this may also mean we have to consider how fan-heavy works like Star Trek are approached and possibly given freedoms that other fictional works will never achieve. We are a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias, but we are not the ultimate place for all human knowledge. --MASEM 13:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I added similar comments on your talk page, but I'll repeat them here. I believe that WP:PLOT lacks consensus. The !votes on two pure plot articles (History of For Better or For Worse as well as the Back to the Future Timeline) indicate that a large group disagrees with WP:PLOT. It's not a case of making everyone happy, it's a case of people not agreeing with it. Inertia doesn't drive policy (or if it does, I can't find anything that says it does) consensus does. And I don't think this has consensus. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I will argue that we have two types of plot-only type articles. There are those that, currently under discussion at WP:FICT, spinouts of notable topics that may be plot-only, non-notable elements (lists of characters, objects, and likely include, the timeline articles above). The argument presently there is that policies suggest that spinout articles of non-notable lists or the like are acceptable, as long as the information is there to help support the notable parts of the work (aka there's no difference between that information being in the main article, and that information being split due to SIZE). We're still polishing this, but this seems to be a generally acceptable solution to both inclusists and deletionists. The other plot-only articles are the ones of concern, when they are not spinouts but are treated as their own article, which gives them artificial notability that plot-only discussion is not demonstrated. In nearly every case I've seen, such articles can be merged into a larger, acceptable article (whether the main article or the spinout article) while still providing coverage of the topic. Those are the types of articles that need to be avoided per PLOT. --MASEM 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I'll largely agree with that as a way to handle plot issues. But at best that's a writing-style guideline. Not a definition of what WP is. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, you'd have to do a much better job of demonstrating consensus before you could justify removing something from one of the main content policies that has been in it for so long. It doesn't have it's own shortcut for no reason. In fact, it's been in for so long, under such wide community consensus you'd need a widely publicized poll discussion to demonstrate that consensus had changed and there was now a consensus to remove it. Just because small pockets of editors that work on fiction believe one way does not mean that belief is good for the project nor how the rest of the project feels. - Taxman Talk 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Great, let's have that poll. Hobit (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
          • BULLSHIT!. Taxman: Do you *personally* want to keep the section in, yes or no? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, but sometimes when you smell something and it stinks, you gotta say that it stinks).
            • Ok, agreed, I should have said discussion because I agree polls suck too. You should also be more clear on whether you are calling bullshit on just that point or something more. My stance should be clear, that it absolutely needs to be here because it clearly is an excellent example of what Wikipedia is not. It absolutely needs to be in the policy and then expanded upon in the guideline. Among the people that argue against WP:NOT#PLOT are those that wish to include expansive plot with nothing else and there are multitudes of reasons why we cannot do that that we have not even begun to enumerate here, not the least of which is the various copyright decisions that clearly say that type of thing is a copyright violation. I know people love to write about their favorite fiction and plot is the easiest thing to write about and I know people want to water down the policies so they can do that more easily, but just like our other content policies we need to stand firm. - Taxman Talk 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
              • As much as I really, really love using Wikipedia to look up details of plots, characters, etc (I was just doing that a few minutes ago) I fully agree with Taxman.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
              @Taxman: A gracious reply sir! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Taxman, I'm not saying articles ought to remain plot-only stubs. I'm saying I see no reason why plot-only stubs should be against policy. And regarding "copyright violations", I will repeat something I said on this page nearly a month ago:
              • WP:FAIR 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)."
              • And in February 2008, Father Goose contacted Mike Godwin who said "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."[5]
              • WP:NOT#PLOT isn't about copyright. It was suggested based on WP:WAF — where it should stay. Articles on this site shouldn't be written entirely in German either, but we don't make that a policy violation. --Pixelface (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave the section on plot summaries here. It has wide-ranging and long-standing consensus. A couple of recent disagreements and a few examples of AFD discussions where the community decided to temporarily give an article the benefit of doubt does not demonstrate that the clause has lost its relevance or that consensus has changed. As has been said many times before, WP:PLOT does not mean that all plot-only pages must be deleted - only that they can not stay plot-only. In this regard, it is no different that WP:WINAD, et al. Rossami (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Rossami, I know you supported it in June 2006 when it was proposed, but it doesn't appear like Plot summaries had consensus to begin with. In the archives[6] you can see Leflyman thought it would be "extremely contentious" and Leflyman basically predicted the TV Arbcom cases. Leflyman also said "I suspect that if this were to be seriously promoted, a veritable rebellion would be fomented on Wikipedia." and "attempting to ban plot summaries outright just isn't going to meet with success." Badlydrawnjeff said "is it worth the drama, and does it really improve anything?" and "are we really improving the encyclopedia if we remove plot summaries?" The user who proposed it, Hiding, said "we start treading on copyright issues, original reseacrh issues and neutral point of view issues" but copyright is not an issue as Mike Godwin said, referring to a fictional work is source-based research not original research, and describing the plot of a fictional work in a neutral manner does not seem to be a big problem. JeffW said "I don't really see that plot summaries break any of the above policies." Williamborg said "Oppose — They are wonderfully useful for those who are trying to translate; they often provide the clues missing when you get mired in the original text. Instead of rooting plot summaries out, encourage them to grow into respectable analyses." And TomStar81 said "Oppose — I agree with Mwalcoff and Leflyman on this one."
    • Maybe you think that "PLOT does not mean that all plot-only pages must be deleted" but that is not how it's being interpreted by people who look at WP:DEL#REASON. Articles written entirely in German should not stay only German either, but we don't list articles written in foreign languages in WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      Even though the PLOT addition was contested, they opposed Hiding's wording of the proposal. Looking at the discussion, I think it's safe to assume that a) blow-by-blow transcripts are bad, and b) plot summaries should'nt be used alone, but as a part of a larger work looking at the topic as a whole. Hell, badlydrawnjeff, an admitted inclusionist (and an extreme one at that) agreed with those principles. Sceptre (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Break: Suggested change to PLOT

(moved down and into a new section to allow for wider attention)

Break: Summary

On April 16, 2008, I removed[7] the Plot summaries section from WP:IINFO based on my interpretation of the above discussion. This was reverted by Sceptre[8]. I then removed the section again[9] and Sceptre reverted me again.[10] I also removed the Plot summaries section on March 28, 2008. This was reverted by Sgeureka who said "it seems you're reading consensus wrong." I don't think I was reading consensus wrong. I will try and summarize the above discussion and I appreciate any input if someone thinks I've interpreted consensus wrong.

I said "Plot summary-only articles don't make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:PLOT simply doesn't belong in WP:NOT."[11] and later said "If someone began an article on War and Peace tomorrow, and it was just a plot summary, should the article be expanded or deleted? If it should be deleted, then the Plot summaries section should stay in WP:NOT. If it should be expanded, then the Plot summaries section belongs in WP:WAF." [12]

  • Father Goose said "This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy."[13]
  • DGG said "More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there."[14]
  • 23skidoo said "I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content."[15]
  • Eubulide said "I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP." and "This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest."[16]
  • SmokeyJoe said "I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF."[17]
  • Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles said "We should remove the plot section of what Wikipedia is not."[18]
  • Hobit said "I'll chime in by saying I don't think issues of plot summary should be here."[19] and Hobit later said "I think at the least WP:PLOT lacks consensus and shouldn't be here" [20]

Meanwhile, Ned Scott said "WP:PLOT is the result of community consensus" — an offered no new argument why it should be a policy or why plot-only pages should be deleted. [21] Kevinalewis said "Surely the point is the word "summary" in the heading. It should give the rough gist of the narrative, not more than that." [22] — again, not an argument why it should be a policy or why plot-only pages should be deleted. Masem said "The first two points fit with the rest of WP:NOT - they describe what is and is not appropriate for a page's content with WP. The third and fourth point is a MOS (WP:WAF) issue and should not be spelled out in NOT in depth" [23] — and argument in favor of moving half of it to WAF, a guideline. SamBC said "Regarding the treatment of plot information in this way, it's simply the case that the community has reached a consensus that this is the case. Consensus can change, but a small number of people raising an objection does not mean that it has. Regarding the "fix it rather than delete it" concern, that is a general point on wikipedia; it's always better to fix something rather than delete it, and this page does not suggest that any offending material should be deleted." [24] — again, an argument that it's here because there was consensus at one time. Not an argument as to why it should be policy now. And being listed in WP:NOT *is* a reason to delete, per WP:DEL#REASON.

Now, there were a few editors who said the Plot summaries section should stay in WP:NOT.

  • Taxman said "As has been the consensus for a long time WP:NOT#PLOT absolutely needs to stay here." and "WP:NOT#PLOT is the perfect example of what "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" means and that is why it is here and needs to stay here." [25]. Taxman also said "Well, you'd have to do a much better job of demonstrating consensus before you could justify removing something from one of the main content policies that has been in it for so long." and "Just because small pockets of editors that work on fiction believe one way does not mean that belief is good for the project nor how the rest of the project feels." [26] Taxman also said "you have not demonstrated a change. That would require far more, particularly for something that has lasted for so long." [27] but up to that point, Taxman was the only person who explicit favored keeping it in policy. Taxman also said "it absolutely needs to be here because it clearly is an excellent example of what Wikipedia is not. It absolutely needs to be in the policy and then expanded upon in the guideline. Among the people that argue against WP:NOT#PLOT are those that wish to include expansive plot with nothing else and there are multitudes of reasons why we cannot do that that we have not even begun to enumerate here, not the least of which is the various copyright decisions that clearly say that type of thing is a copyright violation." [28] but nobody above who argued to remove WP:NOT#PLOT had said they wish to include expansive plots with nothing else. And plot summaries are not copyright violations, as has been explained by Mike Godwin.
  • Dougweller said "I fully agree with Taxman." [29]. That's the second person who favored keeping WP:NOT#PLOT as a policy. What exactly he was agreeing with is unclear.
  • Rossami said "Leave the section on plot summaries here. It has wide-ranging and long-standing consensus." and "As has been said many times before, WP:PLOT does not mean that all plot-only pages must be deleted - only that they can not stay plot-only." [30] and argument that it has wide-ranging consensus, yet Rossami was only the third person to favor keeping it as policy. And WP:PLOT *does* mean that plot-only pages must be deleted, because inclusion in WP:NOT is a reason for deletion in the deletion policy.

When I removed WP:NOT#PLOT on April 16, it looked to me like there was a rough consensus to remove WP:NOT#PLOT from this policy — and certainly no consensus for it to stay in policy. If you think I've misinterpreted the above discussion, I would like to know. Any input would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hosted in Florida?

I thought the servers had been moved to California. Maybe the policy needs to be updated. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

no, just the WMF the offices have moved. The servers remain in Florida. DGG (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.wikileak.org/