Plot section needs to return to more original wording
The text used to say:
Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
This is the current wording:
Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.
That section should return to the older version. The current wording completely misses the point that encyclopedias are about real world impact and analysis and not merely explaining the plot point by point. The newer version replaces "brief" with "concise" (which is slightly more ambiguous -- and in fact recently someone tried to argue that some ten paragraphs was plenty "concise" and that I obviously didn't understand that concise didn't mean short and used this as rationale to revert a paring down of the plot section. Worse than that, it removed "may sometimes be appropriate" and replaced it with "is appropriate" which suggests that it is not something to be avoided but something that is encouraged.
I do not know under what circumstances this was all changed. Unfortunately a lot of changes to policies and guidelines get done under the radar of the overall community, sometimes incrementally so even people watching might not notice the overall change and sometimes quite suddenly. Frankly, all policies should be locked 100% of the time in my opinion so that they cannot be changed without a clear demonstration of wide-ranging explicit consensus.
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is the heading of the section that plot is discussed under. We need to follow that fundamental principle, and to do that we need to restore the older text. And if the text of the subpages of the manual of style on fiction summaries conflict with this, those need to be updated to fit the policy, not the other way around. A little group of people on a hidden corner of Wikipedia can't just decide to ignore policy and then try to get policy changed to reflect what they want. Until those pages do not contradict WP:NOT they should not be linked to off this page and confuse people. DreamGuy (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
An encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction should discuss its plot, as to establish what the work is about; WP's problem is that articles also tend to omit the second part that being the real world aspects. Both aspects should be covered, just not one over the other, however, we will never run out of plot to add. Not to any great length of course, but enough to explain the major themes going on. That's why "concise" was chosen over "brief" - it implies compacting it down without losing significant detail, while "brief" suggests partial plot aspects. Now, a ten paragraph plot may be hard to believe but it could be appropriate - what article was it from to compare? --MASEM 22:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC
Ten paragraphs would never be appropriate. At most it should be a couple, unless it goes through and explains special significance as it goes. DreamGuy (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose this suggestion. Agree with Masem, you just can NOT give an encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction without ever covering what it is about, particularly as it often gives needed context for other sections. This seems more like a new attempt to get rid of "spoilers" by trying to claim plots have no place when they do. The Manuals of Styles do NOT conflict with WP:NOT at all, which is why the have consensus, they simply help give definitions of what "concise" means in relation to various works. 2 hour film, a 400-700 word summary is concise. A 30 minute episode, 100-300 words. There is no "little group of people" attempting to hide anything nor ignoring policy. These MoS have long been upheld in FAC, FLC, and referred to in other such discussions. Where policy/consensus did change, the MoS were updated as well (such as the changes a few months ago noting that the episode summaries were too long in FLCs). Your continuing assumptions of bad faith at hundreds of active editors is pointless, and your continuing to attempt to claim that WP:NOT forbids any plot summaries and supports your ripping them from articles has yet to actually be backed up by consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
This statement "you just can NOT give an encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction without ever covering what it is about" is true, but irrelevant to the point being discussed. You can talk about what it's about without a point by point detail. This isn't TelevisionWithoutPity.com, it's an encyclopedia. The changes you are talking about as supposedly being supported by a consensus were pushed into this page without any sort of site-wide discussion, or even an awareness that it was going on. Frankly, it surprises me very little that the same handful of people who pushed this nonsense through would be here trying to claim consensus on it now, while most people on the site have no clue that the policy was changed to read exactly the opposite of what it started out as and what it was put here for. DreamGuy (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Masem and Collectonian above. The plot does need to be covered to a decent level. Concise is a better way of saying how the plot should be covered because the word brief might suggest trimming important plot detail just to keep the section short. --Bill(talk|contribs)01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Plot detail isn't even what it's supposed to be about, per the wording of the template about Plot and the way this page used to read, so to insist that it has to be there because otherwise plot detail might bemissed misses the entire point. This is not WikiPlotSummaries, it's Wikipedia. Real encyclopedias rarely go through and summarize any work of fiction point by point, and when they do it's because it's a work that is so famous and culturally influentially that every point has great meaning. Letting us all know every bit of everything of every TV episode and movie we have an article on is a mockery of the entire concept of an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
WP is more than just a standard print encyclopedia - we aren't limited by space. At the same time, we don't want random speculation and details about trivially minor characters that go on for pages. Plot is an allowed element of an article on a work of fiction. It should be concise and exactly the right length to describe the plot as to make the other parts of the work clear and coherent. Sometime this means it can be 50 words, sometimes this means it needs to be 1000 words. --MASEM01:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
WP is a real encyclopedia, and this is how things are done here. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that there's a consensus to have things as you described. We are not limited by the styles of other encyclopedias. A plot summary detailing major events in a story is necessary to providing full coverage of the work, but If you think we're promoting scene-by-scene recaps then you're mistaken. --Bill(talk|contribs)02:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Masem, Collectonian and Bill above. I am ok with varying definitions of "concise" for different types of content. A great example of this: My son asked my yesterday what book X was about. I said, let's take a look at Wikipedia. We found a great plot summary (2,000 words, 4 paragraphs, 380 words) that told him exactly what the book was about. Not too little detail and not too much. Had it been any shorter, it would not have answered his question and, of course, he wasn't interested in the rest of the article, which discussed the style of the book, it's adaptation into a movie, a sequel, where it's been parodied, etc. I'm not saying that stuff should be deleted but the article should meet a broad range of needs, not just the needs of people who are uninterested in plots. Concise (not truncated or stupid) plot summaries absolutely belongs on Wikipedia.
DeletionistsExtreme deletionists would like to see plot summaries like "Hamlet's father is murdered, maybe. Hamlet goes crazy. Everybody dies." That's great for the Reduced Shakespeare Company, but Wikipedia should not be a joke. RoyLeban (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
My apologies! No slight intended and I've amended it above. I tend to be an inclusionist, but I'm not an extreme inclusionist. I think the right place to be is in the middle, not at either extreme. Contextual flexibility (with consensus) is important and those on the extreme ends tend to be inflexible, thinking rigid adherence to policy is more important than significant consensus about when an exception is acceptable. To me, this is part of NPOV. RoyLeban (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Quite agreed there. :) Way to much extremism on both sides doesn't really help anything at all. It doesn't have to be "all (extreme inclusion) or nothing (extreme deletion)" - there are happy mediums which, for the most part, work quite well when the extremism isn't brought in. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 07:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep current wording. It more accurately describes the community's consensus and common practice. As for what exactly is a concise plot summary, that should be determined on an article by article bases using editorial discretion. --Farix (Talk) 12:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy, you can read through these talkpage threads about WP:NOT#PLOT if you want. In September 2006, Kyorosuke changed WP:NOT#PLOT to say "articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely summaries of that work's plot" without any prior discussion. So WP:NOT#PLOT shouldn't be changed back to that. WP:NOT#PLOT needs to be removed entirely until it actually has consensus to be policy. --Pixelface (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Concise doesn't mean brief but neither is it more vague. We have expectations at various wikiprojects as to what "concise" is. I would oppose any attempts to establish a unilateral word/paragraph limitation and I suspect such attempts would not find consensus among the project as a whole. Protonk (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with this and similar comments above. Another way of looking at it is that NOT#PLOT applies to plot-only articles, demanding that we have a balance of plot and other aspects of a work, but doesn't apply to plot-bloated articles. The guidelines and editorial consensus are the ways we decide how much plot to have. Fletcher (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The essential idea of an encyclopedia is to present all the information needed for a well-rounded education - the complete circle of knowledge. Such a complete education includes details of the plots of fictional works. This may be seen in the standard education in countries such as Britain in which the study of plays, books and poems is quite normal. In my own case, I was expected to read and recall the text of works such as The History of Mr Polly, Macbeth, Tam O'Shanter and so on. And it was the works themselves which were the essential content, not secondary analysis nor real-world details such as critical reception, author's royalties or the like. This focus upon the work can be seen in respected encyclopedia such as Britannica in which their entry for Macbeth, say, provides details of the plot of the play. So, the current reference to encyclopedic manner is quite false. It seems to be pure POV, unsupported by any evidence and original in its sentiment. It is thus utterly contrary to our core policies and must go. We are here to educate in a comprehensive way and so must not bowdlerise our content. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, and I don't think it's apt to make anecdotal comparisons to your literary studies. A literature class is aimed at literature students, not a general audience, so the material covered in such a class isn't necessarily ideal for a encyclopedia aimed at a general audience. Similarly, at a vocational school you might learn step-by-step detail about how to rebuild a transmission, but that doesn't mean we should include such detail in our transmission article in spite of WP:NOTHOWTO. NOT#PLOT means that comprehensive coverage means we should cover other aspects of a work besides plot. Fletcher (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
NOT#PLOT is being abused to remove content not to supplement it. My remarks on education were not about specialist literature study but relate to general education which is expected of everyone. To see current educational thinking please see the English National Curriculum which explicitly details the basic education expected of everyone. Moreover, I reinforced my point by reference to the Encyclopaedia Britannica which is a reputable general encyclopaedia. This is hard evidence that the presentation of fictional plots here is encyclopaedic. While I present objective evidence, you and others seem offer nothing but your personal prejudice. I see no evidence that this prejudice is anything more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and so this should be dismissed per our policy WP:CENSOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I strongly feel that "concise" is more accurate than "brief". We don't want it to be small. We want it to be lean. I actually think we need to go the other way, to prevent abusive interpretation of WP:PLOT that would let someone delete entire plot summaries, or turn a movie summary into a two-liner. Most of the time this kind of extreme deletion will get reverted, but it happens too often, and we can nip it in the bud by having a clearer policy. Randomran (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well said. Concise is great -- "Expressing much in few words" or "marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail". This doesn't mean short. And length has nothing to do with POV.
It seems to me there is largely a consensus here, but I'm wondering if thers a better, more precise way of saying it than the current text and I'm also wondering if, given the contention here, even if it's just one editor, something should be done to get a wider range of opinions.
Finally, DreamGuy's revert/edit not only removed the edit which added the cross-refs to MOS, it also reverted a number of changes by a number of other editors, including the consensus change discussed above. What is to be done? RoyLeban (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That's true; we seem to have lost our agreed changes to NOTBATTLEGROUND. You could ask Protonk to revert back to the previous version, or we can just wait until protection expires and fix it. Fletcher (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Given that DreamGuy is accusing me (here and elsewhere) of edit warring, attacking him, and of trying to change policy to make a point (which is particularly ironic considering his edits and clearly misunderstands what WP:POINT is saying!), I would rather not be the person to make that edit. RoyLeban (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Colonel Warden, which sort of articles are your refering to? If you are refering to articles that are comprised soley of plot summary about topics that are not notable, then they fail both Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, and therefore may be deleted at any time. The reason why this sort of coverage can be deleted is that it is not encyclopedic. To write an encyclopedic article, a topic needs to be the subject of substantial coverage in the form of commentary, context, criticism and analysis from reliable secondary sources. Plot summary on its own does not provide this and is little more than indiscriminate flap copy without it. As regards your "evidence", the analogy using the Encyclopedia Britiannica is misleading. The article inclusion criteria for this type of publication is was the opinions of their editors; the source of the contributions was the original research provided by experts in their respective subject areas. Wikipedia can't work along those lines, so we have to have inclusion criteria based on objective evidence and we cite our sources. This applies to articles in every subject area, not just fiction. I think you will find there is broad support for the current wording: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." If you want to change it, go to WP:Village pump (policy) and see if you can get a change to WP:NOT to allow the coverage of indiscriminate information in the same way that Wikia or Wookieepedia do. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I suppose the essence of my question is whether articles which are nothing (or little) but long lists of tabulations of primary information (election results, opinion polls, etc) encyclopaedic or WP:NOT? The main text seems to say 'not', but the example of Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 appears to contradict this. For example would it be encyclopaedic to have an article that consisted of nothing but the daily maximum temperatures of Al 'Aziziyah (where the highest ever temperature on Earth was recorded) for the last century? HrafnTalkStalk(P)09:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn, I think that the problem here is that you want the policy to place a complete ban on the tables of data, ignored the caveats in the policy despite repeated requests to look at the nuances, and you are now shocked to find that the example cited in the policy does not illustrate the hard line you were reading into the text.
Let's pick apart the three sentences of WP:NOT#STATS:
"Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." Note carefully that it does not say that this is always the effect, just that it "may" be the effect. In the case both of the opinion polling example and of the British National Party election results whose deletion you have been pursuing, the data is not sprawling: it is tabulated and cross-linked, and additionally it has been split out from the main article to avoid overwhelming that article.
"In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". There is an issue here in relation to WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT about how much is needed. In some cases that may be one sentence, and in other cases it may be much more, but since both the articles under consideration are clearly labelled as split-outs from the main article, a reader who needs more context than is available in the lead section of the split-out can read all the background in the main article. A balance has to be drawn between the need to provide a comprehensive explanation of the context of the split-out and repeating too much of the main article, which would waste the time of those who had already read the main article before venturing to the split-out.
"In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." Again, this has been done in both cases.
If you read what the current policy actually says, the opinion poll article doesn't contradict it. The contradiction is between what you want the policy to say and what it actually says. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
BHG: given that you've made it abundantly clear that to you WP:NOT#STATS actually reads 'WP::LOTS_OF#STATS', I think I'll wait for a less partisan opinion, preferably one that doesn't reduce that policy to irrelevancy (I have to assume that it wasn't created unless it was meant to serve some purpose). I have seen no indication that articles covered under WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT are exempted from any other policies. HrafnTalkStalk(P)12:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn, you're back in comic mode again. :)
I do not and have not argued for "lots of stats", simply that
And given that I have come to this talk only after trying to fend off the consequences of dozens of posts from you insisting that a) election results are simply "statistics", b) WP:NOT#STATS means "no stats at all, ever" and c) that WP:NOT#STATS's notes about presenting such material in a structured, organised and explained way should be ignored ... given all that as well as your continued disruptive efforts to remove material after your interpretation did not achieve consensus at AfD, it's quite funny that you accuse me of being "partisan".
I don't have strong opinions one way or the other, but I'll offer some thoughts:
From my reading of WP:NOT#STATS, statistics are definitely allowable, but articles should contain a mix of prose to summarize and give adequate context. The intent appears to be that Wikipedia articles are not "simply" statistical data as some of the aforementioned election articles seem to be.
OTOH, this has to be balanced against principles of WP:NOTPAPER and Summary Style; if highly detailed information can be provided and can be structured legibly, does the project benefit by deleting it? Perhaps modification or integration with other articles is warranted rather than outright deletion.
The AfD results from two aforementioned articles were keep and no-consensus, so there does not appear to be consensus supporting deletion. AfD results are not dispositive, however, because they can be distorted by a local cadre of passionate editors. But the inability to delete the articles should still be considered.
We have to consider if these kinds of pages are maintainable. In 2013, after another election cycle has gone by, can we be sure there will be a core of dedicated editors patrolling the 2008 results to remove vandalism and correct errors? Obviously vandalism is a concern in any article, but statistical data is especially vulnerable because false information isn't as obvious and easy to fix as it often is.
Given that what is "important" will depend on the interest of the reader, I'd like to hear BrownHairedGirl's answer to the above question about creating pages of meteorological data. Or what about sports scores or astronomical tables. Where do we draw the line? If we keep these election results pages, is that fair and consistent with the rules we apply to other editors who wish to add highly detailed information to other areas of Wikipedia? A quick check of 2008 NFL season indicates we have lots of statistical information on that topic, but it is also fairly well integrated with prose, as are its spin-out articles. We have to consider if stats-only pages are consistent with our mission as a general purpose encyclopedia.
Fletcher, Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. What is going on that anyone is even considering removing the results of elections to a national parliament because it might set some sort of precedent for keeping the scores of ballgames? Please, do think about this -- it really is somewhat surreal that this suggestion is even made, and that election results are lumped being lumped in under this broad heading of "statistics" and being compared to temprature records from one location.
As to the maintainability of election results five years after an election, please take a look at City of London (UK Parliament constituency), where there are voting result going back slightly longer ... 296 years, to be precise. That's the most extreme example I know of, but there many other articles going back to the early 19th century which record the vote totals for each candidate in elections, all of them on the watchlists of numerous editors with skills and references to maintain them.
In three hundred years time, will people still be paying attention to scores of ballgames as they do to elections?
To the contrary I would suggest you step back and take a wider perspective, as all topics fall under Wikipedia's policy equally (with some exceptions such as BLP that have legal implications). I don't think it is appropriate at all to suggest the topics you happen to think are important should be exempt. In reality a breakdown of election results is no more or less trivial than the weather or sports -- like I said, it depends entirely on what any particular reader happens to be looking for. Perhaps you've noticed we try to be neutral and not prejudiced towards one point of view. It is not so much a question of whether "election results" should be allowed (they should) but whether it is appropriate to have articles comprising only statistics of election results, or whether, instead, some of these statistics can be summarized, or perhaps merged into a larger topic to be more accessible to the general readership.
Further, I am still doubtful about how well these lists can be maintained. City of London (UK Parliament constituency) does not have online references so it is near impossible to spot check. After a brief random look at British National Party election results three of five checks against the online reference revealed what looked like typos, transposed numbers or similar discrepancies in the figures -- and only some of them had online figures available. I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia if I needed these numbers, and if I didn't need the numbers I'm not sure why I would be reading the page; a general overview of the results might better serve the average reader. Fletcher (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Fletcher, the sarcasm is misplaced: I have indeed noticed that Wikipedia has a fundamental policy of a WP:NPOV; it was one of things that encouraged me to start editing here three years ago and to put a huge amount of time into wikipedia. However, you are confusing a "neutral point of view" in writing articles with a very different notion, that all things are of the same priority. If that was the case, we wouldn't delete articles due to non-notability, or merge other articles.
You are thoroughly mistaken to suggest that I am seeking some sort of exemption from policy; quite the contrary. I have been arguing against efforts to extend an unsupported interpretation of policy by editors who want to remove fundamental information on the operation of the democratic process when there are tens of thousands of articles listing the composition of sports teams and their scores over decades. Why on earth are editors arguing that the encyclopedia would be improved by removing election results whilst retaining countless articles like 1884 Brooklyn Atlantics season? Note that I have nothing against baseball, and would strongly oppose the deletion of such articles; but when elections receive so much less coverage than sports, what does it say about some editors goals for wikipedia that those working on articles about the election of national legislatures are facing this bizarre attempt to extend policy with the specific aim of reducing coverage of elections? That's why I responded to your earlier comments by suggesting that you "step back and take a wider perspective", because a comparison of the detail of coverage in these different areas suggests a huge systemic bias which this attack on election results risks exacerbating further.
I'm afraid that your notion of election results being inaccessible to a general readership is highly patronising to readers, and insulting to wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid newspaper (the latter being written for those with a reading age of 9). If we start to query whether a reader can understand the process of counting votes set out in City of London (UK Parliament constituency), then we might as well also delete all articles on philosophy, science and anything else which requires a degree of mental exertion, and make wikipedia an encyclopedia of Pokemon characters and pop stars.
The availability or otherwise of online sources is not just an inappropriate test for the reliability of an article, it is actually an inverse test: if you read WP:RS, you will see that the best sources are peer-reviewed scholarly works, which are mostly not available online. As to the accuracy or otherwise of figures in British National Party election results, I have not yet had a chance to check against authoritative sources, but I will do so once the deletion attempts stop; the article was undeleted only 10 days ago, since when its existence has been under constant attack from a small group of editors trying to find any possible policy excuse to delete it again or to gut it.
You may of course be right that a general overview would better serve some readers, and that's precisely why these articles are structured as they are. Those who want a general overview of BNP performance can read British National Party#Electoral_performance, which is quite properly linked to from the top the results article, in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. This is a principle applied widely across wikipedia: to structure material so that those wanting an overview can read that, but those who want more detail can follow links to more detailed articles. In the case of City of London (UK Parliament constituency), if you take two minutes to actually look at its structure, you will see that section 2 lists the Members of Parliament, while section 3 goes into greater detail by listing the results of each election. So the reader can choose whether to just read the condensed and colour-coded list of MPs or to go on and read the explanation of the electoral process and study the tables of election results. I'm astonished that you choose to comment on the article without apparently having noticed that.
As to maintenance, it seems to me that there are there are three issues: a) will the sources remain readily available; b) will the data be updated; c) will there continue to be editors interested in maintaining them. As to the sources, they are widely available in academically-reviewed bound volumes in public libraries as well as on some authoritative online sites (e.g. Richard Kimber's); and the historical data merely needs patrolling against vandalism, not updating (the results of the 1983 election will not change). Querying whether editors will continue to be interested in maintaining the articles is a concern which could be applied to any subject on wikipedia, but applies most strongly to recent events. Elections which are still the subject of academic study and scholarly publication after decades or centuries hundreds of years seem to me to be much less vulnerable than many other topics.
Finally, your point about reliability is a much wider one about the utility of wikipedia as whole, and is in no way restricted to any of the articles under discussion. Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source on any subject: citing wikipedia in any academic work should be grounds for failing that assessment. But we publish it and insist on referencing to provide a highly-accessible source of knowledge on an amazingly wide range of subjects, so that reader can cross-check any points of interest. That applies right across wikipedia, whether we are considering a quotation from a long-dead writer, an account of a battle, or an election result ... and singling out election results in this way is a strange thing to do.
At this point, I wonder whether there is any benefit in engaging further with you or Hrafn. This bizarre attempt to use the misleading heading of "statistics" to problematise the inclusion of election results is part of a wider systemic bias on wikipedia, and if these bizarre efforts persist then I will consider whether it would be better to raise it in wider forums. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Moving away from the maintainability aspect for a moment, I would like to question the usefulness to the reader of large amounts of uninterrupted raw data. Typically readers can only assimilate a relatively small amount of numeric information at one go (generally probably in the order of 5-10 data points) without some sort of visual representation (e.g. a graph) as an aid. If it were possible to visually represent the BNP results as geographic 'hot spots', I could easily see this data providing useful insight into the BNP's geographic distribution of support and how it changes over time. Without it, a reader who was not acquainted with what areas the electorates represented would be wholly at sea, and even a reader so acquainted would have considerable difficulty perceiving any patterns. HrafnTalkStalk(P)06:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to expand the article to include such a representation, and can find reliable sources which allow that that to be done with synthesis, original research or reproduction of copyright material, then it might be an idea worth pursuing. That specific discussion belongs on the article talkpage, not here; but as a general point I despair of the notion that a reader who is sufficiently interested in the subject to want to consider it in detail cannot be expected to make any sense of simple tables of data. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
BHG: thank you for that vituperative response to reasoned discussion on useful versus non-useful representation of data. The work would require neither synthesis (it is merely a graphic re-presentation of existing data without any interpretation) nor copyvio (electorate boundaries are government-published and typically not copyrighted). It would however require an enormous amount of work, especially as electorate boundaries are regularly redrawn and electorates created and/or merged. Lacking such presentation, the data is of no utility to the average reader -- the point that I was making (using the BNP results merely as an example). The level of detail that you are advocating presenting provides no insight into the evolution or distribution of support for the BNP (for example), so provides nothing for a reader to be "sufficiently interested in". HrafnTalkStalk(P)08:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn, as above this proposal belongs on the article talk page rather on a policy discussion. The reason I caution about synthesis is that as you acknowledge, electoral boundaries change, and any visual presentation of how support changed over time in a particular area would require exceptionally detailed analysis and assumptions about the distribution of votes within a constituency.
Given that you suggest a presentation of the data to illustrate a particular aspect of it, you are contradicting yourself when you persist in claiming that the data "provides nothing for a reader to be sufficiently interested in". There are other ways in which the data can be used, the most basic of which is noting which of the ~650 UK constituencies the BNP actually contested in a given election.
No. This is not a "proposal" but an attempt to come to grips with the meaning of a policy, merely using BNP as an example (as I have pointed out to repeatedly).
Given that you did your level best to shout me down and shut me up on article talk, I find your demand that I return there to be absurd.
Your analysis of graphic representation of BNP results is (i) wrong (such representations are not uncommon in maps and atlases and do not "require exceptionally detailed analysis and assumptions about the distribution of votes within a constituency" -- in fact they would require no intra-constituency analysis at all) & (ii) irrelevant as I was only using this as an example of graphic representation of data.
Your claim that I am "contradicting" is based on a complete misinterpretation of what I have been saying. In simplistic terms: graphical representations of large amounts of data = potentially useful; bald tabulation of large amounts of raw data = not useful. No contradiction whatsoever.
If "there are other ways in which the data can be used" that provides useful information for the reader, then use them in such ways. Summarise the data, don't regurgitate it. And certainly don't expect the reader to count the number of rows in the list to find out that there were 650 constituencies contested.
If you have nothing more to add to this thread than ubiquitous and generally irrelevant ad hominem attacks in violation of WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF, I would suggest that your input can be dispensed with. HrafnTalkStalk(P)09:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You have decided that despite the lack of a consensus for the removal of the data tables, the BNP article is an example of bad practice, so you have brought the discussion here in an attempt to alter the policy to suit your view.
If you have a specific proposal to add something to the BNP results article (rather than yet another way of removing data), then it belongs on the article talk page.
Constituency boundaries have been changed several times over the course of the period covered by the article. Your suggestion of graphically comparing the vote in a constituency in 1983 with that in further years does require detailed analysis of the ward-by-ward vote breakdown in the constituency because the boundaries may have shifted significantly in that time (in some extreme cases constituencies of the same name in different eras have no geographical overlap). Furthermore, constituencies vary significantly in population size and even more in geographical area, so suing maps to indicate levels of support can be highly misleading.
A graphical representation is one way of presenting things, which some readers may find useful, but many forms of graphical representation are best used as an addition to the raw data, not as a replacement for it ... and in any case, the graphical representation can only be verified by comparison with the raw data, so adding a visual representation does not assist removal. You are indeed contradicting yourself, have shifted your position from arguing that the data is useless and should be summarised to arguing for it being presented in a different way, and you take no account for the WP:V issues involved in creating a complex graphical representation of data without also presenting that data so that the reader can verify it.
Summarising the data would remove the list of constituencies contested by the BNP, which you may not find valuable but other readers will. You are quite right to point out that the totals number of constituencies contested should be listed in the article (just such a table is already in place at British National Party#Electoral_performance), and this is just the sort of improvement which I have in mind for the article once it is freed from the attacks of editors forum-shopping in a campaign to remove the data tables.
Once again, please re-read WP:AGF. I am not required to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, and in this case you have now been engaged for over a week in a quest to find a policy reason to remove data from an article (the debate is now happening at the 4th location in two weeks). There is no reason to assume that this sort of disruptive and tendentious misuse of process is being conducted in good faith, particularly since you have failed to respond to my request that you allow time for editors to improve the article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I am entitled to both hold an opinion on whether the BNP article is "an example of bad practice" and to seek a clarification of where the policy stands on this issue. Your repeated attempts to shout me down on this is grosslyWP:INCIVIL.
A 'don't remove anything, no matter how unencyclopaedic' attitude is unhelpful. I see no point in responding further to this point.
No ward-by-ward analysis is needed. All that would be required is a GIS loaded with electorate boundaries at each election, and a list of % support in each constituency for each election. This would allow a map to be generated, colour-coded according to % support (e.g. at simplest level, white=no candidate, yellow=0-0.5%, orange=0.5-1.0%, red=1.0%+) in each constituency for each election, according to that constituency's boundary in each election. That the electorate boundaries in the maps are slightly different in each election is irrelevant.
Very few readers would consider a verbatim listing of 650 constituencies to be informative. It would be a bit like reading the ball-by-ball record of a cricket match -- something that only a fanatic could love. Repeating my earlier point, large amounts of data, unsummarised, and not graphically-presented, is indigestible to practically all readers.
Your attitude towards WP:AGF goes well beyond "evidence to the contrary", to an ongoing attempt to portray my comments in the worst possible light, often with no basis whatsoever in statements I actually made. Examples are: "you want the policy to place a complete ban on the tables of data" (I don't, and never said that I do), "editors who want to remove fundamental information on the operation of the democratic process" (gross hyperbole on the importance of this information), "you have brought the discussion here in an attempt to alter the policy to suit your view" (I brought the discussion here to get the policy clarified).
Hrafn, you are quite entitled to hold a view. My objection is to your forum-shopping pursuit of the issue, which even extends to a repeated failure to even acknowledge a request to follow normal practice and give time for the article to be improved. Several editors offered at AFD to expand the article to address problems, but as soon as it closed you demonstrated your bad faith by opening an RFC which asked for comments on whether this was likely to happen. I make no apology for following WP:SPADE and pointing this out.
I am not saying 'don't remove anything, no matter how unencyclopaedic', because I disagree with your dogmatic view that this data is fundamentally unencyclopedic, regardless of the outcome of DR and AFD. If you are suggesting adding info, then that discussion belongs on the talk page, not on a policy page; but if you are persisting in forum-shopping to devise a mechanism remove data, then that is just more disruption.
Your suggestion of a map is very pretty (if someone wants to undertake the huge amount of work involved), but even with a separate map for each election it risks being misleading, because a change in constituency boundaries in an urban area may not significantly effect its composition but may not be visible on a map of the scale required to fit on the page. Since the map would not include a link to the article concerned, there would no direct way for the reader to navigate to an article which could explain the change, nor is likely to be possible on a map to include the name of he candidate, no matter how notable the candidate is. I repeat that I have no objection to you or any other editor devising such maps if you want to; my objection is to your misuse of this policy page to try to impose a "replace data with maps" principle before a detailked examination of how effectively a map could actually present meaningful information.
You say that "very few readers would consider a verbatim listing of 650 constituencies to be informative", a comment which is either a deliberate red herring or another example of your failure to actually study the articles over you are so outraged. The article only lists the constituencies which the BNP contested (53 in 1983, 2 in 1987, 13 in 1992, 56 in 1997, 33 in 2001, and 119 in 2005), and I see no suggestion from any quarter that all the other constituencies should be listed.
I have not misprepresented you. You deny that "you want the policy to place a complete ban on the tables of data", yet the whole basis of your argument at AFD, on the article's talk page and here has been to repeatedly insist that the information is unencyclopedic and should be removed. That's the only point in labelling as unencyclopedic. You quote my words "editors who want to remove fundamental information on the operation of the democratic process" as if they were referring only the BNP article, when you should be fully aware that I was referring at that point to the notion of removing all election results. You are flogging a dead horse here, by sustained and disruptive forum-shopping, and the fact that you find it uncomfortable to have this pointed out does not alter the bad faith disruptiveness of your fixation on deleting the data. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
BHG: thank you for GROSSLY AND DISHONESTLY misrepresenting my position yet again.I am not advocating "a complete ban on the tables of data", but rather a limit on excessive data -- such as an article that is nothing but 40k of data without any text explanation other than a single sentence at the start which can be paraphrased as 'here's the data'.
Hrafn, there is no misrepresentation of your position, except by you (when it apparently suits your puzzling purposes to deny what you have been arguing along the way). You have argued here and on the BNP article's talk page at AFD for the removal of the data ... and despite assurances from editors that explanatory and introductory text will be added, you even wanted so far as to open an RFC asking editors to comment on whether to believe those assurances. And you have still not responded to my request to give time for that article to be improved by expanding the text.
I have "argued for the removal" of an article that consisted of nothing but 35k of data (give or take the 'here's the data' sentence) -- that IS NOT advocating "a complete ban on the tables of data". Please read the definitions of wikt:excessive and wikt:all -- they do not have the same meaning. Therefore one can argue for the 'removal of excessive data' without arguing for the 'removal of all data'. I would not consider this to be a subtle difference, and would even expect my 12yo nephew to grasp it. You seem to have little to no comprehension of the subjects of data summarisation and presentation, so I'm unsurprised that you fail to understand what I'm "trying to achieve". HrafnTalkStalk(P)11:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn, the important distinction between "all" and "excessive" is not particularly relevant to this case, because you yourself have conflated them by unyieldingly labelling the data as excessive and then pursuing the removal of all of it (with no less than 20 posts to the AfD demanding its deletion, as well as all your posts here and on the article's talk page in pursuit of the same goal).
I am well familiar with techniques of data summarisation and presentation; the difference between us is that you insist that summarisation or illustration must replace the full data, regardless of the utility of the summary or illustration or even of the fact that the illustrations do not yet exist so there is no opportunity to assess their utility or whether they are misleading. As to the concept of excessive data, I hope that even your 12yo nephew would not try your trick of grossly exaggerating the quantity of data in order to label it as excessive, such as when you claimed that a listing of 650 constituencies was uninformative even though the article in question lists only a small faction of that number. I hope that your 12yo nephew would also understand the difference between the 35KB of markup and the 15KB of text which appear when that is rendered, and I am sure that he would also understand the difference between one big blob of data and an article which breaks up the data in 12 separate tables. I'm sure that your nephew would also understand that when data is organised in this way, he doesn't have to read all of it to find whichever bit would interest him -- he can use the table of contents to skip straight to section he wants, or he can just content himself with the summary table at the top
What you are trying to achieve is abundantly clear: you want the data tables in the BNP article removed and you have been forum-shopping in pursuit of that goal. When you were finally faced with the problem that the policy you were been insistently misinterpreting as a blanket ban doesn't support your position, you didn't apologise or back off, you simply set off to pursue a change in the policy to produce your desired outcome. I'm sure that even your 12yo nephew would recognise that as disruptive behaviour.
BHG: your argument makes no sense whatsoever! Just because I consider 35k of unadulterated data to be "excessive" DOES NOT mean that I am conflating "excessive" and "all". Now read the definition of wikt:conflate. And no I will not accede to your moratorium demand-that-I-shut-up. I have every right to seek clarification here and I am sick to death of your attempts to shout me down. You have thoroughly disrupted and hijacked this thread by your repeated, lengthy, abusive, unfounded and illogical comments. HrafnTalkStalk(P)14:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn, bold text and capital letters are considered to be shouting, and do nothing to make your case more persuasive.
This is the second time I have needed to remind you that you have been rebuked elsewhere for not reading the post to which you are replying. Either you didn't read my previous post here before replying to it, or your talent for comedy has reappeared -- because you still claim that the article contains 35k of unadulterated data, even though the post to which you were replying pointed out that without markup it's just 15KB. If your idea of logic is to count markup as being part of the data presented to the reader, then it's inevitable that you will regard others as illogical. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
BHG: I would have shouted MUCH LOUDER if I thought it would help get the message across. <stands next to BHG's ear to shout> I DID NOT advocate "a complete ban on the tables of data", and I DID NOT conflate "all" and "excessive". Your claims to the contrary are (apart from being ABF) fallacious, invalid, irrational, nonrational, unreasonable, unreasoning, unsound, weak, misleading, specious; ill-advised, unconsidered, unreasoned, inconsistent, absurd, asinine, foolish, meaningless, nonsensical, preposterous, senseless, silly, odd, peculiar, weird, nutty, wacky, disordered, unconvincing, unsatisfying, and inexplicable. Whether it is 35k of data or 15k-of-data-plus-20k-of-table-markup does not really make much difference at this stage. HrafnTalkStalk(P)03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn, all the shouting doesn't in any way alter the fact that you have been repeatedly exaggerating the quantity of data to try make whatever point you think is in there, just like you repeatedly posted at AFD about a "violation of WP:NOT#STATS" which now seem (below) to be finally admitting was not in fact the case. Piling on the abusive adjectives about me also doesn't alter the fact that you have taken the word "excessive" as some sort of absolute standard which means whatever you denounce as "excessive" (even though you exaggerate the quantity of data by several multiples), which is why I have pointed out that you have conflated it with "all".
BHG: I find your nit-picking over 35k vs 15k to be ridiculous. Either is an amount of data that can legitimately be described as "excessive" when unadulterated. Heck, on an article I'm a regular on we even had a request to show a table of only 5 numbers graphically. Taking an expression of 'I think 35k 15k is excessive' to mean 'I want "a complete ban on the tables of data"' is <shouts in BHG's face>a complete fabrication. HrafnTalkStalk(P)07:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Hrafn, unadulterated means "not mingled or diluted with extraneous matter" and I'm glad you finally agree that the article in question does not contain "extraneous matter", though it's taken you a long time to get there. It's a pity would have been nice if you had also read that part of WP:NOT#STATS which recommends breaking up such data into tables, as was done with that article. And if you think that 15k is always excessive, regardless of context or the nature of the data, you'd better get to work deleting thousands of lists. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
A follow-up question
How much raw data constitutes "Long and sprawling lists of statistics"? Assume for the sake of argument that it:
About as much as Joseph Murphy (author) does. And only slightly less than Christian Evidence Society society does. Now a follow-up question of my own: if 'articles' (and I use that term very loosely in this context) such as List of minor planets: 123001–124000 are permissible, then what possible meaning does WP:NOT#STATS have as a policy? WP:SIZE already provides the only size limit. Presumably WP:MOS (or subsidiary policy) tells us somewhere to format the raw data into neat&tidy tables. What does WP:NOT#STATS tell us, other than to ignore it? Far better to remove it than to leave it around to confuse poor editors such as myself, who were under the deluded impression that wikipedia is not meant to be a repository for raw primary data. HrafnTalkStalk(P)15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOT is full of contradictions and falsehoods. The matter may best be understood by reference to its section WP:NOTLAW and WP:BURO which make it clear that consistent and coherent rules and laws are not to be expected or pursued. We are here to write an encyclopedia not to engage in lawyering. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
A 'policy' that is "full of contradictions and falsehoods" is worthless as policy. It's not "lawyering" to expect something at least vaguely resembling meaningful guidance on what is and is not acceptable content. And it would appear that we're not here to "write an encyclopedia" so much as write a data archive (nothing wrong with the latter o'course -- I just wish that somebody'd been up-front about it sooner). I think somebody should just come out and be open about this policy mess with a section 'WP:NOT#WIKIPEDIA' which states "Wikipedia is not Wikipedia" -- that'd clear everything up nicely. ;) HrafnTalkStalk(P)15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrfan, you want the policy to be an absolute ban on large quantities of statistics, so you can use it as weapon in your quest to delete material. The fact that the policy doesn't do what you want it to do does not make it worthless, and this one provides important guidance on how to organise and present data. As Colonel Warden helpfully points out, this fuzziness is a problem only for editors who want to use policy for wkilawyering. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
<Shouts in BHG's ear> Pay attention. If you had actually bothered to read what I said, as opposed to just prejudging ABF in it, you would have noticed that I was in fact railing against a "'policy' that is 'full of contradictions and falsehoods'" and have just advocated the removal of WP:NOT#STATS, not its rewrite/reinforcement to my taste. In spite of your ubiquitous attempts to "disrupt the usability of Wikipedia" on this thread (if you don't like that quote and the context it comes from, then I direct your attention to WP:DUCK), Colonel Warden gave me the answer I was looking for all along. I would not go so far as to say that I am satisfied by the answer (the entrenched illogic it suggests is fundamentally unsatisfying), but have no intention of pursuing this further, beyond mild advocacy of having the dysfunctional and ignored policy passage in question excised. HrafnTalkStalk(P)03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn, it's getting increasingly hard to make sense of what you are actually trying to achieve, but I think it goes like this. First you wound yourself into a fury over the tables of election results (with 20 posts at AFD in which you insisted repeatedly that the article in question is a "violation of WP:NOT#STATS", a phrase you used 6 times) on the basis of a policy which didn't mean what you wanted it to mean. Then when you didn't get your way on that point you tried a backdoor path to deletion (by using the policy as a lever to remove the article's content), but that fell apart because you eventually realised that all your claims of a "violation of WP:NOT#STATS" were wrong. So you came here to argue for tightening it up, and when that didn't get the support you wanted you have now decided seek its removal, so that there is no longer even a warning about how to present and use data. This looks like some sort of revenge attack on the policy which left you with egg on your face when you didn't read it properly ... and yet you still manage to accuse others of ubiquitous attempts to "disrupt the usability of Wikipedia".
This isn't complicated. You didn't read a policy properly, and climbed up the wrong tree. No Big deal: we've all done that in our time. Why not just accept your mistake and move on rather than making the best the enemy of the good? As Col Warden says, we are here to write an encyclopedia not to engage in lawyering. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Colonel Warden gave me the answer I was looking for all along.
— Hrafn
it's getting increasingly hard to make sense of what you are actually trying to achieve
— BrownHairedGirl
<shouts in BHG's face>You weren't paying attention were you? <sigh> As to your ludicrous, self-serving, ABF fantasy of what you want me to have been "trying to achieve" -- it has all the evidentiary and logical validity of a bad case of flatulence. I have no expectation that you'll have a sudden attack of honesty any time soon, and shouting at you does not seem to have drawn your attention to the relevant parts of my statements, I am tired of your vituperative bile, and so will leave you to continue your ridiculous slanders unattended and unheeded. HrafnTalkStalk(P)07:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn, I have been paying close attention to your voluminous posts since you picked up this policy as a cudgel over a week ago, and I stand by my summary of your trajectory. You started off by wikilawyering over a policy which you had completely misunderstood, and when after you had made about 50 posts on the subject you finally understood that the policy does not make the election results article a "violation of WP:NOT#STATS", you switched to advocated the the policy's removal because it doesn't assist your wikilawyering.
Your shouting and abusiveness doesn't alter either the persistent wikilawyering or the persistent bad faith which you repeatedly expressed at AFD and since by rejecting all assurances from editors that the article in question would be improved.
It must be great for perverts to have the opportunity to freely express their arts under such a shining slogan as "Wikipedia is not censored." The current situation of WP suits well its nature as a "popular" cyclopedia, as society is indeed rife with perverts. However, there is no way that pictures such as this one [1] and this one [2] be regarded as appropriate, necessary or not produced by a pervert.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.164 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2009
Actually if I am interested in reading about fellatio that does not mean I am interested in watching pornography while doing so. That image does not illustrate anything but the artistic gift of a pervert, no offense. 213.178.224.168 (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, not all of us are stuck with missionary position, no offense to your convictions. Anyway, the image in question is replaced with the one by a more famous and artistic "pervert", displayed in museums. - 7-bubёn >t18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Though you are certainly free to express your opinions on what constitutes pornography, as well as on the subject of including images of sexual acts in articles about those sexual acts, you may not do so in a way that insults other editors. The phrase "no offense" notwithstanding, calling someone a "pervert" is (intended to be) offensive. Please ensure that your comments remain civil toward other editors. Thank you, –Black Falcon(Talk)01:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we clarify NOTDIRECTORY?
I AFD'd a large group of lists (about 150) basically named "List of companies in ..." as violations of wp:NOTDIRECTORY. It seems from the initial responces that the NOT policy is either unclear on this point or I am misunderstanding it's purpose. I think the purpose of the policy should be made more explicit so that editors have more guidance on whether they are using it to maintain a good encyclopedia or misinterpreting its intent. Please consider commenting here and/or at the above listed AFD. NJGW (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to add to NOTDIRECTORY a phrase that indicates that a plain list of businesses is a business directory. It already says "wp is not a Yellowpages" (as a clause), and I think a list of businesses with no indication of notability or context also has no encyclopedic value except to create business buzz for those listed on such a list. Perhaps a note that such lists already exist in the form of categories. Any input on this? NJGW (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm just not sure I've seen a problem here. We create articles on businesses. Why not have a list of those articles on businesses? Randomran (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
First, it would seem that the categories are precisely what you describe. Second, the lists have no notability guidelines, including grocery stores and the like. They read like a Yellow pages without the phone numbers. Someone suggested only listing those businesses listed on stock exchanges, but that would simply mirror existing websites. The lists are non-encyclopedic directories, so having some clause in NOT#DIRECTORY seems logical. NJGW (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies/Lists of companies by country. At that project, they suggest lists be about "notable companies which have or previously had a significant presence in the country," which may be a better naming template for the many disparate versions of names for these lists. Note also that List of companies was redirected to an appropriate category. I suggest that the lists are duplicating the categories OR adding NN company names to WP. NJGW (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We already say that Wikipedia isn't for everything that ever existed. It should go without saying that we can have lists of notable articles, and that lists aren't necessarily a way to circumvent our standards for inclusion. We don't need to go ahead and start deleting entire categories of lists. Randomran (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Just saying "we can have lists of notable articles" is not accurate. Not every case of list is encyclopedic, and that is made clear in the policy. I'm trying to make the case that this particular group of lists is not encyclopedic, and that they are business directories, so that a clause may be included in that line of the policy. If you disagree with those points please explain why. NJGW (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
You're the one who has to explain to me what's unencyclopedic about this particular type of list of articles. Most lists of articles are okay if they're discriminate, and if they're not an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. What's wrong with these, if they're notable, and we're not tossing in crap or ads? Randomran (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have explained this, but because you asked politely I will do so again. Most of all they do not contain notable entries and are full of crap (like grocery stores), and are very difficult to police because of the sheer number of them (and permutations of naming conventions). They are an indiscriminate list. A discriminate list already exists for each of these at the semi-duplicate categories (I say "semi-" only because items notable enough to have articles can be listed by default--auto policing if you will--and so they are missing all the cruft). Also, once again, they are a business directory. My main points here are that that this policy already says we can't have a business directory (eg Yellow Pages), and consensuses in previous AFD's have confirmed this (including the AFD for "List of companies"), as well as at the Companies WikiProject. The consensus already exists, these are non encyclopedic, and what I'm suggesting is putting a clause that a list of businesses is a business directory and that the Categories take care of any perceived need of such a list perfectly. NJGW (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do I have the feeling that we shall keep repeating NOTDIRECTORY and NOTYELLOWPAGES and then keep completely unrelated lists of companies (apart from their country of operation and/or origin)? Can anyone really tell why they should be included in an "encyclopedia", even in one as inclusive as the Wikipedia? What purpose are they serving that can't be served by the categories? Aditya(talk • contribs)11:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Makes pretty little sense. List of Mining Companies in Vietnam may be an encyclopedic list, but a List of any and every company of Vietnam looks pretty unencyclopedic. Where does the policy you quite says that unrelated business directories (a.k.a. yellowpages) are better than categories? Aditya(talk • contribs)14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Categories are not equivalent to lists. A good list will include information and presentation that is not possible in a category. That bad lists of a particular type exist is not a very good reason to categorically ban all similar lists. older ≠ wiser15:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Proposed change NOTDIRECTORY
I've posted links to this section in many relevant places (including the policy pump a couple of times), and only received input from two people. I'm going to propose the change now, and see what discussion that sparks.
Old version
Proposed version
Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.
Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Lists of business related only by geographic location are business directories, and not encyclopedic. These are more efficiently and neutrally managed through categories.
I just don't agree these should be relegated to categories. To me, a list of businesses is definitely appropriate so long as it doesn't go into exhaustive detail and non-notable entries. And there is even more value to a list of businesses when it goes beyond a list of names. For example, the list of accompanying founders, founding-cities, years founded, its final status (merged, amalgamated, bankrupted...)... That's something that no category can do. Randomran (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It does not look like any change is needed, judging from the first AfD that I checked. In general, I believe that specific generalizations are difficult. Why specify lists of businesses by location? It already says that WP is not the yellow pages. Remember that a yellow pages lists business by type and location, not just by location, and mostly provides contact information and advertising, neither of which are normally included in WP. Apteva (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
huh. nothing is black or white
Bureaucracy is the structure and set of regulations in place to control activity... as opposed to adhocracy, it is represented by standardized procedure (rule-following) that dictates the execution of most or all processes within the body, formal division of powers, hierarchy, and relationships.
WP has elements of both bureaucracy and adhocracy, later being more prevalent. We follow some general rules, but more often we change them (crate new ones) with hope they will be followed in tune with common sense. 212.200.241.153 (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this is meant to serve as a balance on WP:NOT#ANARCHY. We don't let people do whatever they want, but we don't tie them up in a million rules either. We're supposed to have reasonable discussions about the balance, but there definitely is a balance. Randomran (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've had posts deleted - reason stated was "Wikipedia is not a forum". We need a forum to discuss the main topic. The discussion page isn't it. Why not a forum page, or at least an integrated forum site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
As long as you are on topic, ie. your posts are concerned with what should appear on the article page such removals should not be made. If you have questions after reading the article, and you don't think the answers to those questions belong in the article then our Reference desk is the place to ask. Taemyr (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreeing with Taemyr, keep in mind that the topic of the talk page is the article, not the topic of the article. Confused? For a sports team article, you could ask "should we include this player as part of the roster?" but it would be wrong to ask "do you think they will have a winning season next year?" Hope you can see the difference. The reason we do not have a forum for every topic is that this project is an encyclopedia, not a community bulletin board. There are countless forums on the internet if you have an urge to discuss. There is no need to have them here, as it would detract from building the encyclopedia. But the Reference Desk and Village Pump are available, per other comments. Fletcher (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's true, there are tons of forums out there, but none are directly tied to Wikipedia. I'd like to see a forum button on every entry where all types of discussions are allowed, just as long as they are related to the main topic in some way. Wikipedia needs a forum! If they don't want to operate it themselves, let someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.124.238 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any support for this idea, as it would be a big distraction from building the encyclopedia. Wikipedia would likely become one of the largest forums on the internet, requiring additional server space and bandwidth, not to mention labor to moderate the forums, none of which has anything to do with the mission of the site - to build an encyclopedia. We already have too much wiki-drama, and adding forums would add a whole new layer of controversies and personal battles that would further drag us down. Like I said, there are tons of discussion forums elsewhere. You don't explain why Wikipedia needs to become one, only that you want it to. Fletcher (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
let someone else do it. All Wikipedia needs to do is allow other forums to insert links to the appropriate forum. A forum link button on each article would give readers a single place to discuss the article in depth (not just how to improve it).
The Village Pump isn't tied directly to an article. People would have to go out of their way to search for it. A forum would be much more convenient. Would it be appropriate to include a link to a particular section on The Village Pump in the discussion pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.124.238 (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there is a forum here. It's off-wiki, but it appears that a great many of the editors here do also chime in there. Hope this helps. — Ched (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Great! Would Wikipedia mind if people were to add links to topics on this board? Doesn't do much good if people don't know where to find it.
Not a medium to establish notability
Many people (pretend to) miss the fact that Wikipedia is intended to document notability, not establish it. I think there should be a clear mention of that in the policy. People are aware of how aggressively Google indexes Wikipedia, and how important that is for non-notable entities such as companies, bands, actors, movies, books, etc. Much of what one finds while doing NPP are in fact attempts to get into the Google index via Wikipedia. I know it's implied in a lot of places already, but it would be nice (and useful) to see it as a specific line item here. Just a thought. §FreeRangeFrog19:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like what you describe is covered by WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, which mentions notability a few times. Most of the issues that occur when adding non-notable articles are also already covered by various sections so I don't think a new section is necessary. --Bill(talk|contribs)19:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Change in notability policy for news events?
There are daily AFD discussions to delete non-notable article. What would be the consequences if the standard of notability for news related articles and people in the news were relaxed? For example, look at this CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/13/plane.crash.victims/index.html which is about a lady who died in a plane crash yesterday, was the widow of a 9/11 victim, and founded a anti-terrorist organization. Her notability is borderline. Yet isn't there no harm to have an article on her.
Basically, if there is a serious newsstory about a person, then they would automatically be notable. Currently, high school are automatically notable.
The purpose of this discussion is NOT to discuss whether this person is notable or not but whether it is better for WP to loosen standards to permit more articles. The question is what makes the notability and not news guidelines right for Wikipedia? What harm would occur if Wikipedia had serious articles on minor news figures?
Note that I am not particularly interested in writing about this person but use it only as an example? If something is written, what harm takes place. It could do a little good. Chergles (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Should we revise policy to state that "biographies of individual covered by respected news organizations are acceptable as Wikipedia articles."? This could be a test to see if any harm occurs because of the change. Note that I do not support or oppose this suggestion. I am only discussing it. Chergles (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This isn't the appropriate forum to seek a change in our notability requirements. FWIW I strongly disagree that "if there is a serious newsstory about a person, then they would automatically be notable". See WP:PSEUDO for articles which are ostensibly biopraphies but which concentrate almost exclusively on one particular incident in a person's life. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk11:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: Per Chris Cunningham above, specifically, discussions about the notability requirements for biographies of living people should be held at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Specifically this would apply as a revision of WP:BLP1E. As a further note, I agree with Chris that such a change would be inappropriate - BLP standards are stringent for a reason. Usrnme h8er (talk·contribs) 16:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hidden pages and guestbooks
I've seen several threads on the admin boards lately discussing hidden pages, and guest book pages. I thought it might be proper to start a thread here at WP:NOT. Now I know I don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to policy and guidelines - but I do want to voice some thoughts on maybe relaxing some of the policing that goes on with these subjects. Since Wikipedia has become such a success, we are attracting a much wider audience. Many of the new editors are very young. If we chase them off (see WP:Bite), then we lose a large number of potential/future editors who will end up deciding policy and guidelines down the road. It's not like we'll collapse under the weight of a few guestbook pages. I would imagine that barnstars take up more room than a few lines of "Hey you found my hidden page" text. I know there's a large contingent of "Stick to the rules" editors and all - and I mean no disrespect to them; but, I think we need to lighten up a little bit. We start slapping speedy tags on these hidden and guestbook pages, and I have to wonder how much longer it will be before the "Delete Police" start censoring the user talk pages.
If we equate Wikipedia to a library, then yes there should be quiet for those who are studying (editing) - but I don't see a problem with editors stepping outside (user space) for a bit to chat a little either. Now I'm not suggesting that we allow folks to loiter outside the doors selling drugs (vandalism) - but if we close the library to these young users - they will go somewhere else. Now, I don't want to start some huge drama on this, but I would like to see some calm rational discussion on the matter. Thanks. — Ched (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories.
I believe that "hidden pages" can reasonably be defined as 'community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic"', and should be allowed when done by users who are here to help build the encyclopedia. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu16:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that off using Wikipedia for purposes other than to meet the goals of Wikipedia is a violation of WP:NOT. I also think this is the correct thing. People want to use Wikipedia for so many purposes but the fact is we are here for just one purpose. These users that get so offended by this that they leave are probably not of the temperament to work collaboratively towards a project with goals of its own. There are so many wikis out there people can use, this one has a specific goal.
In summary "hidden pages", and any sort of social networking or games unrelated the projects goals are not appropriate. Chillum17:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
First, thanks for the kind words at the AN thread, - ok, I have a couple dumb questions (maybe "not in the loop" is more accurate). First I assume that all admins take each user on a case-by-case basis (not counting socks and SPA's). so ...
Do you guys (and gals) have any guidelines such as 50 edits in user space vs. 0 edits in articles/article talks, boards, etc. before you start the AfD process?
Do you (admins in general as opposed to you individually) make it very clear where they can go to discuss the AfD (templating doesn't count)?
Do most admins try to talk ("nicely") to the users first (again - no templates), and explain in a nice way (at their age level) what Wikipedia's primary goal is?
I'm not trying to be smart or snarky, it's just that I know a lot of our best admins are very young, some even under 21. In fact, I read in one place that there was a "crat" who was only 13. (not sure how valid that is though). I guess the point I'm trying to make is that 10-12 year olds mature very quickly in only a couple years. I'd hate to see them chased off the site, hold a grudge, and not return. After all - editing here (even the guestbook and find the hidden page) is far better than running the streets, doin drugs, and hangin and bangin with the gangs. And thank you both Chillin and Mishehu for takin the time to chip in ;) — Ched (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
What is wrong with templates? Great care has gone into the wording those templates to make them helpful and non threatening. To be frank admins don't have time to sit down and have a heart to heart with each new user posting inappropriate content. We have an encyclopedia to keep from flying off into space. The templates are very helpful in passing on information quickly and moving on. I will also point out that the only special job admins have it to decide how to use their buttons. You don't need special tools to welcome new users and explain things to them, anyone can do that. Chillum20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)yep - I know we're not babysitters - but if they're not hurting anyone in their playpen (user space), does it hurt to let em grow a little? And just curious - but prefindex is pretty easy to find - am I missing something about "hidden"? — Ched (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
good point about the templates ;) duely noted and retracted. Also a good point on the anyone can welcome them - I will put some effort into that. — Ched (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
At MfD, I recommend that “contributions outside userspace should always outweigh userspace activities”. I don’t see many borderline cases.
I used to think that admins should always talk first to myspacers, but that increases workload for little benefit. Many such newcomers never respond. I now think that reactive deletions (pushing the WP:CSD boundary) are OK as long as the admin leaves a friendly message, invites the newcomer to talk about what they were doing, and is open to undeleting offending pages if the newcomer attempts to justify or promises useful contributions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with users who, in fact, follow the rule that “contributions outside userspace should always outweigh userspace activities”, having hidden pages or guestbooks. I also see no problem with users who go searching for them. This is all consistent with my quote from the userspace policy above. The problem is when there are users who are here purely for the social issues, but have no (or almost no) mainspace activity and no (or almost no) help in discussions related to the mainspace. The userspace policy says that social pages in ones own userspace are generally acceptable especially when the users in question are "committed Wikipedians with good edit histories". עוד מישהוOd Mishehu09:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ouch! I done been bit. Sure makes me want to rethink trying to help the yung-uns keep their pages. Guess I'll advise myself to not give anymore advice. — Ched (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not censored, does that mean posting public domain pictures of child pornography in this article should be encouraged; the same way photographs of people in Masturbate are encouraged? I have always wondered this. Parthian Scribe00:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
No. I can't imagine why you would have wondered this. Also, I suspect that people weren't encouraged to take pictures of themselves and upload them to commons (which is where the bulk of them are), but that it is hard to stop people who are willing to do so. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
To add to what is said above. NOT#CENSORED only covers internal Wikipedia issues and does not cover external content restrictions such as illegal material like child pornography. --Bill(talk|contribs)00:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The not censored policy isn't simply that the wikipedia isn't censored. It actually states that Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed..- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: Wikipedia is not a court of law/justice
This has occurred to me for a while, but a recent edit/reversion on Talk:Canadian Indian residential school system has brought it to my attention again. Though largely covered by "no original research", in many cases, including in article-space, there seems to be an effort to create a summary indictment by subjective/selective presentation of evidence, or directing the content towards certain lines of argument (in the rez schools case, to "prove" that children were mass-murdered, which is a pet campaign of Kevin Annett and his supporters); in some ways this is no different than anti-POV or anti-peacock measures, such as when a municipal govt of Chamber of Commerce wants to promote a certain image/asset/facility in the course of their article....but it's clear from some posts that people, the kind of people who make such posts, want to use Wikipedia to frame accusations, and to indict who they see as they guilty. Myself I'm not succinct enough to word the suggested clause better; but "Wikipedia is not a court of law" would seem to sum up the title.....I have similar issues with enviro-campaign pages like Great Bear Rainforest and Sacred Headwaters, which even purged of overtly POV language and peacockery still wind up being POV because of context/agenda. But when actual wrongdoing, felonious wrongdoing, is alleged, it's another matter entirely; another case which has "lain fallow" because of the difficulty of writing it up neutrally is BC Legislature Raids], and also the issues with Harriet Nahanee's death in relation to the 2010 Winter Olympics highway upgrades/protests.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this is closer to "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". We might want to make it clear that even presenting "factual, verifiable evidence" to prove some kind of case is not the purpose of Wikipedia. But that's part of WP:NPOV more than anything. Randomran (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
If I'm reading that discussion right, did he really rip out a bunch of sources claiming NOTLINK applied??? @_@ NOTLINK does not apply to actual citations, only to ELs or dropped in links in the text (i.e. non-ref links or people trying the [http://goseemysite.com text] type thing). References have other guidelines to follow, mostly found at WP:CITE.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 03:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It was external links that were removed. For example if the statement "Humpty Dumpty Fell off the Wall" has multiple EL's discussing this, all of them confirming the same facts that Mr. Dumpty Fell off the wall, it is not relevant to list every EL confirming this. Contary to this logic then one could argue that there be dozens or hundreds of EL links per statement, especially if the subject is someone like the WP:POTUS. If I am incorrect in the first case, then I have to be correct in the latter. Common sense would be against listing hundreds of EL's for the latter case, however there is no standard saying how many EL's are "enough".Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
noinclude
Is there a reason for the <noinclude> tag at the top of the page? Equazcion•✗/C •00:42, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Guess I'll just remove it then. Equazcion•✗/C •02:48, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)
In the little time I've been registered, and the time I've been editing without registering, I've noticed that the higher-ups on Wikipedia, including, but not limited to, the administrators, give a great deal of de facto superiority to people who have established reputations, almost to the point of Wikipedia being an oligarchy. I'm not saying that the reputable people are officially given greater power; I'm just saying that, maybe, some administrators do it simply because there is no rule against it. It's like in the United States, firing someone from your job for being a Republican; it's legal because it's not illegal.
Why would we not want to put our trust more in people who have demonstrated that they are an asset to the encyclopedia? In fact, this is exactly what we do via the requests for adminship process. Wikipedia may be an oligarchy by virtue of being a meritocracy; people with better ideas tend to get their ideas implemented more often. And experienced editors tend to be better editors; they know what works and what doesn't, both in interacting with the community and in making edits to the encyclopedia itself.--Father Goose (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is probably an oligarchy. You're more likely to thrive if you dedicate more time to the project. You're also more likely to thrive if your ideas are popular, within the mainstream of what other established Wikipedians think is helpful. But like Father Goose said, that's the nature of a meritocracy. Randomran (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"A complete exposition of all possible details" clause
I find the following NOT is rather dubious and disturbing:
NOT: A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.
What else encyclopedia is if not the potentially complete summary of all knowledge. I have a hypothesis what the author wanted to say: a single article cannot go down to microscopic detail. But per wikipedia:summary style we can go in all possible details provided valid references are supplied.
Further: the phrasing is poor: "a complete exposition" is rarely possible, and the statement boils down to a a truism
Still further, even if rephrased in less categorical way: who is the judge that, say, N details is OK and N+1 details is a no-no? We have basic rules for content: notability, verifiability, NOR, NPOV. Nowhere these demand any restriction on detail. Twri (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
May be I am missing something. Please, whoever was involved, point me to the place when the addition of this item was discussed: I could not find it myself quickly (lazy :-). Twri (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
That admin vote was 5 for, 2 against, and 3 abstaining, and was over 4 years ago. That may have been relevant for that particular case, but I do not think that is still binding on the community. It was, in my opinion, a very poor wording there and should be removed here as instruction creep. . DGG (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like common sense to me. You can have an article about Trains, but you don't have to have an article or list which details every single train that every ran on tracks (as well as those that sometimes off them). --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
And yet -- playing devil's advocate for a second -- if we can manage to keep minute details from crowding out more basic details (through the use of summary style), and all such details are verifiable, I'm not sure we have a solid justification for removing or disallowing them, aside from the "who cares" rationale. As Wikipedia matures and broadens, the "we don't do subjects in detail" stance deserves to be rethought.--Father Goose (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There is the downside that extremely detailed articles will get taken over by specialist editors, writing for a specialist audience. Fletcher (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I suppose I've seen something like that in the form of Monty Hall problem -- specialist editors there have, I hate to say it, really wrecked its accessibility to the lay reader in the interest of precision. But then, it's not the level of detail that's to be blamed, which I still think is fine in that article; it's the failure to offer both simplified and detailed explanations that weakens the article. Simply banning detail isn't the solution, nor is elbowing out the specialists; nonetheless, a more forceful insistence on accessibility to a lay audience is needed in such cases.--Father Goose (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the placement of this wording, but it makes some sense. There is no fixed rule prescribing N level of detail while proscribing N+1, as indeed N cannot be quantized. Instead you have to consider each individual article and look at what has worked well for similar articles. Even with summary style, too much detail will make the topic harder to navigate, inefficient to read, and after some point only a few editors, or perhaps only one, will be competent to edit the articles. Fletcher (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia... incorporates elements from general and specialized encyclopedias" from WP:5P. I don't feel we can justify the deletion of content on the basis that it is too specialized (or more broadly speaking, too detailed). There are challenges associated with greater levels of detail, but they are not insurmountable. It is unfortunate when we respond to those challenges by deleting the detail instead of restructuring, rewriting, or balancing it.
Hmm, I've just gotten a mental image of this problem as being the Wikipedia equivalent of the Shannon–Hartley theorem. But instead of trying to remove the noise (bad writing/organization), we tend to discard the signal and the noise simultaneously. And then we start thinking that all signals of a certain faintness are themselves noise. This analogy won't bear too much scrutiny, but, heh.--Father Goose (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
There actually is prescription against highly detailed articles, that being that WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Of course, what is indiscriminate varies from field to field. Editors of movies have determined that while a cast list is important, not every cast member is needed, or even crew member. Topics on books rarely discuss chapters and the like. Video game editors have opted to avoid discussing specific game levels or weapons. It's a detail that can't be spelled out at the top level but can be spelled by the WikiProjects or other guidelines, with WP:NOT helping to identify when not to go into specific directions. Of course, there are always exceptions to be played out case-by-case. As long as we apply this approach common-sensibly, there shouldn't be any major problems. --MASEM (t) 12:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
But have the aforementioned "editors of movies" made a correct determination that such information should be expunged from Wikipedia? IMDB is in many ways a better site for movie info, in part because they have more complete cast, crew, and other technical information. I don't see a shred of common sense in calling a complete listing of cast and crew "indiscriminate". Yet we've somehow convinced ourselves that such information shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Now, one could say, "well, we're not IMDB"; the point is that we could be better than IMDB. But not as long as the "we don't do detail" mindset is in force.
When we place arbitrary limits on our content for arbitrary reasons, we worsen Wikipedia. When we try to gussy up such arbitrariness by saying This Is How It Is Done, we further worsen Wikipedia. I'm not saying Wikipedia should be a disorganized and unreadable dump of information; what I'm saying is that we ought to be welcoming greater and greater amounts of organized, verifiable, and readable information.
Unfortunately, all too often, we don't welcome such information. Increasingly, our reflexive reaction toward it is deletion, not reorganization. Most of the low-hanging fruit has been harvested; we have to ask ourselves at some point, are we going to allow higher-hanging fruit to be added to our collection, or will we simply call Wikipedia "complete", and insist that all grapes above a certain height are sour?--Father Goose (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
"Indiscriminate", properly used, is a very low bar. It does not mean "relatively unimportant" It means, not making any distinction between the important and the not important at all--such as putting in an article for all published books, or including a description of every 10th frame of a movie. If we make some rational distinction about what we do and do not include, we are being discriminating, not indiscriminate. The rule has a purpose: there are times when people try to include content about every building on a university campus, or everyone on a high school football team. DGG (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Your first example is an unfortunate one: I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible to include sourced and worthwhile information about every building on at least a few university campuses. The second example isn't as bad: it's not too likely that every single member of a high school team would have independent secondary coverage (and thus per WP:N we couldn't have an article about each of them), although I wouldn't be surprised if there were some teams out there where each member had enough coverage to be able to write something about each of them in a "team season" article.
My point here is that it's easy to say, well, of course Wikipedia doesn't include every detail or that it's not an "indiscriminate collection of information". As you well know, problems arise when we include open-ended statements along those lines in our policies: what you and I know to be "proper use" gives way to wikilawyering, and in the end, stuff gets deleted that don't need deletin'.--Father Goose (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Twri, it was added January 9, 2008 by Randomran, who's been pushing for that same line about details and "weight" in WP:N, based on a four-year old Arbcom ruling. It can be removed.
In the future, if you want to find when a certain word or phrase was added to a page, you can use WikiBlame. For example, I found that edit by searching article "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not", Search for "A complete exposition of all possible details", Versions to check "500", clicking Reset for the current date, Order "latest first", Search method "interpolated". The only issue with "interpolated" is occasionally a vandalism removal or addition will show up. Usually WikiBlame outputs when an addition is found, but this time it said a deletion was found. Then I searched from January 10, 2009 (since January 9 was the most recent day the line appeared (noted with "OO")), 100 versions, latest first, linear. Linear goes through every single version (as many versions as you've set it to check). It's much slower, but as thorough as it gets. XXX means it does not appear in that version. OOO means it does appear in that version. Oldest XXX before an OOO was January 7, so open that version, at the top you'll see "Newer revision → (diff)", click on diff, and you'll see who added something. --Pixelface (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Humor is fine. But keep it on topic, non-disruptive, and please don't do it on our project pages which are supposed to represent policy. Talk pages are better, please remember though that this is a project to build an encyclopedia. Make sure the humor is productive, not disruptive. Chillum22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Still the problem exists. Otherwise we would not have to publish this policy. It is interesting how many policies other encyclopedia like Britannica have in their disposal. In my eyes humor is a constructive way and this allegory shows some point, which is notable about Wikipedia. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is relevant to the page. Also if you were an editor at Britannica I am sure you would find that they have a lot of internal policies regarding content. Chillum23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree we need to explain that Wikipedia is not a battlefield to editors. Well, I guess the point of proposed allegory is Wikipedia is not Web 2.0 ultimate shooter game, despite the fact it technically incorporates all the needed features. The point is explained with help of humor. Maybe the wording should be more clear. Thank you for your opinion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If this page WP:NOT was not the embodiment of one of the five pillars of WP, there may be room for humorous advice, but this page needs to be as plain and straight forward as possible as one of the core WP policies. You're free to make a WP-space humor page (there's even a template tag for that) but I strongly recommend avoid that humor specifically on this page. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Does WP:NOTDIR includes tour dates? I think yes, it's say: "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[4] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight." But I want a confirmation --Smanu (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an example where it is or where it could be used? I'm thinking it's ok when talking about a significantly notable tour, but not for a generic band tour as part of an article on the band. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTOPINION says "content hosted in Wikipedia is not...
Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
The implication is that opinion pieces on subjects other than current affairs or politics is okey-dokey. Any objection to changing this to:
Opinion pieces, especially those on current affairs or politics. Although some topics, particularly those touching on current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Editors wishing to comment on current affairs may wish to participate in Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, which allows commentaries on its articles.
I've boldly made a change which reflects this, since it seems to be common sense that in an NPOV encyclopedia no opinion pieces are appropriate. That those opinion pieces are often WP:OR or WP:SYN makes them doubly inappropriate (the alternative is plagiarism, which is also... problematic). I changed it because I was discussing something on another page where it became clear that we don't explicitly ban reviews (in this case of software) which I think it's pretty obvious are an example of an opinion piece. SDY (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the change. I'm not sure that we need a blanket policy against the use of op-eds. I also don't want us justifying that policy on the basis that opinion pieces are "original research" or "original research by synthesis"--those are restrictions on editors, not sources. Protonk (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am totally confused since I'm not talking about editors or sources, the section is about what Wikipedia is not (i.e. content). Are you saying it's OK for me to use Wikipedia to write software reviews? They are opinion pieces that are not about current events or politics. We have a blanket policy against Wikipedia articles being op-eds, the change would simply make that clearer instead of using language that is overly specific. SDY (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOT a series of book or other reviews
Perhaps one thing should be added to this list - Wikipedia is not a series of book, film, television, music or arts reviews. I have seen talk pages on television or radio programmes which are cleary meant to be expression of the readers personal opinion of that programme, rather than a neutral description of facts about the programme. A similar problem exists with the articles on pop songs and pop groups. This is clearly inconsistent with NPOV, and makes one inclined to wonder whether we should include a section here that states that Wikipedia is not meant to list personal opinions or critiques of, for example, the latest film, but is meant to be an encyclopaedia listing objective facts about the topic of the article. Ergo, I consider that we should have a new sub-heading to the effect of "Wikipedia is not a series of book, television, film, music or other reviews". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue you are refering to may be related to the sourcing of articles (WP:N), rather than a content (WP:NOT). If the source of the review is not reliable, e.g. it is just an expression of the readers personal opinion, then it is unlikely to be reliable. If an article is comprised soley of unreliable sources, then it fails WP:N. If this is not what you meant, have a look at the discussions starting at Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide for futher discussion of the issue of where article content is not encyclopedic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)22:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
That discussion is good to read, to see where a similar idea was proposed and failed. But I don't understand the rest of your comment. --Pixelface (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia certainly will contain book and other media reviews as part of articles--there is no actual distinction from a good review (which doe much mroe than give personal opinion) and an decent article on a book or whatever. The problem is merely in giving the eds. own opinion in the article, which is already covered by WP:OR quite adequately. Finding sourced opinion in a review published in RS is the way to do it. DGG (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it should be added. What people say on talk pages is already covered by the policy WP:NOTFORUM and the guideline Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. People are allowed to give their opinions on talk pages, but editors should be using the talkpage for ways to improve the article. If you see a talkpage turning "forum-y", you can add {{talkheader}} to the top of a talkpage (although I notice that template is currently up for deletion) or notify an admin. Many articles about books, films, television programs, albums, etc will cite reviews — so I don't see any benefit to this proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Primetime television schedules
It is my understanding that WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which says that Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, means that primetime television schedules should not be included on Wikipedia articles for television networks. As a result, several people and I have for over a year been removing all of these from the articles for Australian television networks. However, they continue to be used on American network articles. Can this clause either be removed from the policy page to reflect actual practice, or can it be enforced on the American network articles? The patchwork application of it is causing confusion. - Mark09:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I know there was a recent discussion of this somewhere, but I can't find it (it might have been an AFD). However, the end conclusion was the general schedule for the major over-the-air networks by year provided historical context for comparison and contrast to understand ratings and viewership numbers (for example, the viewship war between The Cosby Show and the Simpsons when they were both on Thursday nights), but any other level of detail was unnecessary. On a per-network basis, these aren't needed, but when put side by side there's value to them (see 1985–86 United States network television schedule for example). --MASEM (t) 14:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at the discussion NOTDIR and TV schedules. These lists of TV schedules are non-encyclopedic stuff that is far removed from the context, commentary, analysis or criticism that an encyclopedic article would be expected to contain. Basicially they fail WP:NOT#DIR. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
They do not "fail" WP:NOT#DIR. And please stop stating your opinion as if it were fact. Does the article Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club, which you created Gavin, have any "context, commentary, analysis or criticism"? No. So please stop saying that encyclopedia articles are expected to contain such things. --Pixelface (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Mark, if you actually took the time to read WP:NOT#DIR, television schedules do not violate that policy. You and several people absolutely should not be removing the Australian television schedule articles. You're the one creating the patchwork, and you're the one in the wrong. Actual practice, at AFD, is that television schedules have historical value. As I explained in December, there's no consensus to delete lists of yearly network TV schedules. What's your problem with them? --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
If these schedules fail WP:N, then they are sure to fail WP:NOT#DIR as well, and should be deleted accordingly. We just can't list all the television schedules from every network for every day: not even online TV guides do that. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
These schedules are not "per day"; they are the general schedules per year by weekday; that is, the general schedules for the Sunday lineup of all the over-the-air broadcast stations are given, but not any specific Sunday. This resolution of schedules is notable (it allows understanding of television viewership numbers) and appropriate per WP's goals as long as they're sourced. Any finer resolution (programming on a specific day) is too much. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
You can go to an edition of TV Guide published shortly after the start of the season (in September) and pull that information there; it's neither unverifiable (TV Guide is an RS in this application) nor synthesis (the information and correlations exist by a third party). Again, we're not talking that on October 1, CBS was running episode #100 of a certain show, the general schedules would state that on Sundays during the 200X season, CBS ran episodes of this television show at this slot. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
When you say that this involves pulling that information out of a TV guide, what you mean is a form of synetheis, whereby a "general" schedule is created by inference. However this is a "general" summary of what might be shown on a particular network, and as you know, these things change. I don't see how these schedules even pass WP:V let alone WP:NOT if they are made up in the way you describe. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)16:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It is allowable synthesis, as per WP:SYN: Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Furthermore, at least in the States, there are articles that summarize the fall schedules when they are announced (see this one for instance, and articles that announce scheduling changes such as this. This may not go back that far, but the information is certainly verifiable and not synthesis as warned against in WP:OR. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Genealogical entries
What is the problem with genealogical entries? I understand that a normal encyclopedia would want to use a fairly strict definition of "notable", but Wikipedia is larger than the normal encyclopedia. Any person who's been dead for more than say 200 years is probably going to have several hundred descendants and will be notable to them. What makes this person less notable than some small town with 50 residents? We allow an entry for any ghost town, why not for a "ghost" person? I recall that Jimmy Wales said I'd like to see a biography on Wikipedia for every person who every lived or words to that effect (yes, I know, I'm looking for a link to this quote). Even if he didn't say it, I'm all for allowing a biography for every person who has been dead for more than some threshold; whether that threshold is 50 or 200 years is a separate question. Sanpitch (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone is interested in Catscratch enough to enumerate the episodes. Others are interested in the hubcap capital of the world. Isn't Wikipedia just a collection of pages about things that enough people are interested in? I'm interested in genealogy; I'd like to keep the page I made about Abraham Busset. It isn't the most well-written page, but at least I have a few sources and I know that it will be of interest to some small number of people. I don't know for sure if that is 20 or 200 people in the next year. Talk to me folks! What if I edit the parent page to allow genealogical biographies for people who have been dead for more than 50 years? Should there be other restrictions? Sanpitch (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
We cannot, in practice, have an article on everyone in the world, even everyone verifiable in the world. That would increase our article count by a factor of a hundred, if not a thousand. On the same principle, we cannot have articles on everyone verifiable in the last dozen generations, unless they've done something notable. (We probably should have fewer articles on younger sons of British nobility and the First Families of Virginia; in general, however, they have held public office, even if the offices were nepotistic sinecures. Deletions may be in order.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
We might guess that there are between 100 million and a billion [books, pamphlets, etc...] on topics for which Wikipedia articles might be made; but I do not see anyone at Wikipedia worrying about running out of space for articles. Moore's Law (or rather Kryder's Law) indicates that in ten years we can have disks with 1000 times the capacity of current drives but for the same cost. The number of Wikipedia contributors seems to be growing at a similar exponential pace. That said, I don't think allowing well-sourced biographical articles on any person dead for more than 50 or 100 years would dramatically increase the article count of articles: The genealogy wiki Wikitree[3] has 50,000, while genealogy.wikia.com[4] has 28,000. I guess allowing genealogical articles would increase Wikipedia's article count by a maximum of a percent a year. And why not? The new Wikipedia contributors need something to write about, why not an ancestor who would be of interest to a distant living relative? Wikipedia is fundamentally different than any other encyclopedia; we already have articles on the topics of a normal encyclopedia as well as many esoteric topics as I mentioned above. The fundamental question remains, why not allow articles on any person who has been dead for more than 50 years? I'm not proposing that we relax Wikipedia's guidelines for well-sourced articles, rather I believe that well-written genealogical entries should be allowed. Sanpitch (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
In response to IRP, I am providing a reason why I reverted the addition of the new shortcut to WP:NOT earlier today. To be honest, if I had not thought IRP was in earnest, I would have assumed that the shortcut WP:! was a joke, or a pretentious fad, such as O(+>. If someone can explain why this shortcut would be useful, maybe I can understand why it might be a good idea, otherwise I am opposed to random stuff being plastered onto Wikipedia policies. I am also of the view that the shortcut page should be deleted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I added WP:! to the shortcut box because the purpose of the {{shortcut}} template is to list all of the shortcuts to a page (excluding mainspace pages). The user who created the page stated the reason for doing so using the edit summary. -- IRP☎22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I would say that the function of that template is to list shortcuts. I doubt that its purpose is to exhaustively list shortcuts to policy pages. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Its purpose is definitely not to list all shortcuts: some pages have a dozen or more shortcuts, many of which are only minimally useful. More than three shortcuts in a shortcut box starts getting messy. WP:! in particular is likely to be a head-scratcher to non-programmers, so I'd rather not promote its use.--Father Goose (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)About a year or more ago, we audited the visible spreadsheets to this page; we didn't remove the actual redirect pages, just culled down the number that appear in the shortcut box as to make sure only those versions are encouraged. WP:! is fine as a redirect but it's too high-level (only programmers will get it) to be a commonly-listed shortcut. Shortcut boxes don't have to list all the shortcuts that a page may have, only the ones that should be encouraged. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:! is the shortest way here, so I don't understand why it would be a problem to have it listed as a shortcut. By the way, I also added WT:! to this talk page. Should I remove it? -- IRP☎22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not a problem to have WP:! or WT:! redirecting here; what we don't need to have is to explicitly list them because for the average WP editor, the connection between "!" and "not" is not obvious, and we don't want WP:! to become overly common. Great if you and others know it, but for simplicity, WP:NOT is easier to remember for most. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
In many computer programming languages, the ! is the unary logical NOT operator; also sometimes used with the equals sign (!=) to be the "not equals" comparison operator. --MASEM (t) 12:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I would personally be in favor of removing the WP:! shortcut. The exclamation point means "not" pretty much only to programmers. While I recognize that a computer-based encyclopedia has a large number of programmer editors, the best-known use of the exclamation point is, well, exclamation: to provide emphasis or an indicium of importance. We shouldn't use it in a way that's contrary to the most common usage. That being said, I don't feel all that strongly about this, and won't be particularly upset if it remains; but it seems like a bit of ugliness to me. TJRC (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The only time I have used the "!" symbol other than to express exclaimation is when I have written an instruction for a Unix computer program. That was 10-years ago, and that program was probably 10-years out of date then. My understanding is that most programmers, and those using formal logics, now write such instructions in natural language form, rather than reverting to machine code. I don't think we want to revert to using machine code that has almost died out. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)09:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Then, speaking honestly, your understanding is quite incorrect. Java, C (and C++), Perl, PHP, and Ruby are all widely used today (even, heaven help us, FORTRAN is still used), and all of these languages use ! as the logical "not" operator. Other, less well-known, computer languages also use the same operator. Given this, however, there seems to be general agreement that displaying it (in the list) as a shortcut to this policy isn't appropriate. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we should keep the redirect, but no need to link from this page. Us ubercool programmers are excellent at remembering arcane symbols and do not need a cheat sheet. Chillum14:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Do we really want to facilitate ubercool programmers using WP:!, rather that the more understandable WP:NOT, in conversations that may include ubercool non-programmers? It seems non-inclusive and inhibitive of communication in a forum where inlcusion and communication is important. TJRC (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't care if anyone uses it--deciding which shortcuts people use for them is not something I like to do except in extreme cases. All we have to agree on is the much less contentious decision to keep it off the very short list of shortcuts displayed on the page. Protonk (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
In answer to TJRC, I would like to know the origin of the use of "!" in progaming before proceeding to use it. If nobody knows who or why it was used as a logical operator, then how do we know there is not a better symbol out there? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)08:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Not to suppress continuing discussion or anything, but is there anything more to say about this issue? We've removed the shortcut from the shortcut box, there seems to be a strong consensus to do so, so, y'know, {{resolved}} and all that?--Father Goose (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Father Goose has proposed a significant change to the policy in this area. I have temporarily reverted it for discussion. His proposed new text for the first point under this reads as follows:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. Any list on Wikipedia should augment our coverage of encyclopedic topic. Lists should have a unifying theme and all entries in a list should have a close relation to that theme. (See Stand alone lists - Appropriate topics and Lists - List content for clarification.) Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. Lists of quotations belong on our sister project Wikiquote. Lists of miscellaneous information should be reorganized as prose.
The present text reads:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)
This seems to represent a very significant change to wikipedia policy regarding lists, so I would like to throw it open for community discussion.
My personal opinion is that this makes the range of potentially acceptable lists to large. By only requiring that they have a 'unifying theme', we open the door to people making lists of things connected by trivial things. For example, this seems to endorse the existence of things like 'things that or red' or 'things that make people happy' or 'puppy colorations'. I further disagree with removing lists of aphorisms from the list of explicitly mentioned unacceptable exampled. I don't think that Wikipedia should become a collection of famous sayings. Nor should Wikipedia generally included lists of perons, except where "their entries are famous" as described in the current text. Locke9k (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Given that this is WP:NOT, the phrasing needs to be in the negative, first and foremost. It's fine to identify what is appropriate after excluding specific types of lists. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If this is a veiled attempt to provide an exemption for WP:NOT#PLOT for lists of characters or episodes, then this change does not have my support. Every list should provide some evidence of notability for its subject matter, as lists without are at best listcruft or at worst just collections of random stuff, neither of which provide any encyclopedic coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)15:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't really feel that was relevant and so I didn't think to mention it. From my perspective that debate centered around the specifics of that article while this must be a larger discussion about which policy is better for Wikipedia. There was not really extended debate on that page of the specific policy change that Father Goose made on this page. For my own part, I was avoiding a larger policy debate there as I didn't feel it was the place. Locke9k (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the larger discussion should take place here. But folks like Gavin Collins needed the background info. And of course, as Goose has stated over there, the two discussions are related. --Armchair info guy (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree the background is useful. But I am wary of the risk of inadvertently giving undue weight to the effect of this policy on this one article because there is presently a debate over it. I just want to make sure that we more broadly consider how the proposed change would affect Wikipedia as a whole.Locke9k (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The specific instance that brought this up shouldn't really matter. If the change were a good one but for bad reasons it'd still be good. In this case, though, the change would definitely be bad overall. The current wording is more faithful to the longstanding consensus that indiscriminate lists are not good ideas.DreamGuy (talk)
Though I am glad to now look at what prompted it... looks like another example of mob voting to try to overrule/ignore/misrepresent very clear policies, so I guess it's not surprising one of them would try to change a policy that proves them wrong instead of learning the right way to do things. DreamGuy (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is explicitly the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and so it is to be expected that it will have a demotic quality. If you prefer a more exclusive approach then you should try a project such as Scholarpedia which deliberately minimises the contribution of the hoi polloi. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is explicitly the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you prefer a less encyclopedic approach you should try a project such as Urban Dictionary which deliberately minimizes any pretense to caring if the edits are good or not. DreamGuy (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I support Father Goose's rewording as it better reflects the reality of what the majority of editors and readers want Wikipedia to be. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it is built by volunteers with wide range of interests and so long as the information is verifiable, that should be good enough. The vocal minority who don't like lists can work on articles they are interested in without diminishing the coverage of items that are relevant for their fellow editors and readers. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It was right to revert that change as it was a major shift in interpretation. Changing this page in such a radical way should only be done after a consensus has been reached and there hasn't even been significant discussion of this. If anything, additional wording should be added to strengthen or augment the current wording, but removing it completely would be a fundamental reinterpretation of the way Wikipedia works and that shouldn't be done by a single bold editor. ThemFromSpace18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I like FG's wording. The original paragraph was not particularly clear, and the example potentially misleading. "Famous" is not a criterion for inclusion of anything in WP, our bar is much, much lower. Policy , xspecially a policy as widely used as this, should be stated as simply as possible; I do not consider it a significant change in the way WP works--I think the net effect is simply to add clarity. What would be the drastic change? What would be permitted that is not now permitted? (aside from possibly this one article) DGG (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the article in dispute right now (List of_common_misconceptions) would be given a "free pass" by the section as rewritten. That was not my intent. Those arguing for its retention would still have to establish a) that it augments our coverage of an encyclopedic topic; and b) that it has a "unifying theme" and that its entries had a close relation to that theme. I doubt anyone could justify frivolous lists ("things that make people happy") under these criteria.
My intent was to turn this jumbled (and, in some spots, outright wrong) portion of policy into a clear expression of the principles we have, to date, adopted toward lists. I won't claim to have done a perfect job, but it was clear to me that the section was in bad need of attention, so I got to work on it. If anyone wants to help me continue its improvement, I would appreciate it very much. (One thing I see I overlooked was the need for lists to be narrow enough in scope to be finite and maintainable. Not that the original wording managed to explain any of this.)
Now I'll get to the specifics of what I felt was wrong with the old wording.
"No quotations, aphorisms, or persons" - quotations is already handled by the mention of Wikiquote. "No aphorisms" is not clearly true; for instance, List of Latin phrases has been pretty resoundingly "kept" in two prior AfDs; while some would argue "people ignoring rules during AfDs is not the basis for policy", the fact that a rule is so resoundingly ignored suggests it has no consensus and therefore no claim to being policy in the first place. Finally, we have thousands of lists of persons, both real and fictional. It is much, much better to specify general principles that lists must follow (content and organization) than to randomly name a few examples that aren't even good examples.
DGG noted the problem with "fame" as a criterion. I'm not sure what point is trying to be made with the whole "Nixon's Enemies List" sentence.
"reference tables and tabular information for quick reference" - redundantly redundant, and what does that explain anyway?
Anyway, I hope we can fix this thing up once everyone gets past the distrust of my motives and evaluates the changes on their own merits.--Father Goose (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to list some specific objections with your proposed change. First, I do think that aphorism lists should be retained in this section. Lists of aphorisms are so similar to lists of quotes that for one to be considered encyclopedic and the other not to be is contradictory. They don't belong here. The fact that one or two aphorism list pages have managed to survive an AFD on the subject doesn't imply a community consensus. I could mean that there is a debate on the issue, or it could mean that the proponents of a few particular pages have swamped the AFD debates for those pages to keep them alive. Second, I see nothing wrong with the 'fame point' as you put it. The point is you can include Nixon's enemy's list because the list itself is famous, not because the entries are famous. Where there is a list as famous as this one, its inclusion is encyclopedic, totally unobjectionable, and clearly adds to an article on the overall subject. While its possible that a few minor wording changes could be made to make this section more clear, I don't think that we need to change the fundamental policy.Locke9k (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna reintroduce the change tomorrow unless someone can be specific about why it's wrong. (Y'know, not just "the old one's better, and your dog smells".)--Father Goose (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I think not. Numerous people here have objected. This page is supposed to result from consensus; you can't just suggest something and then decide the objections were not good enough based on your own internal metric and therefore reinstitute the change. There is no consensus for a change apparent on this page, particularly since one the people in facvor of the change followed you over from another debate. Your proposed wording significantly weakens the section and removes some things from the definition of "what Wikipedia is not." Its not just a linguistic change / clarification, its actually a significant change in policy. Locke9k (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at the proposed changes, evaluated them on their own merits, and strongly oppose them in favor of the better, more stringent, and clear definition of what wikipedia is not.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Astonishing. Again these claims that I made the changes to try to win an AfD. Wrong. I am under no such delusion that these changes would produce a "win" at the AfD. Nor do I think policy should be changed just to win an AfD. But it should be changed when it's unclear or not in tune with our actual practices -- which it is both.
You're right that it's a significant change from what's there currently. That's because the current wording doesn't present a coherent explanation of how we actually use lists on Wikipedia. I'll open an RfC on this so we can put aside the "you're just trying to win an AfD" arguments.--Father Goose (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The idea that "Any list on Wikipedia should augment our coverage of encyclopedic topic" is just too vague to provide any useful guidance and conflicts with the WP:NOT which says "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". It would be like saying that Wikipedia should have an article on any stuff that we want to. I think the position you are arguing too childish to stand up to peer review. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)23:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be more concrete in the next version of the proposed rewrite. But "should augment our coverage of a topic" is an important underlying principle not present in the current wording; it is essentially why we don't do "list of things that are red" and the like. In fact, that principle is one we tend to require of all our articles, list or no; if a topic has no interconnectedness with any other topics in the encyclopedia, its place in the encyclopedia is suspect.
I am not saying you are childish, I am just saying the position you are arguing too childish to stand up to peer review. The problem with assuming that any old stuff can be put into a list in order to augment coverage of a topic is just another way of saying that we can create pages in mainspace without any regard to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In otherwords, what you proposing is saying "we can ignore exising policies and guidelines, just so we can augment the existing coverage. If you want to create a mainspace page that does fails WP:NOT, then why don't you explain why you want to do so, and illustrate how this would work? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)08:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
You've read something really bizarre into the wording changes I suggested. There is nothing in the changes I suggested that in any way nullifies any of the rules on Wikipedia. I didn't even touch the general idea of NOTDIR: [Wikipedia is not] "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". All of WP:NOT, all other rules on Wikipedia would still completely apply to all content, including all list content. (How on earth did you read "we can ignore existing policies and guidelines" into it?) You've somehow managed to totally misunderstand what I'm trying to do here.
What I did do is open the section with several general principles by which I believe list content is already evaluated. It's about time we made them explicit. We should open with a broad, clear statement of what we do use lists for, at the same time broadly identifying what kinds we don't accept. "Does this list usefully supplement any of our prose content? Is it uselessly broad? Does it stray from its subject?" Any list that can't satisfy those three principles doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Maybe, as Masem pointed out above, I need to phrase those three questions in the negative so that they're "NOTworthy". We're not worthy! We're not worthy!
I also removed parts that I felt were totally misleading, like "we don't do lists of people". Of course we do lists of people -- when appropriate. The "enemies list" idea could possibly be retained, although it's terrible in its current form -- the "famousness" of entries on a list is totally not the right way to explain... whatever it is that's being explained there.
No, because the we don't need lists of people, real or fictional, unless they are notable. Nixon's Enemies List is a notable list, and as such is encyclopedic. We can't just include lists of stuff for no good reason. Lists of miscellaneous information and any relevant information should be relocate into appropriate sections or articles which provide enyclopedic coverage of their subject matter. What we don't want is a new category of content forks in list format. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)08:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This statement just seems ridiculous to me. We have a codified system of formal guidelines and a clear authoritarian heirachy, as well as formal dispute resolution processes. We even have bureaucrats! Can someone please explain the reasoning behind this assertion? --Aseldtalk15:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Aseld makes a good point. This article is full of such nonsense - see above where we discuss the matter of statistics. My impression is that this article is just a series of exhortations or appeals to motherhood and apple pie which do not conform to the reality of this place (which is mostly ruled by I do/don't like it). I shall place a disputed tag upon the article to reflect its status. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the tag. One or two editors questioning one or two portions of a policy which has been in place for years does not make it "disputed". Also, just because there is a lot of ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT on Wikipedia doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to overcome it. Please raise a specific concern if you have one. –Black Falcon(Talk)19:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I note that Colonel Warden was the user who took it upon himself to decide that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary was no longer policy and changed it to guideline status.[5]. It may be that his actions can be considered to be disruptive for the purposes of making a point.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the point that you suppose I am making? The fact of the matter is that editors such as User:Aseld and User:Hrafn dispute this policy and I agree that they have good points. I placed the disputed tag since we have discussion here and this seems quite proper. Please see WP:Editing policy where a long-standing policy is likewise being discussed, challenged and has a disputed tag. Also see Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation where Notability is under review. I have suggested to Arbcom that they take charge of policy so that we know where we stand but, for now, policy pages are a free-for-all and this one is no exception. Please see its edit history for numerous examples of amendments by myself and others. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I've looked and it seems that you're confusing Arbcom with RFC - not the same thing. We have so much bureaucracy that no-one can keep track of it any more. I saw an estimate that 25% of Wikipedia is composed of this stuff and it grows daily. It's Parkinson's Law in action. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how the estimate of 25% was calculated, but it seems inflated to me. As of 00:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC), the combined total of non-redirect pages in the Wikipedia, MediaWiki, and Help namespaces (i.e. those which could qualify as being part of Wikipedia's "bureaucracy") and their talk pages is 391,016. This accounts for approximately 3.2% of all pages on Wikipedia. Source: Wikipedia:Database reports/Page count by namespace. –Black Falcon(Talk)21:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Many mainspace articles are just stubs while policy pages and their discussion pages are bloated by endless discussion and creep and so the measure may be based upon size. One reason for the policy bloat is that editors can ramble on and on without any reference to WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NOR. And we do love our own opinions .... Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's true, but keep in mind also that very few of the 391,000 pages noted above are policy and guideline pages. The absolute majority are deletion debate pages filled with discussions about content and WikiProject subpages. –Black Falcon(Talk)23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually even though that may be true the majority of your so called deletion debate pages are quoting the policy and guidelines and trying to show the world their e-peens... kinda like this one §hawnpoo01:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
My ongoing Arbcom? Huh? I repeatedly removed a section of policy that does not have consensus to be policy, WP:NOT#PLOT. That may be contentious among the handful of editors who want it to be policy — but something needs consensus to be policy in order to be policy, not just a few people who wish it was policy. --Pixelface (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It's one thing to make amendments and have disagreements over particular sections and phrases. It's another entirely to claim that the whole policy is in dispute (also, Aseld's comment at the start of this thread asks a question about one section of this policy, it doesn't "dispute" the policy). So far you've been arguing against the existence of policies and processes in general, rather than against anything specifically related to this policy. –Black Falcon(Talk)21:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that tag makes more sense. Still, I'm wondering if there is anything in the section that you actually do disagree with besides the description "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" (as Peregrine Fisher points about below, what's really meant is that Wikipedia should not be a bureaucracy). –Black Falcon(Talk)22:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think a lot of things in this policy are "should nots" or "do nots", but it looks like this policy page has taken the route of "is nots" to be more powerful. If you say "Don't do that", some people will do it just because you told them not to. It looks like this page began as a list of things encyclopedia articles are not. --Pixelface (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Aseld, for a project of its size and scope (see Special:Statistics), I'd say that Wikipedia has suprisingly few formal policies and guidelines. After all: we have nearly 3 million articles about topics from every corner of the globe, throughout history, as well as c. 5,000–150,000 active users (depending on how we define "active), a total of nearly 9 million registered accounts, and who knows how many unregistered/IP accounts. While we do have codified formal dispute resolution processes, the absolute majority of disputes are resolved informally on talk pages. With regard to the existence of bureaucrats ... well, there are just 30 of them, whose sphere of responsibility involves various technical functions in support of the encyclopedia project but that are not directly related to content. The fact that they are called "bureaucrats" has no special significance. Finally, and most importantly, all of the processes, guidelines, and policies that exist are (or, technically, should be) in place for the sole purpose of facilitating development of the encylopedia's content. –Black Falcon(Talk)20:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
As I see it, the policy is descriptive. It describes the consensus that Wikipedia should not be a bureaucracy. While the consensus is prescriptive, the summary of that consensus contained in this policy is descriptive. However, if that is the problem, I think nothing would be lost by removing those few words:
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law.
Wasn't it Derrida or one of the French deconstructionists who went spastic over the notion of a door sign that reads "This is not an exit"? The only reason to say it is because it is not true, but one wishes by implied threat of authority to make it true. Certain policies are prescriptive. As few as possible, one hopes, because vehicles with steering wheels can be commandeered, whereas vehicles without steering may perhaps go in the right direction.Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The phrase are descriptive, not prescriptive is a good one. The paradox arises because it is a meta-rule - a rule for making the rules. Such rules cannot sensibly apply to themselves - see Russell's Paradox. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOT identifies key issues that are not the purpose or nature of the encyclopedia. I interpret this to mean that such activities should be avoided if possible and minimised where they are needed. In some cases, such as original research, it might be possible for there to be none at all, although grey areas clearly can and do exist. In the case of bureaucracy, it is clearly impossible to have none at all. Hospitals, businesses and theatre companies have to deal with bureaucracy and so do we. The point is, we should seek to make the function as efficient and non-intrusive as is possible whilst also being compatible with fulfilling our core mission. I don't think it is helpful to state that WP:NOT is at fault because a modicum of bureaucracy necessarily exists. Let's focus on ways to improve what's there. BenMacDui10:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses, all. While I now understand the reasoning behind it, I still maintain that the statement "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" is false (though I'm not looking to attack WP policy here, so I'm not going to argue it further). --Aseldtalk11:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Bureaucrats is a title; their function is to handle the high-level paper shuffling that requires a specialized set of buttons. They are not, however, cock-blocking 'fill it out in triplicate so we can lose your requests' busywork for its own sake types, constructing arcane rules for effecting policy requirements or this and that behind closed doors. They could as easily be called facilitators, given what they do, but any title is going to be questioned by someone, and 'middle management monkeys' might make folks never want the job, so whatever. It's not a bureaucracy at all. We have what, 8, 10, core rules? There are more at the DMV for how to stand in line. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Even Jimbo emphasizes that all his edits get scrutinized just like everyone else's - he does not think there is any bureaucracy. I think you may be confusing hierarchy with bureaucracy. Any ten year old can point out improvements, and there is no protocol for proposing them. As pointed out "bureacrat" is a technical title which just means you can change who is an admin and stuff like that, which normally never concerns anyone. You will note that there is a lengthy process involved in becoming an admin, and the bureaucrat is not specifically involved in the decision, they just implement the result. Apteva (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Patton123, above, says it right: Wikipedia has bureaucracy, but isn't a bureaucracy. But it's not just that our procedures can be bypassed in certain cases; in general, one should flat out forget that we even have procedures. You see something, anything, on Wikipedia that could be improved? Improve it. Don't ask for permission, don't double-check if there's a "right" way to do it. If someone actually disagrees with what you're doing, then you'll need to engage in a conversation with them (see WP:BRD), and hopefully you'll come to an understanding.
The reason we have any bureaucracy at all is because thousands of people all with their finger in the same pie (ick, mental image) will inevitably bump heads and get all pissed off about it. So we have a number of methods for keeping from pissing each other off all the time. We prefer order to chaos, but only accept formal procedures to the extent that they serve our need: to collaboratively write an encyclopedia. We don't honor procedure for its own sake.
Our current bureaucratic institutions (ArbCom, RfA, RfC, etc.) exist theoretically to provide due process for Wikipedia's editing community (whether they actually do or not is a debate for a different time), and thus don't fall under this rule. We as a community have a responsibility to provide level playing fields for editors in disputes both community and editorial in nature. That responsibility fundamentally outweighs our adherence to an overly-broad principle based on American (if not Western) political biases that automatically assume malice in the term "bureaucracy". --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The thrust of the policy WP:BURO (aka WP:NOTLAW), is that Wikipedia is not governed by the rule of law. We have a variety of officials - editor, admin, bureaucrat, arbcom, steward, legal counsel, etc. These various position have assorted powers; for example, any editor may change the title of an article. The essential point is that any of these powers may be used at the discretion of the office-holder. There are sundry guidelines for this but they do not have the force of law because, per WP:IAR, it is the end or outcome which matters, not the legal details of the process. Our governance is thus like modern China, say, in which it is personal power and discretion which matters most. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I see this part of WP:NOT as a statement of goal, not an absolute principle. Its irony, kind of like WP:IAR, is meant to remind us to be careful when expanding or following our guidelines. Randomran (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't work, though, does it. The plan seems to be: write down in a policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, let it develop into one, and then when anyone complains that it has become one, just point them to the policy which "proves" that they're wrong. Then sit back and let the bureaucracy just keep on growing (but God forbid let us never have due process in any area where it might directly benefit the encylopedia), and see the well-meaning editors growing ever fewer in number.--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we have any guidelines that are particularly bad. But in aggregate, Wikipedia might be too complicated now. Unfortunately, I think the blame can be put on verifiability, which requires people to use very specific kinds of sources every time they add a statement, let alone using a particular citation template. As onerous as it is, I see the alternative of adding unverifiable information as more troublesome. Randomran (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The basic idea of this principle is to judge someone's actions based on how they improve the encyclopedia, not by whether they followed the correct process. It's actually based on WP:IAR, which most people who oppose this would probably defend to their high teeth. Yes, Wikipedia is a contradiction in so many ways. Rather than rail against that, we should embrace it. I ain't gonna stop the rain by complainin'. Doesn't make me any less free. HidingT17:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
In some areas, we don't care about strict rule-following. When we have a discussion which is supposed to be open for 7 days, but it's clear after 3 days what the result is, the "bureaucracy" answer is to keep going for 4 mare days; we will speedy close the discussion.
However, there are places where we require following the bureaucracy - places where bots deal with issues. We require, for example, that reports on WP:AIV use a specific template - just writing "I believe that {{ult|Example}} is a vandalism-only account" isn't good enough. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu08:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
And such bureaucracy makes AIV a lot less useful. There are plenty of times I've spotted obvious vandals, but the hoops one has to jump through to submit a "compliant" report at AIV makes it not worth my time.--Father Goose (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Father Goose, to be honest. And I think you'll find that writing "I believe that {{ult|Example}} is a vandalism-only account" at AIV is good enough. Unless you are suggesting that no human being ever looks at AIV, which I think I would find rather worrying. I'm also rather worried that there are pages anywhere that require anything on Wikipedia. That suggests there are places which need to be better brought back into line with Wikipedia policies, especially WP:AGF. HidingT11:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
What does happen is:
An admin sees a report at AIV.
The admin reads the report. If it seems to be a report of vandalism or spam, he/she checks the user's edits, and confirms that the user had been warned.
The admin either blocks the account/IP, or makes a comment on AIV on why he/she isn't.
If the admin blocked the account, a bot removes the report.
The reason you need to use the specific template is because the bot recognizes reports using it. This specific template was chosen based on the links it includes; there are a few others which the bots recognize. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Could the bot not be programmed to interpret a paragraph containing any reference to a user or IP (outside the signature) as a report against that user? I don't have a big problem with using the template (I have more of a problem with admins who insist on having the documentation mislead people into thinking that warnings are always necessary); but on the other hand the reprogramming shouldn't be a problem either.--Kotniski (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Here we enter the realm of Artificial Intelligence. How would one recognize a user name? And if you enter a paragraph, it may be "X is vandalizing despite several warnings from Y", or "Despite several warnings from Y, X is vandalizing", or "User:X is constantly vandalizing User:Y", or "X is vandalizing Runcorn" (There actually isa user by this name), or "Several IP addresses are replacing the content of User talk:Od Mishehu with threats", or several other similar issues. A human admin can find the relevant information; a bot can't. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu16:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Quite easily actually. You program the bots to look for code (they look at the code, not what is on-screen after all) for [[User:XXX]] or [[UserXXX|XXX]] where XXX is any character. It can check to make certain the user exists, ie they have at least 1 contribution. You can then also make an exception for code that looks like a signature by checking if it is at the end of a section followed by a date stamp.じんない23:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
And what happens now if people phrase reports like that? Are they thrown out, or handled manually? In either case I don't see that as an argument against enabling the bot to recognize some non-standard but unambiguous reports (such as those beginning with - or consisting only of - a linked username or IP).--Kotniski (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
In fact I don't mean to get into the details of this particular situation here, but the general point is: once we have a process in place that seems to work well from the point of view of the people managing the process, those people are resistant to changes which would improve the process from the point of view of those using it. (Indeed, for the first group, users being put off from using the process is a plus point, since it means less work.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
<unindent>What will usually happen is that the user before this report will be blocked, and the bot will also remove the problematic report believing it to be a comment about the previous report. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a worry then, isn't it? These reports maybe aren't even getting noticed, which could lead to undue frustrations, couldn't they? HidingT22:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I quote the Harvard Independent: "After eliminating other candidates, the form that fits best [wikipedia] is that of bureaucracy."[6] So this entire discussion seems moot, lets yank this not section. Ikip (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Point of order. If you remove it because the Harvard Independent say it is so, then you would make the Harvard Independent the final arbitrator, and Wikipedia would be a dictatorship rather than a bureaucracy. Removing the section makes it less likely that we are a bureaucracy. Like I said, Wikipedia is a contradiction in so many ways. Rather than rail against that, we should embrace it. I ain't gonna stop the rain by complainin'. Doesn't make me any less free. HidingT12:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a cottage industry of pundits making declarations about Wikipedia, who almost always get it wrong. I happen to think that Wikipedia is best described as an adhocracy with islands of bureaucracy. It has no central governing force, though there is an organizing principle (build an encyclopedia). I know that on a daily basis I work as an independent agent on Wikipedia, beholden to no one except my sense of what improves the encyclopedia. Sometimes I come into conflict with other editors about what constitutes an improvement; even then, there's no bureaucracy, although some individuals do have a very autocratic manner. On rare occasion I have to deal with some of Wikipedia's actual bureaucratic domains, such as deletion review, but for the most part, my time on Wikipedia is spent doing shit that needs doing, and not consulting with anyone beforehand. Nobody tells me what to do; I keep mindful of community conventions, and work at whatever grabs my attention. That isn't a bureaucracy.--Father Goose (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that it has elements of a lot of different power structures. Yes, there is a bureaucracy in Wikipedia. But Wikipedia itself is not a bureaucracy. People are free to do what they want, they're allowed to make bold actions, and they're allowed to ignore rules. Just that, on occasion, we have to reign in total anarchy with some common sense principles, which unfortunately requires a group of sysops with privileges that others don't have. If Wikipedia were entirely a bureaucracy, we would destroy WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, and might even limit editing privileges to established users. Everything would have to be hashed out on the discussion page beforehand, no matter how minor, or uncontroversially helpful. Nobody wants that. Randomran (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The heart of this question is whether the Wikipedia policy and guideline pages should reflect the de facto reality of how Wikipedia is run, or try to embody the spirit of how we want it to be run. To this point, if we want the guidelines to reflect reality, Wikipedia is, indeed, a bureaucracy. We can have a whole seperate debate as to whether we want to give up on the concept of it being not-a-bureaucracy altogether. I would say at this point the power structure is too entrenched to change it and the guideline should not give people false impressions of what Wikipedia is and is not. To say we are not a bureaucracy is to say they shouldn't expect it to operate like one, should not expect there to be a command hierarchy that you must obey (IE Ops, Arbcom, admins), should not expect things to be done in a procedure-bound way and should expect that those guidelines are treated as absolute as an exception, not a rule. 69.76.40.74 (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
We often are able to bypass process, that is why we are not a bureaucracy. We can ignore our rules if they prevent us from our goal. We can be bold and just do things if we use common sense. We have various levels of ability in our editors(some can block some can not), but the authority lies with consensus, not ability. So I think the section makes sense. Some people don't get it, but that does not make it untrue. Chillum12:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia not a bureaucracy?? Goodness, you could have fooled me. Have you ever tried to put an illustration on a Wikipedia page? Alarics (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki-gokkun.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki-fellatio.png){kind=link}
