Hi,
I stumbled upon an article which, in my opinion, is written not in an encyclopedic but rather in bad journalistic style, relishing every single juicy detail of the incident. These details themselves may be well sourced, that's not the matter. But is there a template or something to put on an article like that? Or is there any other way of bringing it to the attention of more people who might be willing to discuss or improve it? --84.190.89.111 (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
This falls under the general heading of "unencyclopedic". But... Templates are too often an easy way of slapping an article with an "I don't like this" tag without offering real constructive criticism, let alone any suggestions for improvement. Would you care to raise your specific objections on the article talk page? Perhaps you could post there a revised version of what you feel is the most-offending paragraph? That's a better way to do it. Jeh (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I did put my objections on the talk page, but I don't really have the impression that anyone is ever going to look there, judging by the fact that the last real edits in the article were made about a year ago. That was my reason for wanting to bring the article or its talk page to the attention of more people.
It is difficult to raise more "specific" objections when the whole article is written in this style. It's not one offending paragraph, it's more or less the whole thing.
My "revised version" would basically be deleting everything except for the introductory paragraph. I doubt that this would be much appreciated by the previous editors of the article. That's why I hoped for a broader discussion. --84.190.89.111 (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
You say "My "revised version" would basically be deleting everything except for the introductory paragraph." A better approach would be many slow incremental changes. Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
There might be a few extra lines of description that isn't really needed (mostly in the second paragraph, it's a bit of "celebrating the violence" to speak) but I don't think this is anything beyond what we'd expect for a notable crime on WP. It is a rare case where there appear to be a lot of witnesses that were able to be used to piece together his actions and statements, so the fact that source can readily reassemble his path of violence through the event is something that will be reflected in our article, and lends to some insight of why he opted on this path. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Whatever... we really should not be discussing how to change that article in this policy page's talk page. Jeh (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
No... but the question posed is fair: how far into details on a violent crime should we go into? This is one example, maybe not the most egregious, but the question is still fair. (For example, I looked at the Columbine article and find that is far too detailed on the actual events). --MASEM (t) 01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jeh: You are right, the further details concerning this particular article should better be discussed on the article talk page.
That was not really my issue here anyway. Here, I only wanted to know how to handle the situation with apparently so few others participating. My concern was that - as it often happens - you lead a monologue on the talk page with no one else contributing for months, and then, assuming that no one is of another opinion or that no one cares, you go about and change things - and then, all of a sudden, you have a bunch of people coming out of nowhere, yelling at you and reverting like crazy. That was the kind of thing I'd like to avoid by searching a broader consensus on the talk page in the first place.
The way MASEM puts it does make it a policy question after all though. And it would be nice to know if there is any kind of policy on this. I couldn't find anything. --84.190.89.202 (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
And then after they yell at you, you make a dummy edit with an edit comment saying "please see talk page", and then on the talk page you point out that you raised the question some time ago. Yuo don't have to wait months btw, a week or two should be fine. Jeh (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:BOLD, except in this case I would say be slowly, incrementally bold. (Just my opinion.) I think many small edits over time is fine. Bus stop (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It never crossed my mind that we would make edits that nobody will notice. I think we should try to make edits that most people will agree represent an improvement to the article. By the way, I think I don't agree that all the gory details should be removed. It is a horrible crime and I think the aim of the article is to provide the reader with information about what transpired. Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV we are meant to treat subjects dispassionately, so even a "horrible crime" should be written without trying to create a response to the reader. This is why going into all the "gory details" is not appropriate, but some level of detail of events as they happen are. By no means is this a bright line between these two approaches, but one can usually tell if the description of the events of a crime are trying to make the reader feel emotional about the event, which we cannot do. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Masem. We don't need the names of the victims, which parts of the body they were shot in, etc. EEng14:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If there were only one victim, would we include the name? I think so. So, why would we omit the names when there are several victims? Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It depends on the situation. A crime that only targeted one victim, we'd likely include the victim's name. On the other hand, what if the crime was someone firing randomly into a crowd of one thousand and there were a handful of injured and one victim: in that case, we'd unlikely to be naming the victim, unless, say for example, that was a person that was documented as trying to stop the shooter but got killed. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is in play here alongside the need to avoid appealing to human emotion. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
From what I'm reading, some people were spared, a second group were specifically targeted, and a third group were simply attacked without any known reason. Bus stop (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Now can we transfer this discussion to the article's talk page? EEng19:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Have you visited The Museums.Just kidding.
So, if we remove the names of the victims, we've improved the article? No. If the article has a problem it is that the incident makes no sense, or at least not in our version of what transpired. Bus stop (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a discussion now that we really should be having on the article's talk page. I had tried to move the discussion over there earlier, but obviously it went on here in the meantime.
Maybe we could use this talk page for general policy or procedure questions only and focus on this article's specific issues on the article's talk page.
To those who are saying, move this discussion to the article Talk page, I am not so sure. We are discussing approaches to writing an article that is difficult to write. We can discuss it here in general terms. That might be a good idea because principles discussed might apply to other articles. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
This page is for discussing ways to improve the What Wikipedia is Not policy. Unless someone proposes at least a rough proposal for such a change, there's nothing to discuss here. EEng01:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The introduction to this discussion was whether or not this article was in violation of WP:TABLOID and I don't think that is the exact definition of the problem with the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you're saying, but (again) absent anyone proposing something that needs changing to this page, this discussion needs to move to the article talk. EEng02:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Is the article problematic because it dwells to an inappropriate degree on gory details? Wouldn't that be a manifestation of problem of tabloid-type writing? Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
For the nth time, unless you're proposing a change to this page, this is the wrong place for this discussion. EEng04:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Should we discuss changing this page on the Lockheed Martin shooting Talk page? I'm trying to see your efforts in a good light. I'm appreciative of your efforts to keep this discussion on-topic. But I think we are all mindful of the much more general concerns that apply to a Talk page on policy and guidelines. That which would be astray on an article Talk page may indeed constitute constructive debate on this page which of course focuses on guidelines for the encyclopedia. What are the aims of an article such as "Lockheed Martin shooting"? I don't mindlessly advocate for the inclusion of the names of all the victims. Perhaps the names could or should be left out. But the question is how to write the article. It could be reduced to a summary including that it was an instance of workplace violence. But what more could be said, and should any more be said? There don't seem to be any wider themes. Racism would seem to be the most likely wider theme, but there is ambiguous evidence for that. He was a divorced father of two. There is the allegation of mental depression. These are themes that have their rightful place in an encyclopedia if reliably sourced. But as I've said before, I don't think the documenting of the violence is entirely out of place either. Those shootings and any other steps that transpired over a period of only ten minutes are exactly what transpired. How can you omit the event itself? If I were a reader researching this incident of 13 years ago I would want those details. So, "tabloid" means what? Does it mean that the subject matter is "tabloid", or does it mean that the writing style is "tabloid", or something else? Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, in this discussion, I think there are potentially one thing to consider to add, but I don't know how best to word it. This is related to NOT#PLOT in that we should not be overly excessive on minute-to-minute details of an event unless that itself is the focus of significant discussion in sources (for example, as appropriate in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster to understand how they traced back the problem). We can rely on third-party sources that give the minute-by-minute breakdown of such events but should not repeat them ourselves. In other words, this falls under IINFO but I don't think covered by any of the specific points there yet. The other aspect, about the "gruesome" details of crime, I think is already under NPOV, in that we're supposed to write dispassionately. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I do agree with the idea that we are not trying to paint a grim picture for ratings by including every single detail. We are trying to objectively cover enough of the key points so it can be placed in an encyclopedic context. This could be covered in just one sentence right after "Wikipedia is also not written in news style." Something like "articles about news events should be written objectively and in an encyclopedic style, and refrain from including excessive details that sensationalize the subject." ViperSnake151 Talk 22:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think our aim is to make sense of something like this, to whatever extent that is possible, given the material provided by reliable sources. The problem with the article as presently written is that it is a litany senseless violence. This article by the LA Times provides some material that should be included in our article, as does this NY Times article. "Context" is what is called for. In the final analysis I think more information is needed, not less information. Bus stop (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think that an article of this sort presents a unique problem. We don't want to write in a "tabloid" style but the subject matter leaves us little choice. Wikipedia is not facts in a void. Wikipedia is not facts without context. Wikipedia is not a meaningless litany of negative facts without context. We are expected to try to supply reliably sourced explanations for what happened or at least reliably sourced theories about what led to the negative outcome that is the subject of our article. Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It's possible to write about the events of tragic events in sufficient detail but without engaging in the "tabloid" style. We should be writing from an amoral, clinical standpoint, even if sources present the material in a more emotionally pleading manner. For example, inserting names of victims (fatal or not) is a means to plead to some type of emotion, as named victims draw attention moreso than unnamed ones. So unless the specific individuals are important to understand the events, they should be omitted. Similarly, describing the actual injuries (fatal or not) short of whether they were fatal or not is also a problem. The more detailed one writes up the events, the more likely it will become more pleading to emotion to try to emphasis how tragic it was and that's not our place to be making that call. --MASEM (t) 10:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
So, it might not be tragic? Violence is tragic. We could leave out the names and describe their role such as "shop foreman" but a target of a shooting would have to be identified somehow. I think it is inevitable that gender is going to be identified, if not race too. The story is complex. Reliable sources tell us for instance that information about the assailant is provided by a spouse who was at home at the time of the attack. I think that in writing an article of this nature we are doing it greatest justice by presenting it as a mini-drama. The sources are providing us with the material but we have to complete the "puzzle". I think the LA Times source does this well. It is the fitting together of the parts that raises our article above a mere listing of wounds and deaths. We of course cannot be creative with the facts. But reliably sourced material is fair game for inclusion in the article. Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
"I think that in writing an article of this nature we are doing it greatest justice by presenting it as a mini-drama." absolutely not,per WP:NPOV. The tragicness of the event can be ascribed to opinions of other sources as part of a response section, but we cannot let that drive how we write the details of the event. Clinical, dispassionate writing is required. --MASEM (t) 11:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The "event" is not only the details of the event. It is also surrounding material. Context is what is missing from the present version. I misspoke when I used the term "mini-drama". But I am trying to say that the article as presently written is solely focussed on the clinical and immediate details. It is missing peripheral material that good sources include. You may argue that such material is somewhat extraneous. I'm not sure if that would be your argument. But that marginally relevant material is important and you may be right that it tends to tug at the heartstrings. It accentuates the "tragedy" of the incident. The question is—what is problematic about the article in its present state? I agree with the editor that initiated this discussion that the article is very seriously flawed. Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The context you're looking for is what would be in a Reactions or analysis section, not in the description of the event. Our description of the event should be written in a detached way, but its fine to use secondary sources later to describe the severity of the event which can use more emotional language, properly attributed. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't at present have a Reactions or Analysis section. But the problem goes beyond that. It is not always advisable to compartmentalize all material. This video is interesting, as is this LA Times article I'm mentioning for the third time. Notice how material is woven: "A Mississippi man who had spoken openly about his hatred of blacks and his capacity for killing went on a rampage Tuesday morning at the defense plant where he worked, fatally shooting five and wounding nine before taking his own life with a shotgun, authorities and area residents said." Background to the incident and the immediate incident are spoken about in the same sentence. Another example: "Four of the five co-workers he killed were black, including Lanette McCall, 47, of nearby Cuba, Ala., an aircraft mechanic at the plant for 15 years and the mother of two daughters. McCall had told her family and her supervisors that Williams had threatened to kill blacks for more than a year, her husband, Bobby, said in a telephone interview Tuesday evening." And: "In one waiting room, Terri Collier sat with 29 relatives as doctors worked on her husband, who told his wife he gathered the strength to try to wrestle the shotgun away from Williams after he had already been shot in the shoulder and torso. As he and Williams fought over the gun, Alvin Collier noticed that the other employees were running from the assembly floor. 'Aren't you all going to help me?' Collier screamed to the others as they ran, according to his wife. The struggle ended when Williams shot Collier a third time, in the hand, and Collier fell to the ground." This is an article which is improved by including the human element. It is the inclusion of those human elements that are reliably sourced that change an article from a litany of the worst form of negativity—murder—to an article which contains the human dimension. Getting back to the original question: is it written in tabloid style? In this instance what that means is that it is written in tabloid style if mostly what is documented is the killing and maiming—in the absence of warmly human and reliably sourced facts. Yes, they can be separated into thematic sections. But the section documenting the ten-minute event should also contain humanizing elements. Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
We are not here to give articles a "human dimension". Narrative context in the larger scope of the world, yes, but not the emotional context that you are describing. The first sentence you quote is fine, it establishes that the motive did appear to be racially-related. Noting what had been said prior to the incident about his racial attitude also should be documented as part of the analysis for the case. But when these articles start going "oh, this victim had a spouse and children", or "So many doctors worked to try to rescue this victim", you're pleading the human angle which we should not be engaged in at all. It's not a tabloid style, but its also not an encyclopedic style, because it doesn't treat the subject in a clinical, dispassionate manner. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand you wanting avoid tugging at the heartstrings of the reader. This is what you mean by "pleading the human angle". You can correct me if I am wrong. But there are human connections, and they are reported by reliable sources. "Four of the five co-workers he killed were black, including Lanette McCall, 47, of nearby Cuba, Ala., an aircraft mechanic at the plant for 15 years and the mother of two daughters. McCall had told her family and her supervisors that Williams had threatened to kill blacks for more than a year, her husband, Bobby, said in a telephone interview Tuesday evening." The part that "McCall had told her family and her supervisors that Williams had threatened to kill blacks for more than a year, her husband, Bobby, said in a telephone interview Tuesday evening" is especially important. Her husband isn't being mentioned to tug at the heartstrings of the reader, but rather to make the point that the problem that resulted in the workplace violence had warning signs well in advance—"for more than a year", according to the husband. The reader is not only concerned about the past, but the present and the future too. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Therefore Wikipedia is not only a "clinical" recounting of events. It provides background material also, and where relevant, it weaves such peripheral material into the recounting of events. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
In part this is where BLPCRIME comes into play - we should avoid excessive detail about that people that are not notable beyond their role in an event. The encyclopedia reader is not helped by knowing McCall has a family, only that she was a worker killed. We don't need to mention that what McCall had reported in the year prior came by her husband, just that she had told others prior to the event. And even further, it can be said, "Williams' colleagues, including some of the victims, had described his violent attitudes towards blacks prior to the shooting." --MASEM (t) 18:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm just going to boldly suggest a wording for this, going under Wikipedia is not a newspaper;
5. Sensational: Articles should be written objectively, and refrain from placing undue weight on details that only serve to provoke an emotional response to the subject, rather than provide context and background information that improves the reader's understanding of the overall topic.
I'd like to see some evidence, from the editing and talk experience of actual articles, that there's an actual problem that needs fixing here. EEng20:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[1] Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive.
with
Wikipedia is a compilation of facts, the scope of which is the breadth of human knowledge. But, information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. Wikipedia (and each of its articles) is a summary of accepted knowledge,[2] not the sum of all human knowledge.
The facts that are included should be verifiable and sourced, and treated with appropriate weight.
Which brings us to what should not be included. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive.
I don't really have an opinion on this on the merits. Maybe its an improvement, maybe not, or maybe its just roiling the text. In any case, I in principle don't like to see major sections of long-standing, important rules rewritten without agreement, of the community. I thererfore rolled back the change, and let people weigh in on this, and if there's a general consensus that its called for then we can restore it. Herostratus (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
One aspect that I see already as a problem is going by the language of "facts"; as we routinely include opinions as well (eg reception sections for any entertainment work, etc) , and that is more why the language of WEIGHT falls into this section. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Granted, this policy is skimpy on solutions, but the focus on "facts" definitely directs editors away from the emphasis (as it is) on independent, third-party sources. Wish there was more emphasizing sources that provide historical context and significance. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
That someone has an opinion, and what that opinion is, is a fact. That is, they are not the editor's opinions (per se). But I can see how the lack of a distinction there could cause confusion. What I was shooting for was a description of WP's scope, and didn't wish to overuse the term "information", and "knowledge" was awkward there due to its inclusion later in the sentence. What word would you suggest that would fit better than "facts"? The Transhumanist22:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Highlighted
The text is mostly the same with some additions; I have highlighted the changes (with a few exceptions where there was a little bit of rewriting):
Wikipedia is a compilation of facts, the scope of which is the breadth of human knowledge. But, information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details . Wikipedia (and each of its articles) is a summary of accepted knowledge, not the sum of all human knowledge.
The facts that are included should be verifiable and sourced, and treated with appropriate weight.
Which brings us to what should not be included. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive.
Personally, I don't feel that the changes provide sufficient additional clarification to make them worthwhile (and some of them would benefit from additional copy editing). isaacl (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
why NOT#FORUM ?
How could the text of this section be improved? I notice the lack of friendliness is a recurring theme in the notorious Wikipedia problem of editor retention (particularly of women who (in my forum experience) prefer to discuss more and litigate less. (of course, this is surely an over-generalization, but reading the articles at Criticism of Wikipedia, it's one that has been mentioned before...)) Any input? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I added {{unsigned}} above to make it clear that it was written by SashiRolls. WP:NOT#FORUM is linking to the correct place (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought) because that section includes "[not] Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia..." There are other sections mentioning forums, but those mentions relate to other issues. Re the OP: the text at NOT#FORUM does not need to be improved. There are lots of ways of being friendly while staying on the task of creating an encyclopedia, and people are either capable of that, or not. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry John, mistakenly thought you were the OP here. Anyhow this page "What WP is not" is a "definition by exclusion" of Pillar 1, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", and we already have a whole other pillar about Civility, so there seems no need to re-present the civility policy here: Noyster (talk),11:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem, and I agree about not arguing the CIVIL case in this policy. The OP probably was wanting some wording to suggest that being nice was desirable, but I do not think that being nice is incompatible with the current wording. The serious problems of editor retention involve things like the interminable infobox wars that drive away content builders. Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
No Johnuniq,: Noyster, I wanted some acknowledgment that Wikipedia is, in fact (if only in part), a forum, both in the traditional Greek sense and in the more modern noospheric sense: a web forum – by definition – permits communication via threaded conversations which one can participate in with a pseudonym or anonymously (in neither case does one need to prove one's credentials).[1] Lightening up a little would do WP some good, I'm sure of it. :)SashiRolls (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe so but if you look back at the text in the "Wikipedia is not a forum" section it is saying "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech", and contributions are restricted where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. I would take this to refer to our well-known rules for deciding what is a valid contribution either to an article or to a discussion thread. In the latter case these restrictions would include the requirement for civility, which I'm sure you would agree with: Noyster (talk),14:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
References
^Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014). Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia. Stanford University Press.
NOTWEBHOST
I boldly added the following to the NOTWEBHOST section:
Company or organization web pages. Companies and organizations also have their own web pages, outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic descriptions of notable subjects based on what independent, reliable sources say about them, and are not an extension of a company's or organization's website or other social media marketing efforts.
This was reverted by User:EEng with an edit note: "I understand what you're saying, but I think this is already covered under "not means of promotion". Even though commercial promotion sometimes uses "social media", this list has more the human-social social media"
As I noted in my edit note when I added this - this is very common mistake companies and other organizations make - they see the Wikipedia article about their company or org as an extension of their website and will even overwrite the WP article with content from their website. When I worked on COI matters (I don't at this time) people actually have come out and said to me that they were tasked with doing this. The idea is really common out there, and this policy doesn't explicitly say anywhere that WP is not a company/org website. I am aware that this proposal parallels what is under the PROMO header, but this is a different angle on it. Just like we are not any person's personal website, we are not any company's or organization's website either. I hope to get consensus to add this. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I am somewhat dispassionate about this change, but something I see a lot in this context and that might be included if we are to change something here is the copyright issue that often goes along with that.
Companies will dump their complete website texts or parts of it in Wikipedia, and then we have to go through that whole annoying copyright violation procedure, while in fact it's the companies themselves "violating" their own copyright. --84.190.89.202 (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
How difficult it is to revert a dump with edit summary "copyvio"? Please keep in mind that a random company employee cannot release copyright to wikipedia. And if it is someone from management then we kill it all with WP:COI. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid quite often some people are confusing shameless advertising with merely dumping minute technical detail. The latter is perfectly OK within the framework of WP:NOTWEBHOST: once it is established that a certain product is notable, the amount of text about it is the matter of content dispute and covered, eg by WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:UNDUE, WP:TRIVIA, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, I can imagine that a business may start pumping various mundane things, such as taking part in exhibitions, manager reshuffling, software bug fixes, etc. What will be the guideline to kill this? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
example from today: diff, which is barely edited version of USC eye institute website here. People keep trying to turn Wikipedia articles into extensions of their websites. A more crass example is Muthoot Pappachan Group where we have had to revdel copy/pastes from their websites multiple times. (look at the history) This kind of thing happens regularly - this blatantly but sometimes with more copy editing first. The conceptual error about what Wikipedia is, is the same: Wikipedia article = our website. This addition would address that - Wikipedia is NOT a webhost for your company or an extension of your website. .Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
No question an edit like that is a problem. That said, I'm not sure if it fits under WEBHOST, because its a rather esoteric idea that by copy-pasting your company info on the WP's page that you're treating it like a webhost -- but that behavior does clearly fall under the last point in NOT#PROMO, perhaps with an extra sentence to describe this behavior. One thing that I have seen is when novice editors that do not appear to have any COI with the company do just copy and paste information into the company's article (in addition to COI-based ones). Putting this under WEBHOST would not necessarily call out to those non-COI editors, but the NOT#PROMO existing one should or should add some clarity. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
another example from today: this dif is a copy-paste= from decred mainsite. decred fanboys want to make the WP article an extension of their own home page. What I am writing here has nothing to do with COI per se; it is part of the larger issue of advocacy of which COI is a part - and not even the biggest part based on what i have seen. Really - people make this conceptual mistake all the time and it has to do with people not understanding what WP is, and is not. We are not a webhost for organizations either. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see this acting as an extension of their website, just a bad copy and paste of promotional writing, which of course is already covered here. They're not using WP as a webhost, they're using as a SEO tool, which WP:NOT#PROMOTION covers. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It is different from SEO. SEO is more about keywords etc. Think about it from the perspective of someone who is not schooled in our ways. Here is this big old webhost with all this software that lets you create a page and fill it with stuff. People do that all on behalf of companies and organizations all the time, and then complain when it gets "taken away" from them. They are making the conceptual error that a WP page can function as their webhost. Look for example at the talk page of Keck School of Medicine of USC and its history - they even gave permission to copy whole pages from their website into WP. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
No, it is nearly always about SEO. Any Wikipedia mention has a huge priority in Google's search results. They know by adding it and subsequent links back to their website, they can generally assure their site will be found high in google's hits and ultimately drive traffic to their site. Obviously, if you remove that they complain because now they don't rank high in Google anymore. But this is all playing around with promotional issues, which is already not covered. Really, when I think "webhost" I am thinking you are talking about placing unique content (not duplicative content) that would normally be on their website but included here because they want hits. What's happening is simply trying to use WP to boost promotion. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
You continue to make assertions. I have actually interacted with people who were doing this, and who I had to teach "what WP is". Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I disagree completely. I looked through the history of the linked drug articles and they were created at different times (one as early as 2011) and by different users. I see this article on Array BioPharma as a notable agency that has happened to discovered several drugs, but which hasn't been expanded past a stub to describe the company in depth (which can be done given about 13,000 google news hits). It is completely reasonable as a stub placeholder and shows no clear sign of being promotional or a website extension. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Am talking about how the Wikipedia page is being abused, not so much who is using it that way. The section is being used to replicate this page from Array's website; biotech/company websites almost always have such a pipeline page. We generally don't do that per NOTNEWS, PROMO, and what should be NOTWEBHOST. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it is replicating it (certainly not exactly and someone took the effort to wikilink where appropriate), but for any notable company, we'd expect a list of their current and upcoming products. This really isn't as much of a problem as suggested. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
We appear to have List of GlaxoSmithKline products, the "Product Portfolio" and "Product Pipeline" for Gilead, and similar existing product sections for the other two. For Array BioPharma, while I would say that each line is not necessary sourced to the best RSes, a spot check shows that we do have third-party sources (and not PR statements) that mention each drug in the production pipeline. The article is nowhere near the quality that the four you list have, but it can be improved and there's no rationale to remove that information, particularly under "we are not a webhost". --MASEM (t) 22:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
another example: Information Technology University, which is not atypical for university articles. Entire thing is sourced from their website. Not a WP article but rather an extension of their website. Based on a misconception of what WP is. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Really, it's not that this advise is bad, but it overlaps with already what is said in other parts of NOT. There is one line that should be added, but to NOT#PROMO:
"Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid."
Let's give it a day to make sure there's no major objections, and I'll ping @EEng: to get their input if this seems okay too. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your pinging me. Honestly, though, I'm under some IRL pressure and the above is a bit TLDR. The proposed text seems fine, but my impulse is always to be conservative about additions to policies and guidelines, because there's so much bloat already. Since this is a policy (not a mere guideline) I do think a broader consensus should be sought, maybe via an RfC. There's certainly no hurry. Again, this isn't because I'm hostile to the addition -- just an abundance of caution. EEng00:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
As we've gone a few days without any issue, I will go ahead and add; I do agree it is a point of redundancy but as Jytdog's examples all seem to start from organizations with a potential language barrier, it may just need an explicit statemen that they can point to of what should not be done. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Would you be pissed off if I pinged SMcCandlish first? He finds some fault with everything, so if he's OK with it then it must be a good idea. EEng02:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, makes sense. I don't think this is anything novel, does reflect current practice, and to any native English user, seemingly obvious from other NOT aspects, but more eyes can't hurt. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
But see, that's my point. If it's obvious from the other NOTs, why add to the bloat by stating it explicitly? But (I repeat) I haven't actually read all the discussion above. EEng02:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
It's okay for points in documents like this to overlap. They're intended to be understood and absorbed by humans; they are not machine code that must be 100% perfect logic trees of instruction. These also do consist of do/don't rules (as one might find in WP:AT or WP:MOS or WP:BLP, so there is not much of a risk of "guidance forking" as there can be at more procedural, "rulesy" pages. If the point of the addition were really "obvious" then the problems identified wouldn't be recurrent. The problem isn't limited to promotion, but the misapprehension that "the Wikipedia article about us/our product is something for our marketing director to work on", and this misperception is quite rampant. At any rate, the addition seems consistent with the rest of NOT, and I'm not seeing any devils lurking in the details of its wording. It might be possible to fork it into separate "corporate/organizational online presence" line-items at both NOTWEBHOST and NOTPROMO, to separately address both the "detail dumping ground" approach and the "shill via WP" approach that organizational entities take here. In short, the fact that this seems to already be covered in spirit by existing wording has been insufficient to prevent or remedy the problem, so additional or different wording is clearly needed, and this seems pretty well-crafted. I think it would also help with another issue discussed earlier this year [1], a variant of the "detail dumping ground" problem. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ugog Nizdast: There may well be a place for such a user warning - many additions are merely copying out the day's news reports. A minority of breaking news items do belong of course, as they will turn out to have "enduring notability" in relation to the topic of the article. It's a matter of judgement, people won't always agree where to draw the line, and we certainly don't want such a message to be "bitey". It might help to focus our attention if you could draft out some wording for the proposed template for us to look at: Noyster (talk),10:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks felllas. I'm more inclined in making the BLP version of this actually. I'm very bad a wording hence I posted for help. Will give it shot and notify here when a rough draft is ready. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Proposal to add a bullet point: "Even where appropriate and sources indicate a future event is certain or very likely to happen, use qualifying language, including future tense or other qualifiers, so as to make it clear that the event is not present or past."
I know, 'common sense' right. But I have noticed in the change of government articles in the US, editors are just putting things in the present that belong in the future, either out of a rush or misunderstanding. It likely happens in other areas, so some mention would be helpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Certainly the cabinet nominations don't come under "certain foror very likely to happen". Anyway, you don't seem to be talking about what to include (or not include), but rather style questions about tense and so on. EEng18:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
" . . .certain for?" But the proposal is talking about what to include (and not) in the same vein as the Crystal principle - in this case, don't include the future, as the present or the past. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the current text makes it clear that we should not predict the future ("Trumps Secretary of State will be...") but merely recount the present and past ("After considering Person X, he announced on Dec 7 that Y he would be nominating Y"). EEng21:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
If it's a corollary I'm not sure we should include it. We really must do all we can to resist adding to the already crushing weight of policies and guidelines. EEng23:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Not more, just clearer, more practical. Review the history of the EC article, an admin edited through protection basically with the understanding that the future was certain so Crystal did not apply. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The point is not to 'get' anyone, it's just to make clear 'how does one not predict the future' - one way is to not assume in writing the future is certain by representing it as the present or the past. For example, the cabinet issue was basically defused by adding the qualifier "proposed" to cabinet. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
When I read through NOT#CRYSTAL, I do not see language that really addresses this type of case, save for specifically dated events (like the Olympics). To take a less controversial example, if news comes out that public-traded company A is merging with company B as agreed on by their respective boards on a recently-past date, but that there has not yet been any SEC-type review and approval, we should write "A plans to merge with B following government review." rather than "A has merged with B." That is, we should not assume that future events that have the most minuscule chance of not occurring will go off without question, and always write such in the future tense. It might seem obvious, but Alanscottwalker does bring up an example where the lack of clear language in NOT could be a problem. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. It's a subtle issue, which is what makes it very useful for masses of writers of an encyclopedia (in formal writing) -- writers who happen to every day go through life making assumptions about the certainty and likelihood of future things - but in formal writing are required to be circumspect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - instruction creep and misplaced. It belongs to general manual of style about time-sensitive information, along with the phrases like "Today the London Bridge is the most expensive property ever sold to an alien". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose on two grounds. First, I'm assuming that most wiki editors have a sufficient level of competence that they don't need to be told that when writing about future events they should use the future tense and not the past tense. Second, as this suggestion is not about what should or should not be included in wiki, and is more about how to write about the information, if the instruction belongs anywhere it belongs in one of the MOS pages and not in WP:NOT. WP:NOT has already become quite bloated beyond its core purpose. CUA 27 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Applying WP:NOTDIR to sports articles
How do we apply the following guidance at WP:NOTDIR to sports articles?
Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.
This guidance at WP:NOTDIR suggests that articles should not list upcoming events or current schedules. However, it is common practice for various types of sports articles to list schedules of upcoming fixtures. Examples of sports articles that contain upcoming fixtures include:
Tournament articles. e.g., see the December 2013 version of the 2014 FIFA World Cup article, with fixtures listed several months before the tournament starts.
Season articles. e.g., see the 2017 Super Rugby season article, which lists fixtures for the upcoming 2017 season.
How do we reconcile the WP:NOTDIR prohibition with the current practice of including upcoming fixtures? I don't think it's practical to cut chunks of text out of many existing articles. Or am I misreading WP:NOTDIR? I'm not clear on what is permitted and what is prohibited. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The tourney articles seem fine, because the entire tourney is significant so all the matches that are part of it appropriate. A team's participation in these upcoming tourneys also seems okay for that reason. The example Super Rugby season article seems atypical of a typical sports season, as it seems like a slightly extended tourney. I would have a problem with a season article for where there are far more than a few dozen games (such as a MLB or NBA team's season, in contrast to a NFL team that only has 16 games). Also add that these are less about being program guides and promotional in that sense. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Masem — To be clear, the Chile national team example above doesn't violate WP:NOTDIR? I've seen these upcoming fixtures sections in a number of national team articles for soccer and rugby, but I haven't seen them in club team articles. CUA 27 (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Pre-RfC discussion about adding "excessive examples" to WP:INDISCRIMINATE
I've previously made an RfC and was surprised by the opposition from what seemed would be a widely-supported proposal. I'm pre-re-listing it here with some modifications to gauge support and see if I should re-list it.
Pre-RfC discussion about adding "excessive examples" to WP:INDISCRIMINATE
5. Excessive listings of examples. Any example in an article that's not a stand-alone list should include sources that establish not only the example's verifiability, but also establish, discuss, or illustrate its significance in the context of the article.
This discussion about "in popular culture" examples on WP:V led me to make this proposal; previously I early-closed it because of apparent consensus against it. The rationale behind the proposal is that it will improve article quality by limiting examples to the best ones, setting a higher bar for examples than mere verifiability. Stand-alone lists are exempt, while prose articles would need citations not only that the example exists, but also of its significance. The reader benefits from prose that's concise, while completionists can still list everything that's verifiable.
Significance is verified both by the type of sources that give them, and by the description of the example in the sources. Significance may be due to the example being presented as highly illustrative of the topic, or used by a prominent or authoritative source, or prominently featured in texts on the subject, or said to be critically acclaimed, or prominent in some other way as described by the source. for example the majority of modern examples in Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln are not frequently mentioned in sources that discuss Abraham Lincoln). Poor sources are relatively easy to identify too; listicles, for example, give a lot of examples but rarely if ever discuss or illustrate the examples' significance, and in general print any example with little to no editorial oversight. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not keen of content guidelines that depend on the writing style of the article where they're applied - i.e. whether the article is "prose" or "list", which is sometimes too grey-area to decide (is Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln a standalone list article? I would definitely say "yes", but others may disagree).
I think a guideline like this should be more concerned with selecting the best examples available, which depends on the number of existing examples for the topic. In areas with very few examples, the rule should be more permissive than in articles with lots of them; in the first case, I think plain verifiability should be enough, while for topics with hundreds or thousands of examples, requiring some significance for including high-quality examples is reasonable (at least for the items to be included in the main article, while still allowing the least significant to be included in a WP:SPLIT article if this exist).
For a proposal that expands WP:IINFO, I find that I dislike it less than I would have expected. It sort of approximates current practice with respect to example lists, in the direction that many editors mean when they link to WP:IINFO; and it can be read in reverse to support inclusion of examples that do have significance (although this part should also be spelled out).
However, defining a single criterion in the guideline for all possible situations seems excessive; I would make it more flexible, allowing it to be adapted case by case. In practice, what happens in articles that work well is that editors agree on some consensus, to determine an inclusion criterion for acceptable examples, and then allowing any item that passes the criterion. But the nature of the criteria should be left open in the guideline.
I would craft something like this:
Version B
5. Listings of irrelevant examples. Lists of examples should have a set of inclusion criteria, defined by consensus for the topic at hand in order to establish, discuss, or illustrate the significance of each example in the context of the article, and which are deemed sufficient for the example to be included in the list. Examples that don't meet the criteria should be deleted or moved to an article where they are more relevant.
The use of "Irrelevant" instead of "Excessive" is deliberate. "Excessive" implies that the amount of examples shown should be weighted primarily with respect to the size of the list, but limiting the number of items in this way is contrary to WP:NOTPAPER. Since WP:INDISCRIMINATE is about removing information that is out of context, not about limiting information just because there's too much of it, "Irrelevant" looks more adequate. Diego (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that "excessive" is not the right term; "non-encyclopedic" is better.
Regarding consensus, examples are already being weeded out case-by-case through consensus, but this is the opposite of the WP:ONUS Wikipedia policy: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." This is often ignored by stubborn editors who put the onus on removing disputed content rather than adding disputed content. Examples without reliable sources that illustrate their significance like "In the music video for the comedy song Cold Dead Hand, one of The Eels members is dressed up like Lincoln" should be removed from prose articles by default, instead of added by default. List articles can have more permissive inclusion criteria that are stated in their lead section, which usually means mere verifiability through primary sources.
The distinction between prose and list articles already de-facto exists (see the Lincoln example); an article that lays out list inclusion criteria is a list article.
I don't like either "indiscriminate" nor "non-encyclopedic"; both words are impossible to define in any semi-objective way, so they can only be used in "I don't like it" ways in discussions. At least the concept of "relevant / irrelevant" is more focused, as it can be referenced to whether reliable sources cover the example in connection to the topic - i.e. it is relevant because some reliable source has written about its relevance. No RS is going to define an example as "encyclopedic".
I'd say that forming a consensus of what examples should be included is exactly what WP:ONUS is about.
Though the distinction between lists and non-list articles exists, my point is that it shouldn't be relevant to the examples included in a list that is not stand-alone, but included in a larger article.
I.e. a list would be defined by being a section with list-like inclusion criteria, not by having an article of its own. (BTW, do you consider Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln to be a list article or prose? It's still not clear if you intended it as an example of list article, as it can easily be seen as "prose with bullet points".) Diego (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S. The admonishment to forbid inclusion of all verifiable examples is unacceptable. If all reliably sourced examples are relevant, of course all of them should be included; a blanket prohibition like that, without any regard for context, is absurd and would never survive an RfC. And you're repeating twice the requirement of sources, the first referring to reliable sources (acceptable), and the second to third party sources (again, excessive detail; the nature of what sources are reliable is to be decided case by case).
5. Irrelevant listings of examples. Examples in stand-alone lists should have unambiguous selection criteria that are deemed sufficient for the example to be included in the list. Examples either in prose or lists must be verifiable with reliable sources that establish, discuss, or illustrate the example's compliance with the defined criteria. Disputed examples should be deleted or moved to an article where they are more relevant.
Both "indiscriminate" and "non-encyclopedic" are already used in the policy; they don't define anything. The policy for what should or shouldn't be included is elaborated beyond these terms.
You flipped around WP:ONUS. Not every verifiable piece of information should be included, the onus is on showing it should be included, not on showing it should be excluded. Don't know why you object to "not all verifiable examples must be included". This is already Wikipedia policy and it's simply sensible that a concise summary-style article will not include every single verifiable fact or example about the topic, only the "encyclopedic" ones.
The distinction between stand-alone lists and prose is relevant. Prose articles have "detail and clarification of context" while lists do not, which is why it's sensible to require "detail and clarification of context" or "reliable third-party sources that establish, discuss, or illustrate the example's significance" in a prose article but not necessarily in a list article.
Precisely because "indiscriminate" and "non-encyclopedic" don't define anything I think they should be excluded. In discussions they are typically used to mean "I don't like it", so it's best to avoid including them in more places of the policy, and instead use terms with at least a vague meaning with respect to content and references.
My concern is that what you wrote ("not all verifiable examples must be included") can easily be interpreted as "you can't include all verifiable examples"; while the way WP:ONUS is written makes it clear that there is no requirement to include all verifiable examples (i.e. "this does not mean that all verifiable examples must be included"), which is quite different from an overall prohibition to do it. You could convey the same meaning by changing it to "not all verifiable examples need to be included", which is closer to what WP:ONUS means.
My position here is this: defining a set of criteria for the examples that belong in the list is enough to establish the needed context for each item; therefore, creating the inclusion criteria for a list should be enough for individual examples to meet WP:IINFO if they pass the criteria. To be useful, this expansion to WP:IINFO should describe when it is acceptable to include examples, not only when those should be rejected.
Otherwise, you'll get squabbels over the inclusion of every example, and the guideline is useless. Sure, with my method you still could get disagreement over whether any item meets the defined criteria or not; but at least you will be arguing over something concrete, not just whether the example is "significant" or "indiscriminate"; and further refinements could be made in the long term to improve the list criteria, tending to fix the situation with criteria that are well-adapted to available information for each particular list.
If editors consider that reliable third-party sources are needed for items in a list, that should be defined as a requirement for that particular case, not mandated per WP:NOT. This policy is not the place to establish a single universal criterion that all lists (nor even "all embedded lists") must adhere to.
A wholesale requirement that all disputed pieces of content need to be referenced by reliable third party sources has never been part of content policies; the gold standard always has been whether a consensus can be formed to include the item. I'm just warning, trying to change WP:NOT to add this new strong requirement will instantly cause your proposal to fail. It is OK if this proposal is about expanding the guideline to reflect current practice; it is not OK trying to extend its scope to include new requirements that have always been contested. Doing the later will face much stronger opposition, which is what you experienced in your first RfC. Diego (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. I'll try making the wording as close to current policy as possible.
Thanks, that certainly looks better than the previous attempt. It still doesn't include my request that it should talk about when examples can be included (i.e. when WP:NOT ceases to apply), together with a reminder to use WP:CONSENSUS as the critical appliable policy; and I'm sure the wording will still evolve more if you post it as an RfC; but at least now it has a more solid basis. I would drop the very last sentence and leave just the part within the link; I don't see the need to reinstate WP:ONUS almost in its entirety, as it can be read at WP:V. The relevant part of WP:ONUS to this policy is the reminder that V does not automatically grant permission to include content (although WP:CONSENSUS does). Diego (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer that you don't. My arguments in this section explain why I think stand-alone and embedded lists should not be governed by different rules, which your proposal at part 2 still does, and why the guideline should also explain when including an example is considered acceptable, which your proposal does not do. Diego (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Take Al Pacino for example. Listings in Al Pacino's filmography have context and sourced explanations in the section above them so the they're not only merely verifiable. Al Pacino on stage and screen is a SAL and its selection criteria are (presumably) "stage and screen works (and videogames) featuring Al Pacino", so its listings are not only merely verifiable. The distinction between SAL and prose articles already exist in Wikipedia guidelines and practice, this addition to policy is not creating anything new. The addition explains exactly which listings are considered acceptable: ones with context and sourced explanations, or ones that follow the selection criteria of the SAL. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Pre-RfC, part 2
Pre-RfC discussion about adding "merely-verifiable listings" to WP:INDISCRIMINATE
This addition to policy helps fix or remove listings that appear "indiscriminate": lacking context and sourced explanations. Readers are often faced with lists of information of questionable significance—such lists need context. Mere verifiability is not adequate context, which is why explanations backed by reliable sources should be provided. The addition emphasizes the existing policies, WP:NOT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN, and WP:ONUS, and its wording is taken almost verbatim from these policies—however, since they're spread apart, they're often overlooked, so this addition collects the parts relevant to listings into one short paragraph. They're joined by selection criteria for stand-alone lists (and only the selection criteria, not the entire SAL MOS page), which is already almost universally followed. Navigational lists such as "see also" sections are explicitly excluded from needing reliable sources because there's no current consensus that I could find. BrightRoundCircle (talk)
Only that I will Oppose that version if proposed as such, for the reasons I stated above. It imposes new constraints on content, and does little to guide editors on when it's OK to include listings of information. I see no need to add new rules if that is the achieved effect. Diego (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Could you clarify which constraints are new (they're all already part of policy) and why "put in context with sourced explanations" and "selection criteria" are not clear guides? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
"Listings within prose should be put in context" is a new criterion, which further restricts how to write lists, and is not already in policy; otherwise you wouldn't need to expand INDISCRIMINATE to write it. The way it's written, selection criteria only supports excluding content that doesn't have it, not including content that has one. I feel that this addition will be used to delete a large amount of lists that currently are accepted as part of the project, and it's not doing enough to support cleaning up and expanding those lists instead of removing them.
Any addition regarding example lists should explain how INDISCRIMINATE relates to the core content policy of WP:PRESERVE, but by the way you word it you seem to be interested only on how some types of examples should be deleted. (You've summarized ONUS, but ONUS itself links to PRESERVE, which only allows removing content that can't be fixed, not merely that in bad shape).
Our previous discussion served to excise from your initial version any requirement that was too egregious, but the current form still doesn't include anything that makes the addition valuable to inclusionists / eventualists. Diego (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
"should be put in context" isn't new, it's straight from WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Prose, images, charts, statistics and more are dealt with elsewhere; they all need context too, but this addition deals with lists since they're overlooked.
"selection criteria only supports excluding content" - the opposite, selection criteria are for inclusion. You include what's in the selection criteria. If the items in a SAL match the inclusion criteria, they are included.
"[remove] content that can't be fixed, not merely that in bad shape" - I agree. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is about content that's "non-encyclopedic" as it were. If you provide "context with explanations referenced to independent sources" then you "fix" the list from being apparently indiscriminate.
A requirement for clear and unambiguous criteria is a hurdle that many lists cannot meet. It looks like only the first sentence of WP:LISTCRITERIA is reflected above. The second sentence of WP:LISTCRITERIA — which places an important modifier on the first sentence — is absent. In that respect, this could be understood as a significant change.
Also, if this were put into practice, would this spell the end of "See also" sections in articles? I don't think they would come close to passing muster under the formulation above. CUA 27 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately for those lists selection criteria (called "notable list topics") based on reliable sources is already a part of Wikipedia policy so if they cannot meet it they're already going against policy. Good call about the second sentence, I'll add it to the wording. And good call about "see also" sections. I couldn't find any policy regarding what goes or doesn't go into see-also sections, but I'll look some more and try to fix this. Very valuable input, thank you very much. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Having just left Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lifespan timeline of Presidents of Ukraine, I propose changing the wording of this section from Photographs or media files with no accompanying text (emphasis mine) to Photographs or media files with no encyclopedic context per the following sentence in the guideline. The spirit of the standard is not met simply by providing any accompanying text whatsoever, but by incorporating an image into something resembling an encyclopedia entry. The purpose of the guidance is that a new Wikipedia entry shouldn't be created simply for the purpose of hosting a file, and done in a way that adds no value other than the existence of the file itself available for public use. TimothyJosephWood20:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This might be a case where we want positive examples of good articles that focus on an image but include needed encyclopedic text. For example, in the same vein as that timelien would be Periodic table (large cells) which not just presents the table but also explains rational for it. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it would help to focus discussion on the "best" case example rather than the worst examples. Lifespan timeline of Presidents of the United States has been getting a steady 100+ page views per day, and it peaked at over 2,300 page view per day around the US presidential election.[2] These don't really seem to be "articles". They seem to be Deletes under policy. They are basically images with a caption on top. I also find it very peculiar why anyone would care about these overlapping lifespan charts. However I would really hesitate before casting a delete on the US one. It seems a lot of people are finding it useful for some odd reason. If the US one is a delete, then clearly we delete all of the pages of this type. If the US one is considered acceptable, then we may have to tweak the definition of an acceptable "article". I'm not an inclusionist or a deletionist. I'm torn on what to do about the US version. Alsee (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
All that would need to be done is to augment that page to have a table of the data with more precision (month and day) that the image is too unresolved to display. It would still be the "lifespan timeline" but given sufficient context to be more useful. Same case with the Ukraine one as well. Pictorial data is good but if can also tabulated, that absolutely should be done. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The line about WP:NOTGENEALOGY ("Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.") is not very informative to me. Could somebody please explain, preferably with examples, what is ok and what is not? The article "Alids" is why I am asking this, if anyone wonders. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
In general, you can tell if something is "appropriate" or not for inclusion by the amount and quality of reliable sources that cover it. In this case there is a substantial amount of reliable sources (because genealogy is important for monarchies) so it's fairly clear it's appropriate.
A different issue with the article is that there's very little context outside of the genealogy trees, so the reader (in this case, me) can't work out, for example, why the Safavids genealogy is important if "there is no independent documentation that supports it". In fact the Safavids article provides several reliable sources written by historians that the genealogy claims are unsubstantiated. This means the Alids article is probably giving undue weight to unsubstantiated claims under the justification of completeness. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@BrightRoundCircle: Thanks, but I was actually looking for what a "genealogical entry" is and what sets it apart from an encyclopedic article. Perhaps I should have been more clear (the irony...). --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that has to do with notability. If the article consists only of a non-notable person's genealogy and nothing else, it should be deleted. In this case the topic of Alids is clearly notable because of the abundant high-quality reliable sources about it. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
@ BrightRoundCircle: Notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia (WP:NOTABLE). I do not think that your suggestion an improvement. One only has to spend a few minutes looking at some of the entries for unimportant European continental nobility to see that. Wikipedia contains dozens of articles that only exist because of some geological connection with someone else who may nor may not be notable. In those cases the "only in a balanced proportion to their overall significance to the article topic." is true because there is nothing else "significant[snip] to the article topic." Some editors are notorious for creating such articles. Perhaps a good place to start would be with a now banned user User:LouisPhilippeCharles (articles created) and this biography: Charlotte de La Marck. She warrants a sentence in her father's, mother's or husband's biography (if any were notable enough to have an biography)! -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course I agree, this can't exempt articles from being notable. The important part is changing "appropriate" to "balanced proportion". If nothing else is significant other than a passing mention in a genealogy tree, then the topic isn't notable, or am I missing something? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Because of increasing problems with excessive statistics, I believe that the sentence "Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context" needs stronger emphasis and so I've amended it to "Any statistics must be accompanied by explanatory text providing context" (i.e., "should" → "must"). I know several projects have the NOSTATS issue but it has become particularly bad at WP:CRIC and we have recently AFDed numerous "articles" that are nothing more than lists of bare statistics without any context other than perhaps a short intro that does nothing more than summarise the statistics.
WP:IINFO is a very important policy/guideline that if broken, as is it so often is, undermines the site's credibility. I am happy to discuss this change but I have been WP:BOLD at the outset and implemented it. It can always be reverted if there should be a WP:CONSENSUS against and I would accept that, but I strongly believe we must combat this growing trend of passing off a list of bare statistics as an article. I should add, with regard to cricket, that even for someone like me who has lived with the game all his life, it is a very complex sport indeed: certainly in terms of its tactics, terminology and statistics. The statistical lists we are deleting even confuse us and must be absolutely meaningless to non-cricket readers. Thank you. Jack | talk page13:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd argue very strongly that the example you give us absolutely needs at least a sentence (for now) before the table to place the table in context. At the end of the season I'd certainly like to see a prose summary written to highlight some of the more important statistics from the table - most goals, most appearances etc... at the very least. To leave it just as a table of statistics without any context would really worry me in the long term - especially bearing in mind that a non-specialist reader may well come to the article and be confused by the table. I'd argue the same is true for the transfers (which, frankly, I'd expect to see dealt with in prose as they happen). I understand completely that sticking a bunch of stuff in a table is easier and fulfils an urge to have everything written down for some people, but I can look up those sorts of stats elsewhere if you give me a link. What I really want to know is what's important in them. You need to write prose to tell me that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I think making "should" to "must" can be problematic. I could see it taken that lists of stats that are written in summary style from a very large target, where there's minimal prose on the list, could be see as afoul. It is better to handle these case by case, rather than require something. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
In my view, this change over-emphasizes the point. While WP is primarily factual information presented in a narrative style, there are many instances (and sports throw them up all the time) where the facts are most conveniently presented as stats, and the stats are most accessibly presented in tabular form. As WP:NOTSTATS currently reads, it warns against making factual information inaccessible in the form of impenetrable stats, and that strikes me as wise. I see no need for a change. Johnlp (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
My initial reaction is also to oppose the proposed change. For most statistics that appear in articles, a good table with proper section headings (and perhaps a key or legend) should provide a sufficient framework for the average reader to understand. Some additional accompanying explanatory text is preferable, of course, but the problem with turning should into must is that is gives license for the well-intentioned but over-zealous editor to remove tables that lack the "required" text.
I am interested, however, in learning more about the observations raised by User:BlackJack of the "increasing problems with excessive statistics" and "this growing trend of passing off a list of bare statistics as an article." I'm not aware of those problems on topics on which I regularly edit. Even if those observations are true, it is a problem that would be solved by changing the guidance here, or is the issue adequately addressing by enforcing existing guidelines and policies and using good editorial judgment? CUA 27 (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@CUA 27: Hello, I can best refer you to WT:CRIC and the AfD invitation posts there about multiple articles which breach NOTSTATS. About thirty or more have already been deleted and there are still several in AfD. Thanks. Jack | talk page13:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why this is any different from any other failure of style and presentation, and I fear that this page is becoming something of a backdoor for stylistic policies that really belong in MOS, if they belong anywhere. EEng07:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Proposal withdrawn. I don't think there is going to be any clear consensus on this so I'm happy to withdraw my suggestion and retain the current proviso that "Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context". We can, of course, continue to deal with the rogue cricket articles on an individual basis, especially as the bulk of the bare stats ones have now gone (I see in my watchlist that ha;f a dozen more were deleted overnight). Thanks to all for your contributions. And Merry Xmas . Jack | talk page12:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
NOTSTATS (again)
The current explanation of NOTSTATS is internally inconsistent. The paragraph suggests that articles should not contain statistics that are "excessive" or "lengthy"; the paragraph then goes on to explain how best to present lengthy statistics, which is basically to follow WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY, even those are not linked in the explanation. I propose revising the paragraph along the lines below. The proposed rewrite does not provide inconsistent advice, and gives the reader helpful links to split and summary.
Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context or placed in tables to enhance readability. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article United States presidential election, 2012 have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012).
Just sending out another note to see if there were any objections to my proposal above to NOTSTATS. To recap, the proposed change would remove the internal inconsistency and add links to WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT. CUA 27 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Seeing as how no opposition materialized over the past week, I have made the proposed change. Feel free to discuss here if anyone has any questions. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with removing the guidance that long recitations of statistics reduce readability, which can be the case even with accompanying context or explanation. isaacl (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Isaacl — I don't think I follow your comment. The revised version still acknowledges that length can reduce readability ("Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article ..."), and then gives guidance on how to deal with that situation. If I'm missing something, please take another shot at explaining. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Your changes specified that "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability", whereas the previous guidance did not qualify this but simply said "Long recitations of statistics reduce readability". Context or explanation does not necessarily mitigate the issues with the inclusion of lengthy statistics in all cases. isaacl (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
You changed the bold heading to "Excessive listing of unexplained statistics" and the first sentence to qualify the type of statistics that reduce readability. Accordingly, the reference to "statistics" in the second sentence will be interpreted as a reference to "unexplained statistics" in the heading and the qualified "statistics" in the first sentence. This changes the meaning of the guidance. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The previous formulation of the guidance mentioned two possible issues with stats — the sheer length of stats, and stats that are unexplained. I changed the bold heading to reflect those two issues, as I thought the previous bold heading inadequately summarized the paragraph. In my formulation, the second sentence goes to the unexplained issue, and the third sentence goes to the length issue. They go to two different issues, not to be read in the way you are interpreting them. CUA 27 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The change to the heading only covers excessive listings that are not explained; it no longer covers excessive listings that are explained. Perhaps it would be better to separate these two into separate list items? isaacl (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to break it into two, as all the material in here applies to stats. To the extent you are bothered by a perceived increase in emphasis in unexplained stats vs lengthy stats, I must say I'm surprised; my my review of this and related talk pages, as well as various AfD discussions, it seems that it is unexplained stats is what drives wik editors batty. (See, eg, Noyster's comment below re sports stats that don't even tell you what sport is being discussed). CUA 27 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@CUA 27: Sorry for the delay in responding; I was unavailable for a bit and lost track of this thread. It comes up often with articles on sports figures: some people want to replicate the stats tables from the league web sites, while others think Wikipedia is better off letting third-party sites deal with this, particularly since they can use databases that are more suitable for this type of info. isaacl (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for implementing this CUA 27. A slight problem I see is that the way it reads now suggests that any stats without attempt to give context are OK if formatted as a table. I'd want to change "or" to "and" in statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context or placed in tables... The unadorned listings of results that are the sole content of many sport articles are mostly given as a table, but that's of no help to the reader who isn't even told which sport they were playing: Noyster (talk),11:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Noyster — Thanks for the feedback. I'd be happy to revise to improve further. One possible ambiguity I foresee: Would readers interpret this guidance to mean that (1) the article should have explanatory text or that (2) each table in the article should have explanatory text? The example given in the guidance Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 suggests that #1 is acceptable (maybe not preferable, but at least acceptable), but I wanted to check to make sure we are in agreement, and if so, whether there is a better way to word it or to make the change exactly as you propose. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
CUA 27 I wouldn't insist on every table having a piece of text nestling right up against it. What I would want to see is any article or section containing stats to tell the reader what the stats are about and what their main message is. How and where this is done will vary from case to case. Text is important but so are section headings, table titles, row & column headings, bolding, colour and links. Perhaps we could leave out the part about tables and say something like Where statistics are displayed, their context and meaning should be made clear to the general reader: Noyster (talk),17:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Re the sentence you have flagged, how about changing the second half of that sentence to read: "accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." This formulation addresses the and/or issue you flagged, while still hues quite closely to the language of the original formulation, and providing the reader with more clear guidance. CUA 27 (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This addition to policy helps fix or remove listings that appear "indiscriminate": lacking context and sourced explanations. Readers are often faced with lists of information of questionable significance—such lists need context. Mere verifiability is not adequate context, which is why explanations backed by reliable sources should be provided. The addition emphasizes the existing policies, WP:NOT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN, and WP:ONUS, and its wording is taken almost verbatim from these policies—however, since they're spread apart, they're often overlooked, so this addition collects the parts relevant to listings into one short paragraph. They're joined by selection criteria for stand-alone lists (and only the selection criteria, not the entire SAL MOS page), which is already almost universally followed. Navigational lists such as "see also" sections are explicitly excluded from needing context and reliable sources because there's no current consensus that I could find. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the provided text is not clear enough — It would greatly benefit with the addition of this sort of clarification:
Original proposed alternative
5. Merely-verifiable listings of information. Listings beside or within prose should be put in context with sourced explanations (navigational lists are excepted). Stand-alone lists should either have clear selection criteria that's unambiguous and supported by reliable sources, or inline citations for each item. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Topics are limited to a certain level of detail, factoring in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. If an article gives examples of something, the choice must be substantiated. That someone simply listed them does not automatically mean that we must copy this list into Wikipedia. Examples must be most prominent cases, or of unique character, or of defining contribution, etc. The remaining ones must be referred to in "List of ...". Reasonable exceptions may be found in most topics outside the realms of culture, aesthetic, or the humanities which often depend on arbitrary examples in order to effectively illustrate their subject (i.e. Equation, Algorithm, Cryosphere, Mammal).
Topics are limited to a certain level of detail, factoring in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. If an article gives examples of something, the choice must be substantiated. That someone simply listed them does not automatically mean that we must copy this list into Wikipedia. Examples must be the most prominent cases, of unique character, of defining contribution, or otherwise encyclopedically relevant. The remaining ones must be referred to in a "List of ..." article, if they meet the article's inclusion criteria. Reasonable exceptions may be found in many topics outside the realms of culture, aesthetics, or the humanities, where they depend on arbitrary examples in order to effectively illustrate their subject (i.e. Equation, Algorithm, Cryosphere, Mammal).
[3][4] are problems. Some templates that address it are {{Specific}}, {{Refexample}}, {{Examplefarm}}, and {{Importance example}}. There is no one specific policy to reference with this issue — It's a combination of:
WP:BALASPS (An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject)
WP:ONUS (While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.)
WP:DETAIL (Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points. Others need a moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points)
WP:LISTCRITERIA (Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence.)
Support Ilovetopaint's version. This makes the existing criteria for lists clearer, which will lead to improvements to articles. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
While Ilovetopaint is trying to broaden this RfC into a continuation of that discussion, the scope of this RfC is actually far narrower exactly for the reasons you give (among others). Framing it as a continuation of that discussion is inaccurate; I've been discussing this topic for at least six months, and this RfC specifically for over two months. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
My rationale is mainly with regards to topics of history, culture, or aesthetic, where there is (almost?) always a "prominent example" to cite.[1] I don't think this policy should be applied to fields of science or mathematics, like the example presented in the lead for Equation.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deceptive cadence: "One of the most famous examples is in the coda of the Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582 by Johann Sebastian Bach."
Theremin: "The Beach Boys' 1966 single "Good Vibrations" – though it does not technically contain a theremin – is the most frequently cited example of the instrument in pop music."
Arthropods in film: "Arguably the most well-known animated insect is Jiminy Cricket."
French new wave: "Some of the most prominent pioneers among the group, including François Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, Éric Rohmer, Claude Chabrol, and Jacques Rivette, ..."
Experimental rock: " Author Doyle Greene identifies the Beatles, Frank Zappa, the Velvet Underground, Plastic Ono Band, Captain Beefheart, and Nico as "pioneers of avant-rock", though also noted "proto-prog" bands such as Pink Floyd and the Soft Machine as an influence."
Support shorter version. I utterly fail to see how the longer one clarifies the shorter one. Which lists does the longer text have in mind? Are Beatles listed in "concept album"? is "Concept album" listed in "Beatles"? If one has to clarify a policy item with an example, it must be taken from an existing or hypothetical WP article, as well as a comparison what is good and what is bad. But in this case the larger text belongs to MOS, rather than content policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
At the same time the shorter version does require clarification. Not only wikipedia, but "reliable sources" often produce "random" lists of examples, probably out of the writer's head: "1950s witnessed the popularity of AA, BB, CC, DD...". IMO MOS:LIST must have an advice of something like that:
If an article gives examples of something, the choice must be substantiated. That someone simply listed them does not automatically mean that we must copy this list into wikipedia. Examples must be e.g., most prominent cases, or of unique character, or of defining contribution, etc. The remaining ones must be referred to List of ....
Enh, I dunno. So with "Listings beside or within prose should be put in context", you are proposing to disallow formations such as "An X is such-and-such. And here are some examples of X: Foo, Bar, Baz [refs]." While I guess this would be allowed: "An X is such-and-such. Foo is an emblematic example of X because such-and-such, and Bar is because such-and-such, and Baz is because such-and-such [refs]". I don't see what's so wrong with the first. I guess the second is better, but better is the enemy of good enough, and I'm leery of admonishing editors to not include somewhat useful information if they can't come up with very useful information right away. Examples, even stand-alone, can be useful to helping a person understand a concept. (If I'm misreading the intent of the passage, then the passage is poorly formed.) Herostratus (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right, it's a lot like tagging unsourced information with {{cn}} versus removing that information. A contextless list can be better than nothing, though if the listings are relevant it should be easy enough to contextualize them. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose (invited by the bot) I agree that some changes are needed regarding lists, but this is unworkable. Saying that one can never put in a list without a sourced explanation of that very list is absolutely unworkable. Sources do not write about Wikipedia articles, so an editor could never make even the smallest listing of items unless it is copied from elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I just hit "Random article" and the first hit has an example, the second list (ones named after him) at Haydon_Warren-Gashwould be flat out illegal to put in under the above. Regarding WP:LISTVERIFY, there are hundreds of things in it and overall it looks workable. I don't know if there is a problematic item amongst those 100's. Did you have a particular item in mind with your question? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the question is "does an article about a lepidopterist need context for a list of species that they described?" Some list items are so trivial that they don't require any context... BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Cool. I'm not sure exactly what context for a list would mean. There's criteria for inclusion which should of course be described. After that, a list might be used closely related to some text in the article, or it could be information itself, or, with expansions on each list item, it may be a way or organize content.North8000 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose although desirable, I don't think we need to have this in a policy. The proposal really relates to content found in an article, rather than what a whole article is. A bare list could be expanded as suggested, but the proposal does not really determine whether or not a list on the topic is something that we should NOT have. Instead for lists we need some other kinds of rules, eg that someone else has published something on the topic that this is a list of. examples could include List of black superheroes can exist because there is a Museum of black superheroes, but List of green superheroes does not exist because no one has written about it (or perhaps no Wikipedian want to make it up). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Support Ilovetopaint's version, but a) remove "of something" in "examples of something" (it's redundant), and b) with minor copyedits to the MOS#Examples addition: "Topics are limited to a certain level of detail, factoring in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. If an article gives examples of something, the choice must be substantiated. That someone simply listed them does not automatically mean that we must copy this list into Wikipedia. Examples must be the most prominent cases, of unique character, of defining contribution, or otherwise encyclopedically relevant. The remaining ones must be referred to in a "List of ..." article, if they meet the article's inclusion criteria. Reasonable exceptions may be found in many topics outside the realms of culture, aesthetics, or the humanities, where they depend on arbitrary examples in order to effectively illustrate their subject (i.e. Equation, Algorithm, Cryosphere, Mammal)." — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Now at the halfway point of the traditional 30 days, support doesn't seem strong enough to change Wikipedia policy, and the issues raised by Herostratus and North8000 are not addressed by the current suggested wording. I believe with the correct wording, "merely-verifiable information" can be made part of Wikipedia polcy, and important progress was made in this RfC. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, or perhaps more precisely, "unable to support at this time". It's not an unreasonable goal. However, (a) I question whether we actually need to document this, since editorial judgment and common sense can handle this, and (b) as currently written, it's unclear and will cause disputes. I don't know, for example, whether this is meant to include or exclude lists of famous alumni (very typical content for articles about universities), how to handle a {{main}} summary of a stand-alone list, or other things. For that matter, I'm not sure what exactly is supposed to count as "a sourced explanation". If I've got a source that says Disease X is portrayed in popular culture, then can I include several examples of it being portrayed in popular culture, or is this meant to prohibit inclusion of any examples except the ones that are named in that source (therefore excluding all examples that post-date that source, are in languages unknown or uninteresting to that source, etc.)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The current standards work, and their interpretation at AfD is consistent.As WhatamIdoing says, the exact language is critical--the current language has a known interpretation, & the new language could be interpreted in such a way as to remove a surprising number of lists. There's real problems with wording like m "Examples must be e.g., most prominent cases, or of unique character, or of defining contribution, etc." To first say "Must", then qualify it by "such as " and "etc." doesn't clarify anything--the debates will be over what fits into the etc. DGG ( talk ) 15:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know that "WP:Wikipedia is not therapy". However, I was not familiar until a few months ago that Wikipedia is not compulsory. I have never seen one person asking about or discussing "compulsory". To me, it doesn't strike me as punitive or anything. Rather it's an attempt to tell a person to adjust to other real-life activities or something and not spend too much time on Wikipedia. If that's not it, what does "Wikipedia is not compulsory" mean, and what are examples? --George Ho (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It means you can't force another Wikipedian to work on Wikipedia (i.e., this is not their job). I see this sometimes used when an editor says something like, "I expect an answer from you within 24 hours." --NeilNtalk to me22:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes and yes and no:-). There is a subtle difference in "I expect an answer" and "You are expected to answer <or else>". As for George's question, I believe the issue was not about policy, but rather his language comprehension and yes, we answered, but no we did not receive a confirmation that the answer was satisfactory (but we will be safe to assume this conclusion after about... <looking at my wristwatch> 52 hours :-) . (A funny quirk of English grammar makes me write "yes" both as a disagreement and as an agreement :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I recognize that Wikinews is a very low-volume sister project that hasn't gained the same attention as en.wiki, however, I dispute the notion that it is so dead as to not mention its existence. We have a serious problem with too many editors jumping to right about current events before there's any way that NEVENT can be properly applied that we need Wikinews visibility more than ever, and NOT#NEWS is exactly the place to have it. Until the Foundation shuts it down, we need to refer people towards that to maintain NOT#NEWS. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I have to disagree. I would agree it were a new striving project and we wanted to help it get more traction. However no point in beating a dead horse: the project had its time already. More then wikipedia, wikinews is prone to be a vehicle for fake news, because I seriously doubt it will ever have a rigorous oversight. Once it gets even 10% of wikipedia's visibility, it will become an easy prey of trolls and jokers (now they don't care there, because no seen, no glory). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
We would not include Wikinews if it was a "new" project just to help give it traction. It was created by the Foundation, and until the Foundation says its time to pull the plug, it should be considered a viable outlet. It may be prone to fake news, but so is en.wiki, but that's also an issue addressed by the relative volume of the project - its much easier to patrol Wikinews with only a few editors while the same requires a massive undertaking on en.wiki. And it seems silly to deride a project on the basis that it will attract vandals when it gets large enough -- that's been the problem for any open wiki, much less those of the Foundation, from day one, and it is a problem that comes with the territory. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia, and WMF is not the final say unless it is a legal issue. I've just looked at its main page and already despise it. I am not Trump's fan, but the wikinews article title "U.S. federal judge halts Trump's ban on refugees, people from Muslim countries entering U.S." makes me cringe. Of course one can make it less partisan. But I don't like the idea of sending potential wikipedia contributors to some sinkhole of political debate. I say, let them debate here and make wikipedia more neutral. Why Wikipedia must worry about Wikinews? It is long been known that interests of Wikipedia and WMF diverge more and more. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
But we do not want people here writing like this is a newspaper, that's the whole point of NOT#NEWS. (And I would argue there's just as much problematic bias on en.wiki if not more, it is just a matter of which stone you overturn. Wikinews may have its own problems, but we have just as many if not more). Get more people involved in Wikinews and you improve the quality of Wikinews, and help en.wiki by offloading news events that have not yet shown clear NEVENT notability. If you hide that Wikinews exists in the most relevant places, you make the problems worse on both sides. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
re: "But we do not want people here writing like this is a newspaper" -- Yes, but this does not mean "we don't want people here who are writing like this is a newspaper". We have to cherish people willing to write for free at all, and rather than sending them elsewhere, we must educate them. For example, if they like adding info from paint-fresh newspapers, tell them to dig and process "yesterday's news", do some research on whether the "old news" was not just a flick, and put the findings in a summarized, encyclopedic way. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
We've tried that, that's why NEVENTS was made to help provide the guidance a few years ago. It helped to stem the amount of current event articles but nowhere close to the effectiveness needed, and as of late there's more and more problems results from the current political cycle that generates a lot of sensational news topics that do not make for appropriate encyclopedic topics in the long run, but are perfectly suited for Wikinews. Yes, we want to retain editors here that can write both encyclopedically and journalistically even if they contribution to Wikinews, that's why the language in NOT#NEWS is based on the topic, not the editor "Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews". It is not written to drive the editor way. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I suspect a good deal of people who "write journalistically" simply like to write about events, and trying to direct them towards "retrojournalism" (see belo) before sending them off might be a better idea. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Here is an algorithm for "retrojournalism":
Pick a splashy headline from 5 years ago
Check whether wikipedia covers it.
If yes, expand the article
If no, check whether it was still remembered 4 years ago
If yes, write up a wikiarticle, since you already have at least two reliable independent referenced
If no,
If you are stubborn do more digging, rinse, and repeat.
Again, the language of NOT#NEWS pointing to WikiNews is not saying "if you are journalisticly inclined, go there instead". It is based on the topic, if it is too "news-y" than encyclopedic, that they should use Wikinews write about it instead. (I do note we do say "WP is not written in news style" but that's more MOS advice, and still not meant to drive off jouranlistic writers). --MASEM (t) 01:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems fairly evident that there is no apparent harm in promoting Wikinews, while there is the perhaps unlikely put potential harm of not doing so, in the case that the project, if actually dead, may one day be resurrected by, lord knows, the mountains of editors that are directed there from this page. So it appears that we have a solution with no problem. It's not as if the plug for Wikinews is a substantial burden that the readers have to overcome. TimothyJosephWood23:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
But if the harm you identify is a harm that would be solved by having more editors directed to the project, which it seems to be, then your objection makes no sense. TimothyJosephWood00:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea how active Wikinews is, but so long as it is at least somewhat live then I think we should unselfishly behave as a community-of-communities. It would be pretty obnoxious if sister projects started scrubbing links to Wikipedia because they were afraid of losing people to us. I say sister project links are fine where they are obviously relevant. Alsee (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Minor afterword: That wikinews headline isn't cringeworthy unless you read the comma as a semicolon and assume it separates independent clauses, but it doesn't; the part after the comma is the second of two in-series objects of "ban on". However, this doesn't alter your basic point. Mathglot (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
NOT SOCIAL MEDIA expansion?
We get a lot of people lately who come here as part of their job as social media people for companies or organizations, thinking WP is another platform to "get the word out" but this isn't really covered currently by this section. Before I just slapped soemthing in there I thought I'd look for some feedback/possible wording here first. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't have an immediate answer but I would suggest looking at the "NOTWEBHOST" section currently at the top of this page , started by Jytdog in Oct 2016 (in case it goes to archives) as I think there's some elements of the same problem. I agree we should not be seen as promotional and there's a certain balance between encyclopedic and promotional information. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Should already be covered in guidelines for article namespace (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) and for user pages (WP:UP#PROMO). Guidelines are less strict than policies, but I've seen plenty of user pages deleted under UP#PROMO, and COI edits to articles are usually very quickly spotted and reverted, many times resulting in lengthy bans. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This can be a problem, but also a source of useful edits. What about the pr/social media employee who corrects clear mistakes, updates the CEO, or expands the history section? All the faults such edits address are very characteristic of our articles. WP:COI certainly applies, and WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMO may do for burble about new products etc, but wording to catch the difference may be difficult. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Beelbebrox - I can't tell you how many company reps who work in social media come here thinking that WP is social media. The more clarity that we are not Facebook or a blog, the better. In this world awash with social media, people really do not grok this about WP and seem to get it less and less. (that comment was a big surprise , right? :) ) Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Subtle change to meaning
5 years ago, an editor changed the wording of the guideline on what not to do in a dispute - in good faith, it seems. That editor was later admonished and reverted for making changes to this page without consensus - but astonishingly, given its content, this earlier change was allowed to stand for 5 years!
This clause "do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content or policies" is (unintentionally, no doubt) the most absurd thing in a Wikipedia policy or guideline I've ever seen. It must be rewritten. Taken literally, it implies that if you steadfastly disagree with, say, a consensus to delete an article made based on a notability guideline, you are forever barred from trying to convince other editors to change that guideline in order to reverse that deletion decision on appeal. Directly contradicting what I was expressly told to do in a deletion discussion - try to convince other editors to change the guideline!
Not only that, it implies that if you think an article is notable, you should not add references to the article to demonstrate its notability while a deletion or other notability discussion is ongoing. Which is, of course, ridiculous.
It doesn't say either of the things you seems to think it says. It isn't that you can't try to open a discussion to ask that something be changed, it's that you shouldn't just go ahead and change it yourself just to make a point. I don't think it even implies the meaning you are taking from it, but if you can think of a better phrasing that expresses the same idea, please propose it here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually the current text does constitute nonsense. The full phrase is " do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content or policies, and do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." When your eye idly or tiredly scans the wikibuzzwords, you sometimes don't notice nonsense. In this case, the mentioned editor separated "making changes" from link to WP:POINT. In doing so it created nonsense statement: "do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content" (+ or policies). This plainly contradicts WP:BOLD. I admit when I was "scanning" this text, I read it "content of policies", which made sense to me. I fail to see how changing the content (not policies) can "advance someone's point" in disagreement. There is a well established policy that WP is not RS, hence WP article content in no way may an argument to advance a position other than to do something WP:POINTy; but in this case the whole sentence contains confusing redundancy. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, times and again people with agenda, when unhappy with opposition, jump right into policies to twist them to their like. Therefore I suggest the following minimalistic change:
I think that you analysis is well thought out and accurate, and that your proposed change is well thought out and a good one to make. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest a slight change to your proposed first sentence: Do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making unilateral changes to policies.isaacl (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The current wording added by the May 2012 change in the OP is fine. There is no reason to change it. The text has been accepted for several years because it highlights an issue which occurs occasionally, namely someone is involved in a dispute, usually spread over several pages, and the person tries to "clarify" a policy or guideline in a manner that supports their position in that dispute. What does adding "boldly" achieve? It does not matter whether the person is making timid or bold changes—they should not do it at all. If they are convinced the community has not wasted enough time on their dispute, they can propose a change on talk. There is always IAR as a fallback for the once-in-a-lifetime scenario when an undiscussed policy change by a participant in a related dispute would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This is how I have always understood the clause in question. I've seen it happen a couple of times, so I think an admonition against doing so, even if it needs to be worded more cleanly, is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that there are two issues with the current wording. As written it also appears to forbid making changes in article content to advance a position. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The reality is that (a) many, if not most, serious policy changes, are motivated by what lawyers would call an "actual controversy" - indeed, editors are wont to disregard appeals to purely hypothetical situations. So, if this guideline can be and is interpreted by some (e.g. me) as meaning that people with strong opinions who wish to appeal against a deletion decision are not allowed to challenge policy, and only "dispassionate", "objective" observers are allowed to directly participate in setting policy, by posting on the appropriate Wikipedia talk namespace pages, it will lead to people like me leaving Wikipedia in disgust, and a fundamentally dysfunctional Wikipedia bureaucracy. (b) policy and guideline pages are not, in general, fully protected. If it was forbidden in general to change policy and guideline pages boldly, why are they not simply fully protected?--greenrd (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
You are allowed to change it boldly. This guideline does not forbid this. It advises do not go for it boldly amid a battle, because invariably your opponent will revert you, assuming that you are POV pushing in the heat of the fight. Not to say that a policy discussion amid a drama will only increase the drama. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure if Johnuniq is aware of the Wikipedian-jargon meaning of "bold", i.e. "editing a page without having a discussion on its Talk page first" (see WP:BOLD). Regardless, I think it's true that using the word "bold" in this context may lead to exactly that kind of misunderstanding - thinking that it means the ordinary meaning of "bold", when in fact it was intended to mean the Wikipedian-jargon meaning that I just gave. So I like isaacl's subsequent suggestion above.--greenrd (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I am unaware of many things but not the meaning of BOLD. Does anyone have a proposal? Does this discussion appear to show any kind of emerging agreement that a change would be desirable? What change? Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to apologise for the tone of my original remarks. I think everyone in this discussion, with the possible exception of yourself (I'm not sure I understand your position), agrees with the principles that it should be acceptable for an editor to propose a change to policy, but it should not be acceptable to BOLDly edit a policy in the midst of an active dispute. You and Staszek Lem also appear to believe it should not be acceptable for an editor to propose a change to a relevant policy in the midst of an active dispute, either - and I am happy to concede that point in the interests of getting the wording changed to be more clear. I am adamant that to me, the current text does *not* convey these subtle distinctions clearly, and Staszek Lem and North8000 appear to share my concerns. Everyone who has posted so far, except you, seems to be open to changing the wording. So I propose this modification of isaacl's proposal:
Do not try to advance your position in active disputes by making changes to policies, or advance your position in inactive/past disputes by making unilateral changes to policies. Do not disrupt Wikipedia just to illustrate your point.
Given that editors are often told in the middle of a dispute that if they want a new policy to be followed, they should change the policy first, I don't think this guidance should be altered to say that policies should not be changed during an active dispute. Participating in a discussion about a policy, or even proposing a good-faith change, during a dispute should be an available option. isaacl (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Are TV and radio program lists (example: 7flix#Programming) acceptable? Currently WP:NOTDIR item 4 says (with my emphasis here):
... an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable
"historically significant program lists ... may be acceptable" - implies that regular program lists are not, but the "should not" list mentions "current schedules" but not "program lists". (I would interpret "schedules" to include the days/times, which "program lists" would not.) Consistent terminology between the two halves of the sentence would make it clearer.
I dont see it as a problem. It's not a schedule, it's a broad stroke of the major programming by show type and name only, which can help the reader to guage the type of content the network airs. It would be comparable to something like List of programs broadcast by CBS. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The main difference is that most (all?) of those shows are original programming from CBS. There's a far better case for original programming than just a list of programs that originally aired elsewhere. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Mmmm. If the 'refdesk' was an editor, and those pages its userpages, the pages would have been deleted under U5, and the editor indef'd as NOTHERE. Now there's a simple solution. Shut down the time sink, and anyone who thinks it's that important can find other areas of... — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis22:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Why are exhaustive lists of, say, baseball and football players not avoided under WP:DIRECTORY? Pages such as this are very much inane and the subjects are often notable only for having played in a league. Just curious. New to Wikipedia. 2804:14C:658B:52B7:8955:78A9:B9B:3077 (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Clarifification of NOTCENSORED requested
Recently, a well-respected editor claimed that "WP:NOTCENSORED regards only our encyclopedic content",[5] implying that other content such as talk page comments and reference desk questions/answers can be censored to remove content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. (It may very well be that the specific content being discussed fits one of the exceptions to NOTCENSORED -- I am asking about the general principle of where NOTCENSORED does and does not apply.) I was under the impression that NOTCENSORED applies to all Wikipedia content. Which of our interpretations are correct? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
My mistake: "Wikipedia is not censored" appears below the subheading which clearly defines these policies as applying only to encyclopedic content, and previous discussions I've been involved in suggest that this caveat is meant to be interpreted literally, it thus specifically does not apply to talk page comments nor the reference desk or other non-article pages. I believe what you're looking for is WP:NOTFREESPEECH. I believe everything else I said holds up to policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of WP:NOTCENSORED is to allow full academic discussion of all topics, even those which some segment of the population may find offensive; it is not a license to be disruptive and to be intentionally offensive to people in a public forum for the main purpose of offending them, or with willful disregard for the likely offense your actions may cause, insofar as one's actions aren't primarily concerned with providing academic content in some way. Simply put: It is not permission to troll, it is not permission to continue to offend in conversations where reasonable offense has been noted, and it is not permission to use degrading or abusive language in discussions. It only means "If we have an article where we use words or discuss academic content which someone finds offensive, we're going to use those words or that content without regard for that offense." Some people find public discussions of sexual acts offensive, we still have articles on sexual intercourse. It doesn't mean we allow people to tell others "go fuck yourself" in discussions. --Jayron3216:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
First, NOTCENSORED does not even mean our articles themselves are free speech forums - they are encyclopedia articles in which we do regulate speech (writing) through our Content policies and guidelines (and, it is hoped, good sense) . Similarly, our non-article space are not free speech forums - we regulate speech (writing) there through our policies, guidelines, and conventions covering those areas. NOTCENSORED is rather limited in scope to discounting only one type of objection to article content (in general, "offense" is discounted) but even so, whatever its offensive nature may be, it has to be otherwise appropriate and appropriately presented (thus, regulated speech). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior opens with "When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good". This matches my long experience. I'd say that of people I've engaged with who invoked WP:NOTCENSORED, more than half are
People trolling for lulz.
People wanting to actually harm or embarrass the Wikipedia.
13 year old boys, or people with the mentality of 13 year old boys.
People trying to prove some point.
and some of the rest are morons. This isn't always true. I recall an interesting and cogent discussion at Sky burial over whether to include gruesome pictures of corpses being torn apart and eaten (part of the whole experience, I guess). It's an interesting question, how far our remit goes in this area, and reasonable people can disagree about that, and "well, we do not want self-censor ourselves unnecessarily" is a reasonable contribution.
But that's the exception. More than 50% of the time in my experiences it's about it's the trolls and the 13 year old boy mentality people. It is in the situation that bring you here. No, we are not going to let trolls set our agenda. No, we are not going to let trolls create an environment hostile to women, or to people of taste and character. No, we don't care how clever and disingenuous they are. (FWIW "I'm not being malign on purpose, I actually am so clueless that I can't understand when something is needlessly offensive", which may apply here to one involved editor, is not a useful defense here.) My suggestion is to drop it. Herostratus (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't care what some user put on his talk page, it's the people who complain about content who are up to no good. Whether they know it or not, any retreat from free discussion tears apart the whole concept, while inviting, nay demanding that "similar" compromises be made for every other special interest looking for things it dislikes to be banned. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The spirit of NOTCENSORED does apply to talk spaces in the sense that we do not prohibit discussion of topics or content that some people find offensive, where that serves an encyclopaedic purpose. For example it's fine to post pictures showing naked people at talk:Nudism as part of a good-faith discussion about illustrating the article, it is not fine to post pictures showing naked people at talk:Gadolinium. Similar is true at the reference desk - it's perfectly acceptable to ask and respond to questions about e.g. sexuality. In all things though, good faith is key and trolling is not allowed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Herostratus, I really have no problem with the removals you list above. People trolling for lulz, etc., are already exceptions to NOTCENSORED. What I have a problem with is people who have deep objections to anything critical of Islam or anything discussing human sexuality. Are we really saying that those individuals cannot censor such "objectionable content" in article space but can censor it on talk pages or on the ref desks? The recent refdesk censorship involved just such a discussion. Someone asked about telling natural breasts from artificial breasts by the way they, for want of a better word, "jiggle". There were some juvenile comments that in my opinion were rightfully removed, but a serious discussion about using shear-wave elastography to find breast cancer [6][7] was also censored simply because someone found any discussion about breasts jiggling to be objectionable. I really thought that the latter would be a good place to apply NOTCENSORED. If it doesn't apply to that sort of situation, we should change/clarify the policy so that it does, but without implying that other, disruptive edits are allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Is this yet another refdesk thread? Because if it is, I'd like to point out community expectations for refdesk posts and article talk posts are vastly different. --NeilNtalk to me19:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not so sure that they are. The different community expectations look a lot like a WP:LOCALCON to me. Where has the community as a whole been asked if users can censor the refdesks in cases where there is a strong opposition to them doing so? (Meaning that I am not in any way talking about the kind of trolling that would be deleted anywhere on Wikipedia). --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It is a gross error to claim that NOTCENSORED only applies to certain pages. The point of the "Encyclopedic content" main header is that all Wikipedia content is encyclopedic content. That doesn't mean it's all article space, of course. It means that all the content has a positive obligation to be, in some way, contributing to the encyclopedia. That includes a talk page discussion to decide whether to use an emdash or an ANI discussion about whether an editor can continue contributing, or a WikiProject coordinating volunteers or a newsletter covering events in the encyclopedia. It's all encyclopedic content. Now this positive obligation is the one thing required of all content; it's not censorship but anti-censorship, a common agreement of purpose. But if an editor is, say, trying to answer a question because we agree that having a refdesk to answer questions complements encyclopedic and educational function, then that is encyclopedic content. Any other opinion is based on a reading that didn't get past the header. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
No. Your claim that all speech must have an encyclopedic purpose is promoting a rule of censorship, whether you admit it or not. It's also based on original research, so must be banned according your reading of NOT policy. Thus, you are wrong about this policy, particularly NOTCENSORED, which itself explicitly says it is discussing articles. So, you do have to look to the page rules you are in (for example, as someone mentioned above where you might post naked pictures in one page, you cannot in others), and just know in general Wikipedia is NOTAFORUM -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
According to your interpretation rules like "not a soapbox" and "not a social media host" only apply to article space because they are also under "Encyclopedic content"! In general, is logic relevant to this discussion? Wnt (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Rather, what is needed is thoughtfulness, and not over-broad claims like your "encyclopedic content" - which maintains whatever stuff may fall out of your mouth is encyclopedic content. (Your argument can claim almost no logic, except, perhaps of the stilted variety). Your claims ignore the words of NOTCENSORED, which repeatedly refers to articles. And, no, you are wrong about, 'according to my interpretation' - I don't make the silly over-broad claims you do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Please find another website to campaign for free speech. And please accept that responding to silly refdesk questions merely encourages more, with ever-expanding boundary pushing. Just because someone can think of a clever response to a silly question does not mean the troll-magnet should be retained. Herostratus said all that is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
More refdesk garbage. The refdesk isn't really part of Wikipedia and the normal rules are out the window there. Refdesk issues should therefore be handled at the refdesk talk pages and not on project space noticeboards. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Treating refdesk as a "separate" area of WP with its own unique rules is a very bad idea, and potentially can lead to other subspaces of WP adopting their own rules for behavior. As long as it is hosted under en.wiki, the refdesk should at least conform to the same expected behavior we have for talk pages in general - CIVIL, careful adherence to BLP, no COPYVIOs, and the appropriate aspects of NOT, among others. Yes, the refdesk is less about improving the encyclopedia most of the time but it can do that some of the time, so it's an area to keep but we shouldn't be accepting of lowering standards that other parts of the project are expected to uphold on talk pages. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
As long as they are valid redirects and are not being listed in the shortcut box , they're fine, since they don't affect the visible rendering of the page. What we do want avoid is adding excessive links that are visible in the shortcut boxes, which we have had to trim down several times in the past. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that people start referring to the page/section in question using the shortcut, and it becomes difficult to remember that five different references are all to the same thing. isaacl (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Realistically, we want people only using the shortcuts we've provided; they've been selected in word choice to easily fit into discussion flow. eg "WP is WP:NOTCENSORED and we shouldn't remove this information if you feel disgusted by it." The others added aren't terribly far off, and they still make sense in this type of use. And of course as long as those redirects exist, the invisible anchors are fine. To get rid of these, we'd actually need to to an XFD on the redirects. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a problem witht heir existence, but I also don't think we should have such bloated link lists on the page itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: I wanted to ask what the basis for the addition of "good editorial practice would be to find a review of the book in a decent publication and add that as a reference" in order to add an entry in the "Works" section? Other than proof that the entry is based on WP:Reliable source, why does one need a review? I've never seen this practiced in "Works" sections. Mitchumch (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
A fundamental part of Wikipedia is that advocates like to add every possibly mention to an article (those on one side adding positive mentions, and those on the other adding negatives). Also, there are many stamp collectors who like to add every factoid to an article on the basis that more is better. Various WP:NOTxxx policies have been devised to slow down those attempts. If the subject of an article is known for their work which consists mainly of publications, it makes sense to list significant works (particularly if blue-linked). If a subject is known for something else, the fact that they wrote a particular work may not be significant. A good way to show that a work is significant would be to find a secondary source which reviewed the work with more than a mention. Drmies was merely describing standard procedure because the alternative would be to have enthusiasts dominate issues with edit warring based on an insistence that there is no policy that prohibits what they want. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
One thing to consider is that the issue around personal essays and writings, in contrast with books put out by publishers, films, songs, etc. is that the latter involve numerous people to prepare and release the work, while personal essays are one person's work, and should be inherently considered non-notable unless discussed in third-party sources. Same true with things like research papers, etc. That's where one can consider the notability line to be drawn for eliminating bibliogrphies. --MASEM (t) 02:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
"There is no mention of "notability" or "notable" in [...]" Correct. the "general notability rule" (WP:N) only applies to subjects of articles, not items within articles. However, I believe WP:IINFO strongly applies to lists of publications (ie bibliographies). Jeh (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
IINFO means that including a bibliography should only happens if the list is put in context as a whole, by explaining how the list of works is relevant to the article; for example, a list of books by a writer would require explaining the relevance of the work in the author's biography. IINFO doesn't mean that every individual entry needs to be referenced by a secondary reference, though. Diego (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Debate rages at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election in which both sides claim that their preference is what CBALL requires. The next UK general election is scheduled to take place in 2022, but may happen sooner. A review of constituencies has been mandated to come up with proposals for reducing the number of MPs from 650 (the current number) to 600: this is scheduled to be completed in 2018. Thus there is real uncertainty whether there will be 650 or 600 seats (or possibly another number, if the Boundary Commissions so propose) at the next election, depending on the relative timings of the election and the enactment of whatever changes the review might eventually result in. In the infobox at Next United Kingdom general election, there is a line that currently states that All 650 seats in the House of Commons will be contested, with a footnote that this might be reduced to 600. I believe that it would be more proper to state All seats in the House of Commons, with no number given but with a footnote mentioning the possibilities. I believe that this avoids making any presumptions about when the election will happen, and that it will never prove to have been wrong: I believe that it is speculative OR (CBALL3) and future history (if that means what I think it does) to remain with 650 in the hope/expectation that it will not change. My debators argue, if I interpret them correctly, that it is right to post 650 as the number because that is what it would be if the election were to be called tomorrow, and that CBALL would not allow removal of that figure while a change in it is only a possibility, and that I am indulging in speculation by presenting uncertainty into the infobox.
I have tried to be impartial in describing the debate, and hope I have represented their thoughts fairly. What would those with an interest in the CBALL policy propose? Kevin McE (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Giving my impressions out of this.
Kevin McE's proposal is that we should remove the number of seats for election from the infobox just because in the future it "may" not be such a number (and, as such, no number should be added because the current one may not be used, and the future one we don't know which one will be). Yes this is against both precedent in election infoboxes, as well as based upon a CBALL assumption. It's not clear 1) whether the next election will take place after the 2018 boundary review and 2) whether the review could not be postponed again and would result in an effective variation of the total number of seats (it's likely that it would, yet this is going CBALL).
User Bondegezou has instead added an explanatory footnote that sets out that the number of seats may be reduced if the boundary review is implemented, which satisfies both him and myself because it clearly explains the issue. Instead, Kevin McE is aiming for a removal of content and leave it just as All seats in the House of Commons, based on such a speculation that the number of seats may not be 650 in the future. Well, it's a possibility. However, we can't know when the next election will take place, yet we know what laws say now, and it's that the current number of constituencies is 650. No matter if the next election i's held tomorrow, within a month, or within twenty years: legally, it'll still be fought over 650 constituencies until it's said otherwise. And this is verifiable and not speculative.
The alternative proposal to his is that the infobox remains as it is, with the current footnote hinting at a possible change (which "may" happen, but doesn't justify an outright removal of content), and that if changes are done, then and only then have them in the infobox. Again, the number is 650 until laws say otherwise. And until legally it is established to be another number, the only reasonable way is to show what law establishes as verifiable right now. After all, Wikipedia is a work in progress. There's absolutely no issue with replacing the seat number in the event that it's changed. However, showing no seat number just on the grounds that, in the future, that seat number "may not be" the one used and that, as "we don't know which number will be used, then it's better to have none", just leads to readers being deprived of key information on the event. Impru20 (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I think Bertrand101 socks keep adding the not television guide and maybe to Bertrand101 to add unsourced info on Korean articles. Is Wikipedia not a television guide yet? 66.87.64.113 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
NOTESSAY
Hey all.
There is really no place that I have found that makes it clear really clear that Wikipedia articles are not like essays that a student might do for school in which they make an argument. (do you remember the 5 part format -- Intro/thesis statement, three arguments or chunks of evidence, conclusion/restatement of thesis?) I deal all the time with folks who want to add essay-like content and make arguments in Wikipedia. NOTESSAY comes kind of close to discussing this, but not really. I think a new item 4, after "personal essay", something like this? (very rough first draft)
4. Scholarly essay. Wikipedia articles are not scholarly essays. Such essays are written in dialogue with scholarship and cite sources, but they are written in order to make an argument, and they attempt to persuade the reader to accept the argument. People spend their grade school, high school, and college educations writing essays, but that is not what we do in Wikipedia. The genre here is encyclopedia article. We summarize accepted knowledge. We describe. See WP:TIGER and the related section below, WP:SOAPBOX.
That is no where said in our policies and guidelines, that I have been able to find. It is kind of covered in SYN but SYN is a bit different. This is about the genre. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
You are onto something and may be discussed. However your description of essays is not without fault. I suspect it is US-centric. Essaays are not only for argument/debate; they also may be for discovery. That said, I do agree that with the promotion of wikipedia as school assignment, I see more and more articles written in "student's style", and a shortcut to an advice would be handy. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Happy! Please keep in mind that "personal essay" is #3 - that is more of the "thought experiment"/discovery thing, I think you have in mind? Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Now that I was it it, I see that NOTESSAY and paratitle "Personal essays" are a bit misleading. I would suggest to rename "Personal essays" into "Personal opinions" (according to the actual text of the paragraph) and retarget NOTESSAY to the new section proposed. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
To understand what an essay is, please see our own article on the subject. As far as I'm concerned, a substantial encyclopedia article is expected to be an essay, i.e. a work of prose about a particular topic. WP:NOTESSAY says fairly clearly that what we don't want is "feelings" or "personal opinions". That's already covered by WP:NPOV and WP:OR so the section here is redundant and should be removed. Andrew D. (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
