Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 8

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Should these be modified?

Anonymous user:70.101.144.160 originally asked the following questions as a single post. They are really independent questions. I originally tried to answer them together. Since there seems to be a continuing discussion about each point, I've taken the liberty of breaking the discussion into the separate threads. I believe that will make it easier to work through the separate issues. If, in refactoring the discussion so far, I've changed the meaning or tone of anyone's comment, please fix it with my apologies. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

Should these be modified?

In section "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought":

"Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. ..."

But, once your material has been published and peer-reviewed, can't your write your own article on it provided you don't let your feelings get in the way, stick to what's published, and don't stick in new unpublished theories, arguments, etc.? If so, should this be reworded to say that you could also write the article yourself provided you adhere to applicable policy? If it's not so, should this state that?

70.101.144.160 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you published the article yourself, you are almost always too close to it to evaluate it fairly. Even if it were technically allowable, it would be a bad idea. Be patient and let someone else start the page. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that it is totally and completely IMPOSSIBLE ("impossble" as in "it's impossible to prove 1+1=3" kind of utter impossibility ie you just cannot do it no matter how hard you try) for the author to EVER describe it neutrally (or even close enough to neutral that other editors could "finish the job", so to speak), even if they tried to distance themselves as far as possible from it? And even if they did, would it STILL be "forbidden"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! If so, that is definitely stupid!!!! 70.101.144.160 22:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, our experience to date shows that if it's not absolutely impossible to be sufficiently neutral, it so close to impossible that it's not worth arguing over the difference. I can't think of a single case such as you describe that's turned out well. On the other hand, I can think of several cases where the original author ended up getting banned from the project (and many more where they voluntarily left the project) because they were fundamentally unable to live up to the required standards as it applied to their own articles. Original authors tend to have serious problems with ownership. If you wrote something that special, let someone else find it and write the Wikipedia article. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you're the only one who has published some theory, then it is not some standard, accepted knowledge. If it becomes that, then there would be other sources to use in addition. —Centrx→talk • 07:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


"Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known."

While the remainder of this article is perfectly clear, this sentence has rather fuzzy wording. It seems to eigther make a jump, contradict itself, or refer to something that is not mentioned explicitly, depending on how you read it. After reading it over and over again it starts to make some sense, but I'm still not 100% sure I understand it right. Could somebody please explain or, even better, make this sentence understandable on first reading? Thank you! RToV 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In section "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information":

"Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder."

However, if one has permission, license, etc. from the copyright holder to put the material here under the proper terms, one need not be the owner!!!!! This is misleading and should definitely be changed.

What do you think?

70.101.144.160 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The prohibition in the section on travel guides is required because Wikitravel is not licensed under GFDL. The original copyright holder is the only person who can release the information to the other project. Permission from the copyright holder to post the information here on Wikipedia does not automatically imply permission to post the same information on Wikitravel. This is in contrast to, for example, Wiktionary which is also licensed under GFDL. Content may be freely passed between those two projects. Specific permission from the original copyright holder is not required. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, what if the copyright holder does allow for the content to be posted on both? Then what?!?! Would it still be "forbidden" to post the travel guides on WP? If so, why? Are there other reasons that would remain as solid as ever regardless of copyright? If so, they should be included here. And why would information posted on Wikipedia _have_ to be posted on Wikitravel, anyway? Does it have something to do with the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information, perhaps even that it is not a free advertising service? 70.101.144.160 22:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I see the misunderstanding. Let me start over. First, we don't want travel guide-like material here because it is content that's not traditionally found in an encyclopedia. It's detail that the community has decided is simply inappropriate given our mission. It's a specific example under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". We are writing an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. Whether the copyright holder granted multiple permissions or not, travel guide-like content is detail that we don't consider appropriate in the encyclopedia.
The second sentence in that clause suggests an alternate home for that level of detail - Wikitravel. The section about license incompatibility is a caution not so much to the original contributor but to subsequent editors who may be cutting content out of the Wikipedia article in compliance with the first sentence of this clause. Often, such editors want to find a better home for that level of detail. With other GFDL-projects such as Wiktionary, the subsequent editor can freely move the content to the other project. Since Wikitravel is not GFDL-compliant, the subsequent editor must be sure that the copyright holder has granted permission before adding the content there. However, that's almost impossible to confirm for the subsequent editor to confirm unless he/she is the copyright holder. If you somehow knew that the copyright holder had already granted permission to post the content under Wikitravel's license, you certainly could post it there - but you could do that anyway. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

NOT a mommy or daddy.

Hi.

Perhaps this should be included?:

"Wikipedia is not a mommy or daddy. Wikipedia can be potentially harmful to children.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and one with a very broad scope at that. As such it can and does include information and images that may be disturbing or harmful to young children. Also, we cannot completely stop children from divulging personal information about themselves. We have some rules in place for that, but the potentially harmful images and information are still accessible to everyone and Wikipedia cannot see who is on the recieving end and the rules have loopholes to avoid destroying core Wikipedia freedoms. If we were to put measures in to prevent these things from reaching children, they would most likely prevent us from having an open encyclopedia. Since Wikipedia lacks the "all-seing eye of God" any measures put in place would have to make sweeping assumptions and restrict everyone's access rights, such as forcing paid accounts to use the encyclopedia. We want a FREE encyclopedia and "free" means both "free beer" and "free speech". Wikipedia is NOT a substitute for a parent and will not protect your children from harmful information. You have to do that. You are their parent, not us."

What do you think? 70.101.144.160 22:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like everything you suggest here is already pretty much covered under the section titled "Wikipedia is not censored", or elsewhere within the Wikipedia namespace. Additionally, I think it should be pretty obvious to anyone that Wikipedia is not a mommy or daddy and that children have the same access to it as adults. Wikipedia welcomes children, but like the internet in general, contains adult content. I think that all responsible parents know that such content exists on the internet and will do what they need to do and/or what they can reasonably do to keep their children safe. Adding a section to say that "Wikipedia is not a mommy or daddy" would not make parents any more responsible for what their children do on Wikipedia.

Andrea Parton 22:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But I'm thinking: parents might just assume this is like any other encyclopedia, ignorant of the diversity of topics it covers. So wouldn't a flat out, obvious statement (instead of innuendo and implications buried in other namespaces and pages) perhaps have a benefit? 70.101.144.160 21:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, no. Placing it under WP:NOT makes it as inaccessible to parents as burying it in other namespaces and pages. What makes you think that parents will stumble across this page while looking for information on how kid-friendly WP is or that they'll be able to look this page up without knowing the insides of WP? And if I remember correctly, biology textbooks and other encyclopedias do have pages of nudity (nude art, or anatomy) on them. ColourBurst 22:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a Bureaucracy

disscusion?--158.123.153.254 16:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy. What makes you think it is? 70.101.144.160 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not always correct

I propose the following additional entry in the project page, which I do not seem to be able to edit myself:

Wikipedia is not always correct as demonstrated by Nature magazine in 2005 and reported in the Daily Telegraph October 28, 2006 [[1]]. The blind peer review undertaken by the magazine concluded that "The average science entry in Wikipedia contained about four inaccuracies, compared with about three in Britannica." Britannica responded that "the survey was fatally flawed", and claimed that "dozens of inaccuracies attributed to Britannica were not inaccuracies at all."Abtract 22:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That content belongs at Wikipedia:Replies since it discusses general criticisms of Wikipedia, not an elaboration of what content is or is not appropriate in the encyclopedia generally. (By the way, that general criticism is already there.) Rossami (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion was not intended as a criticism but as a contribution to a page titled "What Wikipedia is not" - rather than "what content is or is not appropriate in the encyclopedia generally" . Since it has been demonstrated to be "not always accurate" (not difficult to guess, I agree), it seemed to me IMHO that this did indeed belong here since this is something that Wikipedia definitely is not.Abtract 08:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on Issue

There is currently a huge loophole in the WP:NOT section. It portends to forbid directories, guides, and schedules but allows reference tables. Currenty there are AfD's pending on whether a list of channels is a directory or reference table. The section should be clarified to explicitly state which category List of TV stations fit in. To me, it's obviously a directory, however, reasonable people can differ. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not censored" question

I was wondering about the Wikipedia is not censored section. I believe that Wikipedia should not censor anything that is necessary to an article regardless of what some people may believe about the said thing's morality, etc. However, who decides what falls under necessary and what is gratuitous? For example, some articles may be better off with photographs that could be considered questionable (such as the articles on reproductive organs). However some articles I come across have pictures that don't seem to be necessary to the article and it's not a matter of censorship as much as it is a matter of "is it really needed or is ONLY there for shock value?" I understand AND FULLY AGREE that Wikipedia should stay uncensored. However a lot of times I feel like some things may take advantage of this policy and aren't fully necessary. I think everyone knows the Bukkake article controversy, for example. But there are much more. I dunno, I'm just wondering. Please don't jump on me, I'm extremely opposed to any form of censorship, but I just was curious on who deems images as necessary and thus relevant, and who deems them as gratutious and irrelevant (and thus deleted not because of censorship but because they exist ONLY to shock and don't really help the article) --insertwackynamehere 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • We often have lengthy discussions of how best to illustrate such articles. These are generally held on the article's talk page. For instance, many sex-related articles use drawings rather than photographs. >Radiant< 10:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have had good luck with polite discussion. An editor added a beautiful photo of a naked woman to an article I watch. The photo was relevant, but added little to the article. After some discussion on the article's talk page, it was agreed to remove the photo. It is still available under the appropriate topic on Commons, however.--Srleffler 05:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency between this and WP:EL

This page says that including a single fansite listing is appropriate on some articles whereas WP:EL states that it may be appropriate. I reckon the latter is better as it allows for greater flexibility in a variety of situations. Does anyone else agree?-Localzuk(talk) 22:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

But this isn't specifically about sources. It is about external links. I would never allow a fansite to be used as a source (unless the info was incontrovertible).-Localzuk(talk) 10:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it makes sense for the two to be consistent - there's another contradiction at WP:TV: "Linking to one or two (at the most) major fansites is allowed, but keep it limited to those that really do matter. Things like forums or blogs should not be linked to." I assume an attempt to change that one would see some opposition, especially since many pages have links to two or more fansites. I don't really agree with the idea of a quota. I think it makes sense to just use WP's guidelines just like any other external links, if there is more than one that is appropriate I don't see why a reasonable number would be a problem. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I have altered this policy to say 'may be' to allow for flexibility - as not all subjects deserve fansite listings.-Localzuk(talk) 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference Material at Wikisource

This policy current distorts Wikisource's policy on reference material saying that it is accepted, which is not the case. It is only accepted as part of a larger source text. --Benn Newman 14:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that this is a distortion. As you say, Wikisource does accept such content if it is part of a larger source text. Whether or not a particular piece of content is permissible is something that any responsible editor would have to confirm under the then-current inclusion criteria for the target project. Your recent change to the WP:NOT page, on the other hand, tried to say that such content is explicitly excluded from Wikisource in all cases. That is not correct according to their own published standards. Rossami (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I cut out the specifics. People really should read the WS inclusion policy before putting anything over there anyways. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

WP != soapbox illustration

Wikipedia!=soapbox
Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

(At right) Good idea or bad idea? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No idea of the relevance! WTF has a race car got to do with the soap box? Thanks/wangi 18:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The illustration is of a soap box derby race car. A soap box derby is a downhill race between cars that are completely gravity-powered. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See here: Soapbox. --Holderca1 14:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that an illustration isn't necessary for this sort of thing, it misses the whole point of what a soapbox is. The term in this context isn't about the car, it's about actually standing on a box of soap and using it as a makeshift podium from which to yell your message. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Three content policies, not four

This is not a content policy, in the sense of NOR, V, and NPOV, which are the core content/editorial policies. If you look at NOT, everything it says about content, rather than behavior, is premised on NOR, V, and NPOV. For example, this section: You're not allowed to engage in propaganda or advocacy of any kind (but you are, so long as you stick to the three content policies); you're not allowed to self-promote (but you are, so long as you stick to the three content policies; And you're not allowed to advertise (but you are, so long as ...).

This is why we say that NOR, V and NPOV are the three core content policies — because all other text-based editorial issues rest on them. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Most sections of WP:NOT indicate what kind of content is or is not acceptable on Wikipedia, such as dictionary entries, collections of links, travel guides or memorials. This does not automatically follow from the other content policies. By definition, any policy that governs content is a content policy, and that includes this one, and arguably WP:BLP as well. Note that this was discussed on WT:ATT. Now personally I don't see the point to label any group of policies as "THE <number> <Topic> Policies", but if you're going to list some of them as "basic" or "core" then WP:NOT is definitely one of them. (Radiant) 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
They are all dependent on the three content policies. You can add any text you want to Wikipedia so long as the articles you write (a) use reliable published sources for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged; (b) reflect the majority and significant-minority published POVs in rough proportion to how they're represented in the relevant literature; and (c) don't synthesize published material in a way that produces novel arguments or creates primary sources.
That is what V, NPOV, and NOR say jointly. Every other text-based policy rests on the above, which means they are secondary policies, not core content. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Dictionary entries don't follow the three policies; travel guides don't; memorials don't. That's why they're not allowed. ANYTHING that follows V, NPOV, and NOR is allowed in Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
When dictionary entries get long enough, they become viable articles. An entry in the Oxford English Dictionary would likely be allowed on Wikipedia, as it would discuss origins, etymology, use, etc. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Radiant here. An article can be entirely consistent with the requirements in WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and yet is still not permitted on Wikipedia if it contravenes WP:NOT. Therefore, WP:NOT is a content policy.

The copyright policies are also content policies, as similarly, an article can be entirely consistent with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT and yet still not be allowed as it violates copyright, or because the editor is unwilling to release his work under GFDL.

A content policy is just what it says on the packet - a policy that content must adhere to, jguk 15:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The three content policies are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
BLP is merely stating that we must adhere very strictly to the 3 core content policies when discussing living people. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely the copyright policy is about content, though? jguk 17:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's about legality. The content per se is no the issue, but rather the fact that we would be sued if we included it. If the copyright expired tomorrow, we could include it. Don't forget, copyright is a law, found in most legal systems, not a Wikipedia-specific policy. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV are Wikipedia-specific content policies. Jayjg (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The freedom of the content, under the GFDL, is as Wikipedia-specific as the other content policies. —Centrx→talk • 17:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
GFDL is again a legal definition, defined outside Wikipedia. Wikipedia could create a policy that said copyrighted content could be included, or that it owned GFDL content, but neither would be meaningful. Copyright and GFDL apply to all publishers. On the other hand, the content policies are unique to Wikipedia, and they uniquely define the type of content that Wikipedia includes. Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Many newspapers and encyclopedias require articles to be neutral and verified. —Centrx→talk • 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, almost none of them do. Encyclopedias generally give you the Truth, and rarely cite any of their sources, except perhaps in the broadest of ways, and then sporadically. Newspapers generally have editorial policies designed to avoid lawsuits and promote whatever their political leanings happen to be, but they rarely cite sources, and their "neutrality" policies differ from Wikipedia's in significant ways. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that a policy is a content policy if it's a Wikipedia-specific policy, and otherwise it's not - it's some sort of other policy. (I should add that I agree that WP:Copyrights is a legal policy, it's just that I believe it is also a content policy.)

By biggest concern with that distinction is that I am not sure that it is helpful. We need to follow policy regardless. And pretending the non-Wikipedia-specific policies are not core appears to be plain wrong. Indeed, often they are more important (adherence to copyright law is important whether we like it or not, else the site gets shut down).

In particular, I think the distinction is unhelpful for newbies looking for content policy guidance. We're not giving them the whole picture if we say, you're ok if your edits comply with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. OK, the copyright policy might have been forced upon us - but it's right up there in importance whether we like it or not, jguk 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm pointing out that the core content policies are the ones that make Wikipedia unique; the ones that say how editing Wikipedia differs from writing a newspaper article, a book, an entry for another encylopedia, or your blog. Everyone has to comply with copyright laws regardless of who they're writing for, so that's not a core Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It really depends on who you are talking to. Are we explaining our policies to be able to answer the question "What makes Wikipedia different?". In which case, I would agree that respecting copyright is indeed not a difference. Or are we explaining our policies to someone wanting to write for us. In which case we're answering "What rules do we need to follow?". Respecting copyright is fundamental to answering that. jguk 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You could make the same argument for WP:VAND, that we must explain to editors that they should not put "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" repeated 100 times into Wikipedia articles, and that that is a content issue. As with copyright, it impinges on content, but the real issue lies elsewhere. People should know not to put copyrighted material into anything, just as they should know not to put nonsense into anything. All of our policies are rules editors need to follow, but the core policies which fundamentally define what Wikipedia is are the uniquely Wikipedian core content policies. Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should they know? I'm not an expert in Floridian copyright law. I would not have personally seen any problems in linking to a site that itself has a clear copyright violation. Yet our copyright policy gives a good reason for us not to. If I kept a diary I'd have no difficulty in completely ignoring copyright law. And other websites, such as Napster and youtube have gotten into serious difficult because their contributors do not know not to put copyrighted material into anything. Personally, I'd say that the idea of respecting copyright is far from obvious when making contributions on the web. Remember, not everyone has the same outlook on life, and the same knowledge as you - some things that are obvious to you are far from obvious to others.

Adding "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" either once or 100 times is inconsistent with WP:NOT - or, to tie it into the instruction at the bottom of the edit box, it is not "encyclopedic content". I wouldn't be surprised if all vandalism that adds content will always break at least one of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:Copyrights. jguk 18:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your diary is not published, and WP:NOT doesn't cover "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"; what in WP:NOT would forbid it? As for "encyclopedic content", we could replace all of the content policies with "encyclopedic content", but that wouldn't really clarify anything, would it? Jayjg (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
We couldn't replace all of the content policies with the two words "encyclopedic content", even under your restricted definition of what a content policy is. Something can read like encyclopedic content and be completely made up. And many articles in encyclopedias would not comply with WP:V, and the mistakes in them suggest they don't always comply with WP:RS either. jguk 19:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right, just as I said, we couldn't replace the content policies with "encyclopedic content". In addition, Wikipedia scope policies, like WP:NOT, don't deal with insertions like "AAAAARRRGGGGHHHH"; only the content policies do. Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I realize that this may be discussed above, but I'm at a loss -- can I ask what the relevance of this discussion is? Are we trying to argue whether WP:NOT should be considered content policy or policy per se? If it's the former, then I must ask where it is stated that this is a content policy. If it's the latter, I can see some sort of point. If it's neither... then are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Thanks! --PsyphicsΨΦ 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Jayjg (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean "arguing for the sake of arguing"? --PsyphicsΨΦ 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
At the heart of this is a question of "What really should be considered a content policy?" It's relevant in terms of the idea that we should seek to merge our content policies - proposed by SlimVirgin and supported by Jayjg, myself and others. Although I do admit that this is more an aside encouraged by Radiant than anything else.
Certainly in the past WP has referred just to there being three content policies - V, NOR and RS. So it's not written anywhere that there are others. But the question now arises as to whether, in fact, that was a correct assessment: what do we want to suggest to contributors are our content policies? I suppose this comes down to the per se answer - although de facto might be a better Latin phrase for it. jguk 19:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Content policies differ from scope policies. Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict - Maybe, but since it's become established policy, then it wouldn't really be de facto would it? Anyway, the argument began as SlimVirgin stated it shouldn't be a content policy, but no one that I could tell had put forward it should be. If nothing else, if it weren't established policy, it would be de facto policy, based on the three core, and the page itself is very useful in discussions of policy anyway. --PsyphicsΨΦ 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Psyphics: what is the point of this arguement? This is obviously a policy about content. What difference does it make if it's a Content Policy (whatever that means). A policy is a policy, does being a Content Policy make it somehow better, more important, or more powerful? It sure looks like this is an argument over semantics. What am I missing? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Having been watching this little argument unfold I have been finding myself torn both ways but have come to the conclusion that we need some examples in order to try and sort out this semantic mess we are in. Can someone give me an example of a topic which could be included in the site if it passed WP:V, WP:RS WP:NPOV and WP:NOR but not WP:NOT? (ie. If WP:NOT didn't exist). I am finding it difficult to think of any subject that could be discussed with verifiable, reliable sources but isn't encyclopedic. Maybe its just me needing a break but maybe not...-Localzuk(talk) 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
A telephone directory? --PsyphicsΨΦ 21:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a fair question. Two more answers: Textbooks (see, for example, Wikibooks)?, the Bible?, etc. jguk 22:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
But do all of those simply come under the name of the site. Wikipedia is a wiki-encyclopedia. We don't really need a policy to tell us that do we? Whereas the content of articles that fit under the word 'encyclopedia' do need to be guided, by the 3 policies outlined above. -Localzuk(talk) 22:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Don't you think it's odd not having a policy saying what Wikipedia is, what its objectives are, who it is written for - and yet we have as a core policy what it isn't? jguk 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, lots of people did need explicit guidance on what does (and does not) fit under the word "encyclopedia". That's what most of this page is about. Explaining to users who don't quite get it that we're writing an encyclopedia, not a travel guide, et al. The other part of the page reminds users that our primary purpose is the product, the encyclopedia, not the process. Hence all the "not a democracy" clauses.
Now having defended the value of this page, I have to agree with the comments above that this seems to be an argument over a semantic distinction without a difference. Regardless of any official count, this is a core part of our tradition, precedent and practice. Rossami (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that this page should not exist. What I'm suggesting is that it is odd that there is no written policy saying what Wikipedia is, just what it isn't. Or in other words - something is missing, not that something has to go jguk 06:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I was actually responding in parallel to your comment, trying to answer Localzuk's question about why the name of the site not not been sufficient to remind people that we're here to write an encyclopedia. Sorry for the confusion. Rossami (talk)
  • I simply think it is not necessary to separate policies into "ordinary" and "core" policies, nor to state explicitly on each policy page that "this is a content policy" or "this is a behavior policy". Simply put, policy is policy, further dichotomy is not needed. That certain policies are unique to Wikipedia is an interesting observation for such articles as Wikipedia, or essays on what is so special about us, but is irrelevant to the policies themselves. (Radiant) 14:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • To clarify, the issue is that certain policies are, for reasons I don't quite follow, labeled as "the only content policies". First I don't see the need for pointing out that they are, in fact, content policies because that's obvious from the content; and second, to me a "content policy" is a "policy about content", and thus if (since) another policy can be found that is about content, it is simply incorrect for those certain policies to state that they are the only content policies. (Radiant) 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What glossaries are (NOT)

I just realized after closign an AfD that the glossary exemption has disappeared from WP:NOT. After reading the debate above, let me propose what a glossary is in general and for Wikipedia, and what a criterion for keeping should be.

What a glossary is (in general)

A glossary is a topical, quick-access dictionary. The line between the two might be blurry but the defining characterisitc of a dictionary is that it strives for scope and comprehensiveness while a glossary strives for focus and brevity. To explain the difference, this is the explanatory note to the glossary in the Oxford World's Classic edition of Kidnapped and Catriona: "This glossary has been compiled from the Scottish National Dictionary and the Concise Scots Dictionary, and includes words not glossed by R.L.S. in the text; it also includes words used more than once by R.L.S. but only glossed on a single occasion." In short a glossary is a RISC dictionary. It is not just an abbreviated dictionary like the Concise Scots Dictionary, but one that serves a specialized purpose. In this case to make reading the Scots vernacular in the two books easier.

What a glossary is (in Wikipedia)

Translating this into Wikipedian, a glossary is a list that makes it easier to read topical articles. To be considered a glossary it should meet two criteria: 1. It should contain only terms that make reading a certain topical article easier; and 2. the majority of terms listed should bluelinks, and the glossary itself should only contain a quick definition.

Calling some of the glossaries "slang" sounds a bit derogatory, but many of these terms are every bit as important to professional practitioners as any formal dictionary word. They are absolutely necessary to be able to understand writing in a particular field. They are really professional terms of art.
Perhaps the most useful thing about having a glossary list associated with a general topic, is that people searching to find out what a term means, can at least be directed to the subject area it's associated with. Not all related keywords/tags will appear in the main articles for a topic, so such a list greatly assists keyword search. I often find them very helpful because I'm not really searching for a definition, but am searching to find out what field of interest they are associated with, and am trying to find my way to a General article by that indirect means. An encyclopedia shouldn't assume all readers are going in the direction from general to specific, or only to a parallel topic.
I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense to (re)define lots of terms in wikipedia (unless they are rather complex subjects), and since they're well defined elsewhere, but wikipedia out to support lists of topical keywords and links to both the subject area main articles, and external links to dictionaries which *do* define them. Many people are using wikipedia as their first reference these days because searching wikipedia returns a lot less garbage than searching google or other sources. Why not just be satisfied to leave some good lists of related terms, with a few links at the bottom to external references, instead of feeling compelled to make every word a blue or redlink. DKEdwards 00:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
What a glossary is not (in Wikipedia)

Slang dictionaries, which contain mostly dicdefs and are not used to read an article (since we don't write in slang) are not glossaries under this definition. As such, since they are an end in themselves and don't link to Wikipedia articles, should be included in Wiktionary. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well summarized. Just an addendum - some of us have been distinguishing the two (in the prior discussion) as "topical glossaries" vs "lists of words".
Also per the prior discussion, Rossami is (was?) working on exporting an example article, Architectural glossary, to Wiktionary: wikt:Appendix:Architectural glossary. (As an example case for the 'pro-moving-them-to-Wiktionary' perspective)
The only alternative solution I've thought of so far, is to use {{wikt}} templates for any of the entries in a Wikipedia glossary that have articles at Wiktionary already. eg the top 3 entries here. But even that is generally unnecessary (imho), as articles like aisle and apse already link to Wiktionary on their own article pages. Anyway, that's my 10¢. --Quiddity 22:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Update on the pilot: The test was to cover the Architectural glossary and the Military slang page. Most of my time so far has been on wikt:Appendix:Military slang. Haven't had much help with either page in the pilot and the conversion is uncovering a large number of missing Wiktionary definitions. It's taking more time than I expected to get those pages properly built. (I've also had to cut back on my WikiMedia time recently to focus on some urgent projects at work.) More hands and eyes would be greatly appreciated. Rossami (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Clayboy's suspicuous edit

I am concerned about an edit made a few months ago. In it he seems to sneakily alter a few words to imply a different meaning. If you do not know Clayboy, I advise you to look at his page. Skinnyweed 13:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up? oTHErONE(Contribs) 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOTLEX

My fellow wikipedians: I have recently created an essay entitled Wikipedia:You Are Probably Not a Lexicologist or a Lexicographer that I believe should be improved and eventually become part of wikipedia guidelines/policy. Not sure how to do this but I would appreciate if you would shepherd this essay into "goodness." Rossami rightly deleted it from WP:NOT because it is admittedly not ready for show time, but I think if it ever became a part of WP:NOT it would fit in the #soapbox section. The topic is whether/how to dispute a dictionary definition in the lead graf. IMHO, People should't omit quoting the dictionary WP:LEAD simply because they don't like what is presently defined there. MPS 18:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to authority. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I must be slow today. Could you explain the relevance, please? Rossami (talk)
Wikipedia is not the place to reorder the English (or any other) language based on your utiopian vision for what words should mean. Dictionaries are generally authoritative sources to establish the current state of the lexicon, and articles should generally defer to the meanings of words as defined in these sources unless outweighed by other sources. MPS 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Entries for TV Show Characters

I've been looking for a policy or guideline on this but haven't found one. A Wikipedia entry was made for Marlowe Sawyer, a character from the TV show Nip/Tuck. I nominated the article for merging with the main show entry. Is there some guideline on when (or if) it is appropriate for a separate listing for characters? It seems rather excessive to me but perhaps I'm not appreciating the ability of Wikipedia to expand, provide disambiguation pages if there are conflicts, etc. Can anyone point me in the direction of such guidelines? --Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The closest we have is probably WP:FICT. In general, it depends on article length. If we have a dozen articles on a show's characters but all of them are three lines long (excluding redundant parts such as a description of the show), merging is a good idea (and you needn't propose it, just do it if you want). If those pages tend to be a page and a half, merging is probably not useful. (Radiant) 11:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucracy

Try counting the number of "policies", then you'll see it is a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies it is expanding - in its bureaucracy, that is. Next point - Wikipedia is not censored; Oh yes it is! Try creating an article called Anarchopedia. Try setting up a talk page Talk:anarchopedia. Try mentioning Anarchopedia here. This is just one instance of censorship I've come across, and I didn't have to look very hard. Arcturus 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't care that your article on a non-notable wiki got deleted. --tjstrf talk 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is an Anarchopedia? An encyclopedia of all things anarchy? Wouldn't THAT even have to be structured and ordered for it to work?
Try looking it up in Wikipedia - oh no - you can't. Arcturus 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right. It is indeed a bureaucracy. There are bureaucrats, an "Arbitration Committee" to enforce policy, and a "last-resort" "editing office". There is also the "administrators", who are democratically elected (although perhaps by consensus instead of voting, but it is structured sort of like a vote to me and in any case it's the community (ie. the "people", "demo-") doing the ruling ("-cracy").)) to do maintenance, etc. Wikipedia is a bureaucracy of sorts, although perhaps much "looser" than most bureaucracies, but that does not mean a total absence of bureaucratic processes and structures. 170.215.83.4 04:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but it uses a bureaucratic operation in certain respects. In the same manner, it is not a democracy, but uses democratic concepts and modified democratic processes in its operation. It's also not communism, anarchy, a republic, a monarchy, or girl's choir academy, but it borrows elements from each of those systems when beneficial. (OK, maybe not the choir academy.) At its base, Wikipedia is flexible. We reserve the right to use any system of government we think will be beneficial to us in a given area, or none at all.

Many of our processes are de facto reflective of the American governmental system, but only because those processes are familiar to our editors and have worked in real life. For example, you'll notice that we've incorporated the concept of judicial review in our Wikipedia:Deletion review, and one can draw strong parallels between the Wikipedia:Arbitration committee and the Supreme court. On the other hand, we don't have anything like a legislative branch and have rejected the idea of majority voting in nearly all cases. --tjstrf talk 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of our processes are de facto reflective of the American governmental system, but only because those processes are familiar to our editors...' Well they might be familiar to those editors from the USA, but to the rest of us... perhaps not. As for We don't care that your article on a non-notable wiki got deleted. It wasn't my article, I just happened to come across the issue of its deletion, and - on whose behalf (we) are you speaking? I suspect no ones, apart from your own. You should be bothered that Wikipedia employs censorship. Arcturus 21:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not censorship to delete articles on non-notable subjects. --tjstrf talk 05:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

TV Episodes

This doesn't really fall under WP:NOT but maybe someone can point me to the right page. There are a lot of TV Episodes articles that are basically a play by play of what happens on the episode. For example Ariel (Firefly episode) and The Hunted (TNG episode). Are there any policies against sort of thing? It's not really original research although it might fall under being a guide. And secondly what can we do about it? Thanks. Whispering 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out number seven under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information at WP:NOT. WP:WAF and WP:FICT should also be useful. I completely agree that there are way too many plot synopses that are way too detailed to be encyclopedic - the guidelines on this one seem to be pretty widely ignored. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Many of those pages also skirt dangerously close to copyright violation. Remember that copyright extends to plot, not merely to the expression of the idea. The principle of fair use applies when the plot summary is in the context of a discussion about the work. But when our page is entirely or almost entirely a regurgitation of the work, then we may no be longer covered. Our inclusion of a plot summary must be in appropriate proportion to the rest of the article. Rossami (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
So at risk of making fanboy's and girls mad what do we do? Just chop out everything and make them in to stubs? Take out everything but the first paragraph? Maybe we should start a Wikipedia project for this hmmm... Whispering 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
According to wp guidelines, if there's nothing but synopsis, they shouldn't even have their own articles (which is how it's supposed to be in most cases). One option is chopping down the synopses and merging them into an episode list or synopsis of an entire season. This is actually proposed right now for the show Day Break, see What If They Run and other articles. Feel free to jump in and participate in that discussion - I think it's a good candidate for merge since there are only 12 episodes scheduled and it looks like it will be cancelled after that. For a show that I think is done well, check out Grey's Anatomy here: Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 1). --Milo H Minderbinder 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'll try that for Firefly only 14 episodes so it shouldn't be too hard. Question is what gets cut and what doesn't? Whispering 00:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I highly suggest getting a little more discussion before doing anything drastic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you should WP:AGF Jeff. I was going to talk to the Firefly Wikipedia project first. Whispering 01:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Same to you, hehe. I just know the type of drama that comes with this territory, so I figured a warning of kindness, rather than a warning of something else as this apparently came across, was in order. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that came out rather harsh. That will teach me not to edit at work during a major snowstorm. Whispering
There is no such thing as "anything drastic". Encyclopedic articles about episodes/seasons are covered under the macro-to-micro principle that is a corollary of WP:NOT paper. So if an episode comes under AfD scutiny, cut the crap down to size, pull out a couple of reviews and cover the episode from secondary sources. ~ trialsanderrors 01:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy /guidelines on film lists needed

I have read the article and think that the case of lists of films is a special case that should be decided separately and mentioned right after "directory". There seems to be some indecision in Film Project about what guidelines we should give and policy doesn't help us decide. If no policy can be given, then maybe some guidelines above project level. Personally I think we should have a list of films as inclusive as possible, to help us determine notability, decide what articles are needed, etc. Hoverfish 09:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand exactly what is being asked, but I think WP:LIST might help you. It notes three most common roles that lists take here on Wikipedia: navigation, information, development. Under information, it's more of an article in a list format. Under the idea of navigation or development, a list doesn't necessarily have to be the encyclopedia content itself, but a method of finding it, if I understand it correctly. -- Ned Scott 09:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize I was too vague about it. Here is an example of what I mean: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Finnish films. I hope this conveys what I attempted to say. Hoverfish 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"

I would like everyones' opinion on whether to specify that recipes fall under this banner (ie. to form the 8th example), and that any recipes found on Wikipedia be moved to Wikibooks then removed. Thoughts? Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Baked Ziti is an example that should definately stay - it's not a recipe, it's an article about a food. Trollderella 00:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Recipes themselves are not welcome because of the instruction manual, but if a recipe has been commented on as a cultural phenomenon (Philidelphia Cheese Steak, to choose a bad example) an article about the recipe, or including common varients of recipes for culturally commented-on foods would be relevant. Trollderella 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Trollderella. I don't think there's a need to add anything specific to WP:NOT, and to do so verges on instruction creep.
The consensus view has been that articles about foods that are culturally important are perfectly valid.
As Trollderella notes, Cheesesteak would be an example. (I'm not sure why he thinks it's a bad example). Some others are Pea soup, Pecan pie, Ham and cheese sandwich, and Rice pudding. Such articles do typically describe the typical ingredients and preparation. The tendency is to exclude recipes as such.
I don't think we need anything specific in WP:NOT to cover this.
In the case of Baked ziti there's no policy question. The policy or tradition is clear: recipes are out, culturally important foods are in. The question is which category the current Baked ziti article falls in. It looks borderline to me. I think it's a vaguely stated recipe that currently says nothing at all about whether baked ziti is culturally important. But that has nothing to do with policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the recipe part (which is currently not in the article) has now been removed, albeit contested. I have no objection to the article; just the recipe that it previously contained. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
To clear this up, the article Baked ziti was never removed, someone just added a recipe, and that recipe was removed. It's all in the page history. And the person who added the recipe went pretty ballistic when it was removed, and continued to rant even after the explicit mention of no recipies in WP policy was pointed out. If there is a RfC or similar, I don't think it will go anywhere, removing the recipe was completely the right move. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To what extent is "Wikipedia... not a democracy"?

The "Wikipedia is not a democracy" section of this policy shouldn't be modified in a manner contrary to the findings of the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Polls_and_voting. Despite the claim that "Arbcom rulings don't set policy on their own" [2], principles of Arbitration Committee findings are policy, and have far greater force and effect than anything we write on this policy page, since the Arbitration Committee, the highest authority on Wikipedia with the exception of Jimbo Wales, will rule on cases in a manner consistent with its own principles, even if such principles conflict with the "policy" that happens to be written on an official policy page at the time. Maintaining an official policy page that directly conflicts with Arbitration Committee principle(s) is misleading, since users who accept the "policy" written on the official policy page will be rather unpleasantly surprised to discover that the Arbitration Committee, and administrators who comply with the decisions of the Arbitration Committee, will enforce the Arbitration Committee principle(s) in preference to the text of an official policy page.

Quite apart from the undesirability of maintaining official policy pages that directly conflict with Arbitration Committee rulings, it is clear that this version of the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" section does not, and never did, have consensus. Rather, the section was added to the policy with a citation to a remark by Jimbo Wales that was taken out of context, and misinterpreted as mandating the insertion of an anti-voting polemic into WP:NOT. In fact, Jimbo Wales' comments might have meant nothing more than "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy" in the sense that discussion-based consensus is preferable to voting, but that voting may be used to resolve difficult issues that cannot be resolved through discussion. Jimbo Wales might also have been referring, in part, to the fact that he retains ultimate authority on Wikipedia, and that no vote can overrule him. Due to a continued lack of consensus for giving anti-voting polemics the force of policy, or even guidelines, attempts to enact Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote, an entire page devoted to anti-voting polemics, as a guideline have persistently failed. The content of Wikipedia talk:Discuss, don't vote provides convincing evidence that a large number of established editors have recognized that Wikipedia frequently employs voting, in requests for adminship, the Arbitration Committee elections, to enact and amend official policies on a fair number of occasions, and for other purposes. However, this anti-voting polemic has remained a part of this policy simply because efforts to modify the policy section to reflect consensus and actual practice on Wikipedia have been quite limited, due to the mistaken impression that such a modification would somehow conflict with a determination of Jimbo Wales.

Now that the Arbitration Committee has declared a principle that partially overturns this version of the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" section, the continued maintenance of this section as an anti-voting polemic, against consensus, is untenable. Users who claim that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Polls_and_voting was incorrectly decided[3] retain the option of appealing the Arbitration Committee's ruling to Jimbo Wales, the only user on Wikipedia who has the authority to overturn the ruling. However, unless Jimbo Wales overrules the Arbitration Committee, or the Committee reverses itself, the principles in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Polls_and_voting stand. This, of course, is not "policy making by the Arbitration Committee", but merely a recognition by the Committee of pre-existing consensus and practice. John254 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Incorrect. We do not modify policy pages to match ArbCom principles, simply because of the fact that the ArbCom is not the body that writes our policy. (Radiant) 09:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Any policy change needs to be done by consensus, not from a stone tablet handed down from above. If the guys on ArbCom think this policy should be changed, they're welcome to come here and build a consensus for that change. I agree with the long standing notion that generally discussion is preferred to polling. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • In addition, the principle of "discuss, don't vote" is established at the Foundation level. That's why the source article is at Meta:Voting is evil. The Arbitration Committee, on the other hand, is basically limited in scope to the English-language Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the above comments are responsive to my argument as to why Arbitration Committee principles are policy, or why it is misleading to maintain official policy pages that are blatantly inconsistent with standards of user conduct that the Arbitration Committee will enforce: the above comments do not respond to my reasoning, but merely argue for an alternative conclusion. There has also been no response to my arguments as to why, ignoring rulings of the Arbitration Committee, there still is not, and never was, consensus for maintaining an anti-voting polemic in the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" section of this policy. Additionally, Meta:Voting is evil is an essay, not a policy or guideline; consequently, the claim that "the principle of 'discuss, don't vote' is established at the Foundation level" is factually incorrect. In any event, even if principles of Arbitration Committee decisions are not properly part of an official policy itself, under circumstances in which an official policy radically conflicts with an Arbitration Committee principle, there is at least a need to provide due notice of the discrepancy, to avoid concealing the fact that the Arbitration Committee considers the behavior advocated in the policy to be misconduct. Therefore, I suggest that the following text be appended to the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" section of this policy:

However, in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Polls_and_voting, the Arbitration Committee found that

Straw polls and voting are used in a number of situations. There is a tradition which discourages excessive voting, but no actual policy. Polls may be used when appropriate to gauge opinion.

What weight, if any, editors reading this policy wish to assign to the rulings of the Arbitration Committee would be purely a matter of individual judgment and discretion. John254 02:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to take exception to your claim that my statement is "factually incorrect". I very carefully did not use the words essay, guideline or policy to describe it. It is a guiding principle and a long-standing tradition. It is one of the oldest pages we have describing our methods of decision-making. And it is a Foundation-level principle - not something unique to any one project. Frankly, I think the entire debate over where a page fits in some hypothetical hierarchy of wiki-law to be more than a little silly. Whether it's an essay, a guideline or a policy doesn't change the fact that it accurately describes how we work when we're working at our best. Are there exceptions? Of course there are. But if we tried to describe every possible exception, no one would read the page. Rossami (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If "the entire debate over where a page fits in some hypothetical hierarchy of wiki-law..." were really "more than a little silly", then I'm sure that there would be no objections to changing the tag on WP:NOT from template:policy to template:essay :) But seriously, Meta:Voting is evil is tagged as an essay because the opinions expressed therein lack sufficient support to describe the page either as a guideline or a policy. Meta:Voting is evil is thus decidedly not a foundation-level principle, because it lacks consensus for this status. In any event, since there appears to be no objection to at least mentioning Arbitration Committee's ruling in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Polls_and_voting, attributed to the Arbitration Committee and without specific endorsement as policy, I am adding this information to the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" section. John254 23:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The tags on meta have a different meaning. Several old "essays" on meta are important guiding principles and thus considered guideline on the English Wikipedia. (Radiant) 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
As much as my esteemed Wikicolleague Radiant! here might like to have you believe, meta:Voting is evil does not have force as a guideline or policy. Its tag spells this out extremely clearly: This is an important essay written by the community. Although it doesn't have the force of policy or guideline, it is nevertheless heavily referenced on many Wikimedia projects, especially the English Wikipedia.. Just because it is on Meta doesn't give it any additional weight. On meta it has been around awhile and it is referenced frequently (much in the same way that m:Don't be a dick is and that certainly won't ever have policy or guideline status). Even on meta it is a bit contentious as demonstrated by this alternate essay: m:Voting is a tool. There are other ideas there expressed in essay form that haven't been referenced as much (ie: m:AFD is evil and m:NPOV is an ideal) have a look at the essay list. (→Netscott) 07:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Straw man. I never said that all Meta essays are important guiding principles, just that some old ones are (incidentally that does include m:don't be a dick, which is part of our Policy Trifecta). The boilerplate text for "this is an essay" was simply taken from our Template:Essay and copied on there earlier this year; it is obviously incorrect since meta doesn't have guidelines, and the page predates the concept of "guideline" on enwiki. There is no tag or place that gives it greater or lesser weight, it is given greater weight simply by the fact that it is a long-standing guiding principle. (Radiant) 09:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To see the relevance of the trifecta, you shouldn't check how many edits it has (it has few because it's a very simple page), but who and what links to it. Yes, the tag reads what it reads, but the tag is a lot newer than the page itself and was added in reflection of tagging on enwiki (so using it as the basis for tagging on enwiki is circular). The tag was added by one editor without discussion, and refers to things that don't exist as such on meta. (Radiant) 10:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm probably going be submitting WP:TRI for MfD per the rationale expressed over here. It is too official sounding particularly with a thrid of this "policy" page relying upon a non-policy. Radiant! I'd suggest that you refrain from trying to compare apple and oranges. Things are different on Meta for a reason (meta's a better follower of the ideas expressed in WP:CREEP). (→Netscott) 10:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • While I would recommend against MFDing it, I agree with you that the Trifecta is misleading because it's called policy whereas it is not (the triad as a whole isn't, DICK is not, and when TRI was written IAR wasn't policy either but considered unclassifiable). Perhaps a rename would fix this. Ialso agree that things are different on Meta for good reason, and that's precisely why we shouldn't use the reasoning that some page must have the same tag on enwiki as it has on meta. (Radiant) 10:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Better yet, tag it equivalently... complete with the "this page is heavily referenced and important" part. (→Netscott) 11:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If it's heavily referenced and important, that makes it a guideline. The template on meta mistakenly implies that guidelines have "force"; guidelines are not such a big deal as some people seem to think. If it had force, it would be policy. (Radiant) 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the policy on having too much detail in an article?

What happens where an article has too much detail? For example what happens with an article that has 15 photos of its subject and includes details about its subject that are common to all items of that class? Curtains99 12:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a textbook

I've seen far too many edits of this nature in many technical articles. See, for example, this series of edits. I believe that an improved version of my first paragraph should be included in WP:NOT, but the text I've provided is inadequate. Argyriou (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind if I put your ¶ into a quotebox ... I agree, perhaps appending, Wikipedia is not a collection of textbooks — but Wikibooks is![4] Please go there to contribute instructional articles. Whaddya think? — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 05:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind setting off the draft text from the commentary at all. However, I'd rather work a little more on what distinguishes a textbook from a reference before we start advertising other Wikimedia projects. Argyriou (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Teaching/instructional/howto material... maybe this should be combined with the prohibition on Instruction Manuals? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a democracy, redux

It looks like we should work out our edits to the "Not a democracy" section. I've reverted to the version that lasted for the months before the last week's edits. Does anyone want to lay out what they think the current version omits or misrepresents, and what changes would be helpful? Thanks, TheronJ 12:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The current version encourages polling in difficult situations - however, difficult situations are precisely the time where polling generally polarizes and aggravates the situation. For instance, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), Wikipedia_talk:Schools3 and Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people. (Radiant) 10:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Radiant! proposed editing the "Not a democracy" section to state that surveys "are not recommended."[6] I thought I would chime in to say that I love Radiant!, but don't think that's a good idea. I think "should be used with caution" is more accurate than "are not recommended", as well as the historically stable version of the text. (I have no problem with "should be used with caution, if at all"). First, I think "should be used with caution, if at all" is more accurate than "are not recommended." Second, "are not recommended" is passive in a way that obscures the meaning. Who doesn't recommend polls? Some editors? Wikipedia policy? TheronJ 14:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the wording you have given TheronJ. We cannot totally disrecommend reaching consensus by poll or otherwise but rather empahsize the fact that they are not binding because TheronJ brings up a valid point that they are used more often than not. Using with caution seems to fit the bill better in my opinion.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert per WP:NOT?

I am currently editing Taco Bell, and its "Media References" has gone too long and its content is not very encyclopedic. (McDonalds#Parodies is longer and is equally unencyclopedic (per:WP:NOT#INFO), IMO. Burger King#Burger King in Popular Culture is slightly better.) I decide to delete this section, or remove the non-notables.

The problem here is, this section has an continous flow of updates. Is it wise to revert trivial updates there citing WP:NOT#INFO as reason? Or there are any procedure I can do with?

(My discussion on the section is Talk:Taco Bell#Cutting off "Media Reference" section.)--Samuel Curtis-- TALK 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't present it it correctly. I mean, after I cleaned up the section (and maybe keeping some of those I think is important and sourced), can I cite WP:NOT#INFO as a reason to revert further updates to that sections by that criteria? (Also I think there's a need, for some articles, to add a certain kind of warning against adding trivia.--Samuel Curtis-- TALK 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There ought to be a template to tag a section as too long, or more specifically as too much trivia, but searching Category:Cleanup templates, I couldn't find it. Maybe someone can find it...? -- Also, I would refrain from reverting updates to your edit, lest an edit war ensue, or you're accused (justly or not) of owning the page. Just my two cents.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I thought I added it here, must not have. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT#BLOG

I bring this up as I have an issue with the way item #2 is being applied at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, specifially on the Dec 17 page. Item 2 states, "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia." My issue is that this strict wording around only for use in articles or project pages limits images on user pages and user boxes; keeping in mind that only "free" images can be used outside of article space. Many people have a personal photo of themselves on their user page; the strict wording of this section limits these images to be loaded on commons only. I did not see this issue discussed in any of the previous few archives. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this comes down to 'what does having a picture of yourself on your user page bring to the site?'. Wikipedia is supposed to be a project to create an encyclopedia, user pages are supposed to be used for helping do this. I do not see how uploading images (which take up resources on the servers) for your userpage helps the site? I personally agree that images should only be uploaded for use on article and project space and not user space.-Localzuk(talk) 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
This really isn't a "scarce resources" issue. Sharing a personal photo when you want to is healthy for the community. Gay Cdn, Commons really is the right place for such images; perhaps an extra reason to freely license personal photos. Is there any reason for users to use non-free images on their pages? +sj + 09:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree, pictures and content are for the WP, not for vanity user pages. Images uploaded only for a user page are taking up space. Heck, there are plenty of images in teh WP that can be used. Take a look at mine..... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Just for your information, you are violating WP:FU criteria #9 that states, "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages" by having those fair use images on your user page. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In your face!

I think "your user page is not yours" sounds too harsh, many of us like to think our userpage is ours, yes we may need to be reminded how and why, and for what it is ours, but the above term may diswade new users from feeling at home. Please discuss. frummer 11:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • New users are unlikely to read this page immediately. Their userpages aren't "theirs", and people who react strongly to sensible changes in their userpage deserve to be WP:TROUTwhacked. >Radiant< 12:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Userpages are emphatically "not yours". They are provided solely for the purpose of advancing the encyclopedia. Anyone who fails to understand that needs to be politely but promptly corrected. Attempting to soften the wording will give the impression that "this is a good idea" rather than "this is iron-clad policy" and will lead to far more ill will and frustration when the violator's userpage is subsequently nominated for deletion. Rossami (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how user pages can "advance" the encyclopedia, or how that is a valid, logical point of view. To be honest I think some people here have lost sight of the benefit of the user page; the benefit is to the community, and it is the community who make this encyclopedia what it is, so it is an indirect benefit. To suggest that they have some other "important" purpose would seem to me to be just rediculous. Insisting that the user pages are "just so" won't advance anything, it will just put off/irritate a lot of users who appreciate what little space they have on here to express their identity. I also fail to see how the content of a user page in any way affects the encylopedia - it doesn't matter if a user page contains a load of gibberish nonsense, it's not going to cause the John F Kennedy article to implode, or any other article for that matter. Allowing users their own space to express themselves is a part of looking after the community. If we don't look after the community then how can we expect the community to look after us? This isn't a social club, but it's not a robot club either.
Another thing that bothers me, is that this whole issue seems to be nothing more than a vehicle for all the busy-bodies to get off on doing what they do best. Since when did the content of user pages ever cause a problem to the encyclopedia? Since when did it ever interfere with the development of an article? And can anyone really, honestly point to an incident where there was a genuine need to censor the content of a user page? After all, they don't reflect the views of other wikipedians or the people who run wikipedia, nor are said parties responsible for the content of the user pages. So why go to all this trouble to regulate them? All it will result in is a drop in volunteer contribution, and overstretched human resources. So much for "advancing" the encylopedia. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Another proposed addition to "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"

I'd like to hear what people think about something I've noticed. It seems like a lot of articles I read have some section usually called "references in modern culture" that point out how the subject matter has appeared in any one of: The Simpsons, Family Guy or some japanese anime cartoon usually as a parody. To me this section in so many articles is indeed just an indiscriminate collection of information and in a lot of cases I do not see what these references have to do with improving knowledge about the subject. It seems very pervasive and noticeable to me. Do others agree? DougieFresh 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

See also WP:AVTRIV and WP:TRIV. —Centrx→talk • 02:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Existing guideline suggests incorporating the info into the article. But there are indeed some film and tv articles which seem to be a CATALOG of as many culture references as can be found. I draw the line at "notability" to the actual topic. Something like "chief nose-picker of the band Bristling Tapioca lists this as his favorite movie" has to go. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm with David. Note that there are cultural critics and authors, and sociologists of all stripes, for whom these kinds of lists are an unimaginably goldmine of information. See Benkler's Wealth of Networks and its discussion of Barbie as perceived through major encyclopedias, including WP. +sj + 09:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Centrix lists some useful pages on the topic. My personal opinion is that these are examples of usage of the concept. As a general rule, there should almost never be more than three examples of any one idea or concept. More becomes an indiscriminate list rather than an aid to the reader. Of course, the selection of which three examples are best (or whether three is exactly the right number of examples for that specific situation) is something to be hashed out on the article's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sharing personal information, building community

One tendril of instruction creep on this page has been the development of a sense that sharing personal information, talking about oneself or one's background, or having simple conversation with other wikipedians, is somehow evil. This has neither been true historically nor is it an accurate representation of how most Wikipedians interact with one another today; background information and channels for finding shared interests with other editors remains one of the project's strengths and the foundation for much of its success. Nevertheless, the use of WP:NOT as a stick to beat people with when they are being social has increasingly relied on this subfacet of the page.

To my surprise, I have recently started to find Wikipedians discussing with sincerety the fact that, on the one hand, certain social channels among active editors are needed and important; but that, on the other hand, because of WP:NOT, these discussions among active editors should be

  1. moved to Wikia
  2. moved to IRC
  3. kept in personal Wiki-related blogs or external Wikipedia fansites

The disadvantages of the latter two options are many; no revision history, no reliable backup, difficult interlinking between discussions and WP pages in whatever namespace. All three share the disadvantage of having no firm connection of commentary with WP identity, an extra login and site-switching step, separation from watchlists, &c. The original tenets of WP:NOT had nothing to do with preventing socializing within the active community of editors; I cannot imagine what reason has arisen since this page was created to dictate such a change.

Active Wikipedia editors should socialize on Wikipedia

There are countless reasons why active editors should be encouraged to socialize on Wikipedia, rather than through some other channels. It makes Wikipedia fun, encourages participation, keeps editors from burning out. It develops a stronger community, and [as with f2f meetings] helps deepen ties among people to help them weather differences about content with equanimity. It maintains a sense of continuity across different daily activities among editors; it encourages casual addition of ideas, links, and commentary to articles as they come up in normal social discourse; it provides balance to the limited types of discourse typically engaged in on talk pages and while patrolling new edits. It provides a publicly shared and archived record of new ideas, which can be easily referred to in later work.

Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj (talk • contribs)

I don't like it. Socializing that helps build the encyclopedia is good because it helps build the encyclopedia; there are plenty of examples of this, and nobody claims that WP:NOT demands their removal. Socializing that doesn't do anything toward the encyclopedia except build up wiki-friendships (which have both positives and negatives for the encyclopedia) should be tolerated as long as it doesn't interefere significantly... but absolutely not encouraged. -- SCZenz 17:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change

A proposed change which I first made two months ago:

Current text

  1. Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

Proposed text

  1. Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, on which to present information about themselves and their background, particularly that relevant to working on the encyclopedia. People looking to make a personal webpage or blog unrelated to Wikipedia should make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. While user pages exist to build social networks around Wikipedia contribution, their focus should be on providing a foundation for effective collaboration on the encyclopedia.

The result is friendlier and clearer (user and user talk pages are a form of social networking; we just need to define the parameters), and less susceptible to misinterpretation by the overzealous. Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj (talk • contribs)

Leave it alone. We have serious problems with blatant abuse of the userspace. Softening the language will create only opportunities for confusion by new users and for even worse wikilawyering by the troublemakers. Rossami (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a porn site

Wikipedia is not a porn site although and Wikipedia commons is not a porn TGP. --Ineffable3000 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Rules on radio schedules

Hi there, I hope I'm in the right place for this. I want to suggest a small rules change. I notice the current rules prohibit 'radio schedules' which get caught up in the general rules prohibting TV schedules and directories.

Could I suggest TV and radio schedules are very different things in practice? 90+% of radio stations don't have programmes in the way TV stations do, just 1 DJ schedule for weekdays and another for weekends. Whilst TV schedules change from day to day, most radio schedules only change as DJs join and leave the station over time. As someone with an interest in radio I find it useful to find out quickly what DJs are doing what slots on which station, and actually often look this information up by looking in the history of a radio station article for a schedule sombody has posted and had deleted.

Whilst this is hardly a massive issue in the great scheme of things, could we consider allowing such listings? I'm sure the additional bandwidth used would be miniscule.

If anyone can suggest a better place to post this, please do, as I'm new to this

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comstock (talk • contribs)

I would oppose this suggestion as inappropriate to the encyclopedia and as a maintenance nightmare. Bandwidth is irrelevant. Our constraint is the human time and effort needed to ensure that the page is always kept current and vandalism free. Pages with such lists are notoriously difficult to maintain - vandals make subtle "corrections" that are very difficult to find or verify.
Essentially all radio stations now have a website where they publish their own schedule. Provide a link to their site. They have a vested interest in maintaining the accuracy of the schedule. Do not recreate their schedule here. Rossami (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A schedule is hardly encyclopedic. It'd be more useful to have an external link in the article that links to the schedule (I'm sure most radio stations have a website by now). That way we also needn't worry about keeping it current. >Radiant< 10:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a résumé book"

Should we include this as #4 in either not a blog or not a directory? Résumés and CV in most cases suffer from WP:COI and WP:FU problems, even if it's not always readily apparent. And even if they don't have those problems, pure résumés are not encyclopedic articles. It should be noted that résumés and CV's can be used as primary resources to write an encyclopedic article and to flesh out biographical details about notable subjects, but they don't by themselves bestow notablity and articles that are pure résumé dumps cannot be accepted on Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What is encyclopedic and what is not is governed by Wikipedia:Notability (people) and wikipedia:Verifiability. CV is an issue of article style, not of inclusion into wikipedia. In addition, a CV dump may be deleted on the grounds of copyvio or WP:VANITY (after a due diligence of course, eg quick google, and keeping in mind WP:BITE). `'mikkanarxi 09:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Moving this down to belatedly respond. "Not a resume book" is not a question of style, it is a question of content and copyright. Resumes have questionable copyright status, they're considered primary sources, they are POV and they circumvent the primary criterion that articles should be written from independent sources. "Not a resaume book" simply summarizes these concerns into one bullet point, which in turn could cut down such turgid discussions as in the ongoing Bambenek AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Leave out - I think the question of "resume" is fully covered by WP:BIO, WP:LIVING, WP:AUTO (by the way, "resume" pages also can fail the WP:AUTO standard as the text is written by the subject ... right?). It is entirely possible that a bio stub would start life looking like a c.v. or resume, but then has to grow. The problem with the Bambenek AfD issue isn't IMHO that it's a resume, but "is he notable" and obvious WP:V issues. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Help Needed on WP:NOT#DIR

Hello - I need some help and clarification on "Wikipedia is not a directory." Though often quoted in railway and transport pages, I've never seen it explained. On this page is a previous version of a table containing the stations on a rapid bus transit network which I made and which was there for a year or so until another user deleted it; it contains two routes travelled by the network, the suburbs each station serves (as the stations are located on suburb boundaries), and each one's fare zone (equivalent to a transit zone or fare zone anywhere else - London Underground and lots of other train and transport networks have them on their article list); I've had an edit dispute with another user about what constituted a "directory", or more specifically a "schedule". I've had a Request for third opinion on this and the user involved couldn't identify what actually constituted a "schedule". There is no information on timetabling here or when each service arrives (which would be a schedule and a violation of the policy); there is just operational information presented in a tabulated format; I really don't see the difference between this table and District Line#Current service pattern, which has the operations of an active rail line and how many trains an hour run where, or the table on this page, which has that network's listed and official stopping patterns. These tables are used for a lot of Australian transport articles, and it woul dbe good to have some clarification on them. How do they violate this policy? And do they violate "Wikipedia is not a travel guide"? (I can't see how that one can be made out either). JROBBO 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Specific information about public transport operations would seem to fall foul of Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Further, it's the sort of information that is probably only available from one, non-independent source — the transit operator — which raises red flags under WP:SOURCE. JROBBO raises two valid points about this though: WP:NOT is not specific on this subject, and the problem appears to have been ignored wherever Wikipedia deals with a major metropolitan transit network. Joestella 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
One, non-independent source is fine for information, so long as it's not a copyright violation - it's only for notability that that would become a problem; and that's not the issue here. JROBBO 23:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Almanac

Do I remember this page ever saying that Wikipedia is not an almanac? If so, or if not, could we get this added? There has been explosion in pages such as FA Premier League results December 2006, FA Cup 2006-07 Qualifying Rounds, many of which are bein deleted at AFDs. Paticularly if the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League results December 2006 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football League Championship results August 2006 go through with conclusions of delete, I think we should take this as a consensus against almanac material (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBA Results November 2006). I would propose it is added as a seperate point under the heading Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Robdurbar 10:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it ought to be removed until relvant AfD's are finished, then I'd understand. However, I added it so that people could see what was being discussed. As for definition of indiscriminate - there probably isn't one, deliberatly. --Robdurbar 09:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the section as a sign of good faith. Robdurbar 09:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. In the case of goalscorers, this is being proved and discussed on that article's entry in the Deletition place. However, I disagree that this type of article needs to be deleted because it is almanac-like information. There are other sorts of alamanc like information in Wikipedia which you haven't cited. All you have cited are sport-related data. Why not delete articles like List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by past GDP (nominal), List of regions by past GDP (PPP), List of African countries by GDP PPP, List of European countries by GDP PPP, etc. Articles like those should also go if the goalscorer articles are going too. Those articles I cited, are simple data collection articles from other sites, most notably the CIA Factbook. I like the articles I cited, believe me, they have helped me, and I like having this type of information in Wikipedia. However, if this policy goes ahead, I think that all of this kind of articles should be deleted too. 201.240.63.98 13:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I too thank you in the present situation. Again though, as with the last post, there is an incredible amount of raw data in terms of lists etc which would fall not just under that Almanac section but under many other sections of what wikipedia is not. Niall123 14:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Almanac is perhaps not the best term to use; encyclopædias by there very nature include almanac-like information, and Wikipedia is no exception. What would this provision mean for the hundreds of lists (such as those listed above), timelines and other like pages that have a legitimate place in Wikipedia? For what it's worth, I do support making an addition to disallow such trivial pages as those mentioned by Robdurbar. It's just that any addition needs to be more strictly defined.--cj | talk 14:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The policy already covers lists, I think. Of course, no one is stopping any dedicated editors from putting those other lists on PROD, or AfD. Go ahead. I've done so with a few I found. My criteria are plainly in WP:NOT as it stands now; I also used things like "fifteen days since any edit" as a page which is not kept up is on life support already. As to "defining indiscriminate," I'll save you the trip to an OED. "adj. done or acting at random or without careful judgement." "Discriminating adj. having or showing good taste or judgement." What's 'at all mean? It means that instead of just copying or recording data to WP, IMHO you write some objective, readable summary of the data. This should not be such a difficult concept to grasp. WP is not a concatenation of lists and correlated data and links to other things and TV programming and graphical maps to Britt Ekland's birthmarks. If you find pages like "List of Coast Guard Air Stations" or "List of unique sizes, shapes, and colorations of dried nasal mucilage," then don't use that as a precedent and justification to do more like it, help out with the noise control. Instead of expending energy trying to bend WP to the task of being a list of sports results, why don't you work to create a WikiSports which can embrace all this? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it now be appropriate to add (or re-add) something along the lines of "Wikipedia is not a repository of sports results" since the Afd debates on FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers and FA Premier League results December 2006 have now been closed as delete all? QmunkE 13:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is better than the all-encompassing term of 'almanc'. As I have said elsewhere, I only see this as a clarification of policy, not an addition to policy. --Robdurbar 16:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is added, if anything, should keep the first WP:5 pillar in mind. Specifically, the sentence which says that wikipedia incorporates elements of almanacs. The linked almanac article there is also interesting, because, it says that an almanac is an "annual publication containing tabular information in a particular field". I would like to see discussed how sports results (which can be found in sports almanacs) are against this principle. Neier 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a compendium of data and lists. Says so clearly enough for me. It is not, imho, a sports almanac. Once again, I find myself suggesting that a "SportsWiki" is the place to put any and all trivial sports results. Rather than tiring us out having to s'plain it, the sports enthusiasts could invest energy into the finest SportsWiki the universe has ever known. There's only one thing stopping you.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
WP is not just a compendium of data and lists, but from what I can gather, there is no special effort (other than the recently) to exclude the data and lists from WP. The first pillar supports that assertion, and I really cannot understand how it could be interpreted otherwise. If explaining something which is supposedly so obvious is also so tiring, then, maybe the obviousness of it needs to be re-evaluated too... Neier 04:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries no longer applicable?

We have a bulleted item under "collections of information, Plot summaries, but there are many here on WP now, without much "critical" or "in context." What seems to have evolved, using List of Heroes episodes and Homecoming (Heroes) as examples, are concise "deeper, deeper, deeper" wells of information. If someone wants to get a NPOV, objective look at that tv series, the main page, then the list of episodes, then the episode summaries, are there for reading. Has the No plot summaries guideline outlived its purpose? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, outlived? It's actually a somewhat recent addition (for Wikipedia's history) that has been added to address the current problem of such articles. Basically, it's there because all those articles are nothing but plot summaries, and something needs to be done about them. Personally, I've seen a lot of progress towards moving away from such articles in many WikiProjects, discussions, and such. Removing needless plot summaries is very much a direction we should continue to go in. -- Ned Scott 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we're gonna need a bigger boat, then, since new plot summary articles are popping up all over. I can look, but do you recall any substantive discussion of this in Wikiproject Television (which I can't seem to find)? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition - Lists of TV programmes/schedules (in reference to TV network/channel articles)

There are a lot of editors adding lists of programmes. It not only adds to the bulk of the article (ie. listcruft), but editors are known to add incorrect information and they can become out of date over time, and are hard to verify. I wish to propose an addition to the policy, preferably under the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information section, like:

9. Television program databases: A television network article should mention in prose information on the network itself, and avoid lists of programmes and schedules which appear on the network. Schedules which are copied and pasted into articles can violate Wikipedia copyright policy.

What do other people think of the addition and the wording of the point? --tgheretford (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a single caveat -- a listing of affiliates or channels themselves for a service or network should be included on WP. Said lists provide a service as long as they do not go into TV Guide-like listings. (you may be pointing in that direction, but I'm just iterating it specifically) --Mhking 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add, examples of what could be acceptable are notable programs as given in the Sky News article, as opposed to the simple list in CBeebies and ITV2. In reference to schedules, I mean edits like this one: [7] (under "Current schedule"). --tgheretford (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of adding a new point we probably should just work this into WP:NOT#DIRECTORY part 3. And I'm not sure if the copyvio is a major concern. Other than that, I basically agree. -- Ned Scott 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I decided to add something to part 3 of that section. If anyone thinks a separate point would be better, please feel free to say so here. --tgheretford (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
(I restored your addition after reverting another edit.) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition- Games

In case the heading didn't give it away, I'm proposing that we add that Wikipedia is NOT a place to play games. There seems to be a lot of editors who think that Wikipedia should have games on it, which is not what an encyclopedia is for. What does everyone think?  Jorcoga  05:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed the addition of games recently in user spaces and so forth, so this is an interesting question. Should this apply just to the mainspace, or should this extend to userspace as well? --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This policy is meant to cover all namespaces. That's why I proposed it here. JorcogaYell! 06:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

*Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project

— What can I not have on my user page?, WP:User Page

I mentioned it here because some people put them into the Wiki space too. Not just flash, things like chess, which aren't hard to do with wiki markup.

  • Disagree - but with some reservations that it can be overdone. I don't think a blanket prohibition to allow a few Wikipedians to have a minor diversion is necessarily going to kill the project. And if this is strongly enforced, it will actually cause more "gaming" to occur as it could be argued that the current vandals are actually engaged in a "game" with the admins in a sort of arms race to see who can react faster. This sort of blanket prohibition is only going to encourage rather than discourage vandalism. Wikipedia is not a job, and it is occasionally refreshing to have a minor diversion or two to liven things up. You should not be "forced" to get involved with the games, and if they start to directly interfere with the actual development of Wikipedia the users should be advised to scale things back a little bit. A note "I'm not interested in playing right now" should be sufficient to stop potential "spamming" of user pages. In addition, any such games should be restricted to user pages only, and substantially organized efforts (like a chess club, etc.) ought to be encouraged to move to Wikia or some other Wiki project instead. Drawing 3rd parties into such a game should never be condoned (such as playing "user" tag on the user talk pages). --Robert Horning 18:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_tool

Your change --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 15:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Already covered. Since propoganda is already mentioned, I'm reverting your change. Thanks. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
ok--HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 07:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Wikipedia is not a monarchy

I have added a new proposal called Wikipedia is not a monarchy. Please read it. --Ineffable3000 19:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the added text:
"Wikipedia is not a monarchy. There is no single group of people making all decisions. Instead, it is a consensus democracy where everyone can express his relevant opinion. Administrators exist only to regulate Wikipedia, rather than rule it."
Firstly, that Wikipedia is not an experiment in various forms of government is already covered by "Wikipedia is not a democracy".
Secondly, the added text directly contradicts the section stating "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Martin 19:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is a consensus democracy. --Ineffable3000 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It is still not a monarchy. Rewrite the text. --Ineffable3000 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a consensus democracy either in practice. In day-to-day practice policy does not get overriden by consensus (or small group consensus which is what it usually ends up being), and ArbCom rulings are not overridable by consensus either. ColourBurst 16:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
How about this text?
"Wikipedia is not a monarchy. If Jimbo Wales dies, control of Wikipedia will not pass down the line of descent. Additionally, we don't get much attention in the tabloid press.
Seems unnecessary, but if you think people will get confused... Martin 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, Wikipedia policies are not written in sand. Please propose and discuss changes HERE on the talk page, and THEN make small changes to the policy. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I've seen enough instances where editors get up in arms because a policy has been changed without warning. Thanks. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If this gets added, I want to add the section "Wikipedia is not a girl's charter school". There is no need to specify every form of government or operative structure that we do not operate under, merely the ones that we are commonly mistaken as being. --tjstrf talk 00:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of intentions, a section with the title "Wikipedia is not a monarchy" will primarily be used to attack administrators (or even Foundation employees or board members!) who are trying to do something sensible despite opposition. Not a good thing to have in policy. -- SCZenz 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be added, as it is important users note that wikipedia does not give any legal adviceJeff503 20:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already mentioned: "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise)" --Milo H Minderbinder 20:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That pretty much covers itJeff503 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Censorship

The Censorship section is only written in the context of profanity and obscenities etc. What about political censorship? Politically-motivated vandalism, to me, constitutes censorship.... Skookum1 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Vandalism is bad, regardless of whether it's politically motivated or censoring. The point of the phrasing of this page is that people routinely suggest (WP:PEREN) that Wikipedia should be censored to protect minors, and we don't want that. I've never seen anyone arguing that Wikipedia should be politically censored. >Radiant< 10:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of Subject Guides

I think Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not needs a guideline that states that "Wikipedia is not a collection of subject guides". I think that many articles go beyond the realm of a general encyclopedia, and into the realm of detailed subject guides. I believe this guideline is necessary in order to start to correct this problem.Librarylefty 08:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a phrasebook?

This may have been dealt with in the past, however, I thought I'd take my chances and bring it up anyway after discovering the article fuck off, and recalling that I had come across similar articles in the past. In these instances I had been unsure as to what action to take against them, if any, and under what policy.

As an example of many other articles like it, it would seem to me that the phrase itself is not notable enough to merit an article dedicated to it. Even if it were possible to write an entire essay on the subject of the phrase, it would still seem to me to be a rather silly thing to have an article about - a bit like writing an article on the history of chewing gum on pavements. In some circumstances it is possible to merge the article with another article on the same subject - for instance fuck off could be merged with an article dealing with the etymology and uses of the word fuck. However in other circumstances this is not possible. Whether anyone feels that this is an issue worth addressing or not is another matter of course. However I feel that there is a hole in policy here which would be better "nipped in the butt" now rather than wait until it does become a larger issue when there are thousands of really short articles for every phrase imaginable, containing only a definition and a famous quote.

My personal feelings are that articles on phrases should be merged with another relevant article, or, if that's not possible, removed entirely. I usually don't like to suggest anything that would remove information from wikipedia, but in this case I see no other alternative. What else does one do with useless information that has no place on it's own or merged with anything else? --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging an article does not require a policy. See WP:CREEP. --tjstrf talk 09:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about merging an article, I'm talking about the articles that treat wikipedia as though it were a phrasebook/urban dictionary, resulting a large number of short articles with nothing more than a definition and a quote. I only mentioned merging as a solution to these articles. The long an short of it is, I want to know whether these types of articles are allowed. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If it goes into more relevant detail than would be appropriate for wiktionary, then it probably does belong here. --tjstrf talk 10:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY

I have a problem with this part of WP policy. Democracy is part of everything, and as such, Wikipedia is a democracy! I will use the United States for comparison. Both entities have:

  1. Citizens who vote on some things, but not everything.
  2. Citizens who have a fair say in everything.
  3. Some people have more power in "governing" than others (admins/mayors, governors, congressmen).
  4. A select few have very high power (stewards, bureaucrats, members of the board/U.S. congressmen, justices, president and cabinet).
  5. General laws.
  6. A Judicial branch (WP:ARBCOM) which democratically settles disputes based on these general laws.

The list goes on. How can we possibly say that we are not a democracy when we are constantly practicing it. I just doesn't work like that. I can't stand when people cite that WP is not a democracy because it is; some people just don't want to recognize it that way! → JARED (t)  22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

m:Voting is evil. AfD, RfA, etc are not votes. Get it out of your head that they are. Strength of arguments are weighed against policy, not heads counted. That's the main difference. ColourBurst 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course they're votes. They offer explanation as well, but they are numbered and they are placed in the subsection that they wanted them counted in (namely support or oppose). People just don't want to think of them as votes. → JARED (t)  23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
While they may be numbered, they certainly aren't counted. While the side with more supporters may win, since it is not a democracy, a minority opinion may prevail if it is better argued or supported better by wikipedia policy. I'll acknowledge that there certainly are things that look like votes, but that doesn't mean that they are. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
For sake of argument, I'll just direct you to this RfA, where right below the section title, the "votes" are counted and prominently displayed in bold before any of the discussion takes place. I'm really just trying to play devil's advocate here: I know what policy says, but I know in my mind that it's just worded wrong, because Wikipedia is a democracy in all ways but (possibly) the voting thing. → JARED (t)  23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Are RfA's decided on vote quantity, or does the admin closing determine consensus? Is that distinction spelled out anywhere in WP policy? There are a couple instances in which voting is used, but the vast majority of the time (specifically, making the encyclopedia), it isn't. That doesn't make it a democracy overall. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

While it is correct to say "Wikipedia is not a democracy", that shouldn't be confused with "Wikipedia is never a democracy". Yes, we will find examples of votes and democratic-like process, but it is never binding and is something we try to avoid to prevent things like group-think and "us vs them", etc. So yes, there is some democracy in Wikipedia, and that is ok, but the point is that we are not bound by democratic process and there are other means of consensus that is more often desirable. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)