Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 16

message: The following sections are endlessly cited in arguments to delete a list (or delete all lists): 
"Wikipedia is not a directory..." 
"Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed..." 
"Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations..."  
Since this was not the purpose of the statements here (since WP accepts lists as valid), what might be changed here so these paragraphs are not subject to such abusive misuse. Hmains 02:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such arguments should explain how the list treats wikipedia as a "directory" or how the cross-categorization is "unencyclopedic". Given that the section exists, it is bound to frequently appear in deletion discussion, so can you give actual misuse of such arguments for comparison? As all the subelements of it are definitely not topics for Wikipedia, the header or intro text is what needs to be revised, but I can't think of another way to do it. Circeus 03:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you should mention that.  I took a stab at that three days ago via this edit.  I assumed nobody reverted or said anything because everyone agreed.  Perhaps it was just too wordy for anybody to notice :(   - Wikidemo 02:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of lists 

message: I believe the over-application of this policy is detrimental to Wikipedia and needs some attention.  The institutions in a town or city are usually not notable enough to have an article about them, but grouped together they capture the government organisations, charities, clubs and societies.  By removing lists of institutions, Wikipedia is removing articles on the social fabric of towns and I think that is wrong.  Does anyone else agree? Pgr94 09:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one do not agree.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Wikipedia is succeeding where so many other wikis have failed in large part because we constantly remember and limit ourselves to that purpose.  When we allow our mission to become to diffuse, the project fails.  We know this is the case because our predecessor projects such as Everything2 failed for exactly that reason.  Just because something is useful does not mean that it necessarily belongs in Wikipedia.  Rossami (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely understand your point about over-diversifying.  At the same time I think there is something wrong when policy says it's ok to have detailed plot summaries of every episode of even minor television programs yet refuse to even mention *real* organisations.  It seems that the criteria for inclusion are biased against real institutions. Pgr94 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's edit out the plot summaries, too. "There's already cruft!" is a good argument for "Clean the cruft!", not for "Pile on more!". Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Everything2 failed?  They seem to be still humming along, doing exactly what they set out to do: nothing in particular.  I see much more evidence that Wikipedia is losing sight of its mission through increasing restrictiveness than through permissivity.  We'll never stop being an encyclopedia, but we're increasingly failing to be as comprehensive as we could be (while still being encyclopedic) due to restrictions not underpinned by any actual principle.--Father Goose 18:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct that they do nothing in particular.  That was not, however, their original vision.  When they first started, they had lofty goals.  They have failed to achieve their goals in large part because they tried to be all things to all people.  Are they still in existence?  Yes.  I, for one, don't consider that the appropriate measure of success.  Carl Shirkey has an excellent article on the critical success factors for wikis.  In the article, he includes some discussion on the importance of a shared and clearly understood vision and why limits are so important.  If you can find a copy of the article, it's a very enlightening read.  Rossami (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, absolutely.  The consensus and standard in an article about a city is to list its major institutions, features, businesses, landmarks, historical events, etc.  That has nothing to do with being a directory, and the "WIkipdeia is not a directory" does not speak to that at all.  Citing that as a reason for gutting an article about a place is clearly invalid.  Simply restore the content and educate those people if someone does that, and tell them they need consensus.  If they wish to persist they need to take it to the talk page and, if necessary, a policy page or dispute resolution forum.Wikidemo 15:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, do you have an example of what you're talking about?  I looked through your recent edit history and the only disputes I notice in the last week relate to an occasional external link to an off-Wikipedia list of town-related content.  A list of external links is in directory territory, but a single link doesn't raise any questions of whether Wikipedia is a directory.  If anything it is a WP:EL question, and hinges on other matters.Wikidemo 15:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is the example that prompted me to write: List of clubs and societies in Thanet (www.edithis.info).  It was previously on wikipedia and moved offsite because of WP:NOT.  Now WP:EL is being used to remove links to it.  It seems that policy is geared-up to remove all traces of local institutions.  Is that really what we want? Pgr94 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake then.  That is clearly a directory.  Yes, I believe we want to avoid hosting such lists on Wikipedia for any of a number of policy reasons, not the least of which is that there is no way we can be up to date, comprehensive, and maintain quality control.  We may or may not want to avoid linking to similar content.  There is nothing inherently or categorically wrong with linking to a directory.  If we find a link to such things off wikipedia, it may or may not be appropriate depending on what we are linking to.  Government sites and local chambers of commerce are reasonably authoritative.  Open wikis are problematic and rarely make good external links.  They suffer from the same reliability problems Wikipedia has, and usually worse.  If your mission is to create a good directory of things in the town, and none exists, why not do it in a more reliable format with proper editorial control - a real website?  If that site becomes the best, most authoritative list then it's okay to link to.  If there is a better list, you can link to that one and spare yourself the effort because it's already been done.  This has nothing to do with films.  That's the dreaded Pokemon fallacy: "We cover Pokemon to death, so we might as well X", where X is whatever unwise idea someone has.  Wikidemo 15:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree when you say it "can't be up to date, comprehensive, and maintain quality control": that is an argument that holds for the Britannica-model of encyclopedia.  With wiki-style encyclopedias this is not the case.  Contributions from the local community can make this more accurate and reliable than any "authoritative" one.  I am in favour of this kind of information being hosted on wikipedia and would very much like to see the counter-arguments re-visited.  Pgr94 16:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the purposes of verifiability, we tend to require that sources of information about a subject be available from something other than the source itself.  So your list of clubs presently fails on that point.  If such a directory was independently published by a reliable source, I personally would be willing to let it stay in Wikipedia, provided that repeating the list did not constitute a copyright violation.--Father Goose 18:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't exactly put it that way if we're talking about deleting the external link, because verifiability doesn't apply to off-wikipedia content or to the decision to use an external link.  We don't hold the world to Wikipedia's policies, just Wikipedia.  It's more like reliability.  Were this in Wikipedia, citing sources for inclusion of items on lists is a tough subject.  In general we don't, but for some problematic lists we do.  But the original research / verifiability issue does indirectly have to do with why directories are not a good idea to begin with.  Wikidemo 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about what standards the list would have to meet if it were hosted on Wikipedia itself.  I generally just ignore external links, good or bad.--Father Goose 05:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Reliable sources are not a problem for organisations with a legal statute.  For instance, registered charities and companies are recorded in government-maintained registers and this is straightforward to verify.  However, organisations with no legal statute are more problematic.  Newspaper articles are one source but I can't think of much else just now.  Using the legal statute as the condition for inclusion is not ideal as a lot of entries will be axed, but it does meet WPs verifiability and reliable source criteria.  This would certainly be a big step towards being less biased against real organisations.  Pgr94 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: IMO, both the old and new definitions (diff here) are pretty weak.  We need to get away from the rhetoric and the exaggeration on this page, and give some concrete guidance.  The point is we cover things, not words.  So we don't do the etymology, culture, definition, or usage of words.  But if a word stands for something we can cover that thing.  In addition, if a word becomes a cultural phenomenon we can cover the phenomenon.  If a neologism arises from a concept we can cover the concept.  And of course, a language, dialect, or accent is a thing, not a word so we can cover that too.  All subject to notability.  These are not "rare cases" at all as the new wording seems to suggest; they are quite common.  The old wording misses the point, and the new one more so.  And what's this with enshrining Klingon language and Leet in the policy?  WP:NOT#LAUGHINGSTOCK.  Wikidemo 13:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary only covers a sketch of the etymology, and very little of the uses, and none of the cultural significance,  Restricting WP from covering these for important words leaves this critical material nowhere. Maybe we should change Wiktionary, but that's another question. A word can be discussed as a word in an encyclopedia, if there is more than the basic dictionary information.DGG (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's arguing for a broader admissibility than I was...whereas both definitions permit other arguments.  Notable cultural phenomena surrounding words, things/concepts described by words, neologisms, accdents, dialects, and languages are allowed here so as a class we should exclude them from WP:NOT#DICTIONARY.  If we want to go farther and say that some words are interesting enough we can cover the word for its meaning and etymology, that would be a carve-out from the section.  There are 600K+ words in the language, plus any number of compound words.  Compound words are funny.  There is no pushcart article because as the disambiguation page insists, they are simply a kind of cart that is pushed.  But we have a handtruck article because that kind of tool is not the same as a truck that one operates by hand.  How many words deserve their own articles?Wikidemo 17:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There could be a pushcart article; it is a synonym for "vending cart" (hot dog carts being one specific (though poorly written) example), and we could have an article about the different types and their historical and global use.--Father Goose 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Wiktionary will cover etymology, use and cultural significance to as much depth and degree as the editors there think appropriate and I've seen some pages that went very deep on those topics.  But if they're not doing the way you think it should be done, you too can be one of those editors and can help fix Wiktionary.  Don't distort Wikipedia's mission out of some misguided attempt to preserve all possibly useful information.  Lexical information very clearly belongs at Wiktionary.  Words should not be discussed as words in the encyclopedia.  Wikidemo's distinction about Words --> Wiktionary, Things --> Wikipedia is a better description than many I've heard and makes a good start on how to sort out the missions of the two projects.  Rossami (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen many, and I think we should not destroy existing infromation in a good project while we wait for another one to reach a higher standard. There's a limitto what one person can work on, btw. Which is why I stay in WP. DGG (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with DGG. The idea that the various wikis are mutually exclusive is absurd. We see this with WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikinews too. There are areas of overlap, and areas that are exclusive. We have current events on WP, but only Wikinews takes OR. The same is true for definitions. An article needs to start with a definition to define its scope. We can cover etymology, usage, etc. if it helps explain the topic. A WP article is about the thing, not the word, but the two are related, and sometimes inseparable.  Also WP is written for the reader's benefit, and we should not force readers to go to other wikis to get a complete story. WP articles must be able to stand on their own, and if including information about the word helps the reader to understand the topic, then it should be included. Dhaluza 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second DGG and Dhaluza, some overlap between the two projects is natural but it's not a problem that should be dealt with by enforcing policies to the detriment of the end user--DarTar 13:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.S. For an excellent example of where the word is the thing, and an extensive etymology is encyclopedic and relevant, see for example the article on the N-word. Dhaluza 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a dictionary 

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

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

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

message: WP:GAMEGUIDE currently redirects to the "not a manual" section, but it doesn't discuss game guides in particular, only manuals and textbooks, and travel/internet guides. Is it possible to add a paragraph about game/strategy guides in particular, assuming this redirect is justified? Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a part of "Instruction manuals": "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes."  I think that says everything it needs to.--Father Goose (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:GAMEGUIDE 

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

message: Ragrading linking to external links, there seems to be some ambiguity. Does Wikipedia have any policy on linking movie articles to (specifically) trailers? Or do they not have any information value?
An Admin on the farsi wikipedia has left me a message citing WP:NOT#LINK, and has deleted every link I put from every article to any trailer of that movie. All links went to either trailers on IMDB, or on the official website. He claims "links to trailers are not encyclopedic and are not relevant". Am I missing something here? Thank You.--Zereshk (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Discussion taking place at the more appropriate location: Wikipedia talk:External links#Linking to trailers is discouraged?) --Stormie (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding WP:NOT#Link 

message: WP:ORG says: Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.
But wouldn't such a list of non-notable organisations constitute a directory?  This strikes me as a contradiction.  Can we please amend the "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy.  Pgr94 13:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of two possible ways in which they might be compatible.  First, merely listing a number of instances of organizations does not create a directory.  A directory is an external list that gives contact information.  An internal list of elements is simply that, an internal list.  So a "list of American architects" that links to other articles, and sourced non-articles, is just that, a list.  An attempt to create a complete list with websites, phone numbers, email, etc., is a directory.  Second, a directory is a list of various different organizations in the same line of business.  The reasons it is wrong include avoiding spam/special interests, the impossibility of ever being authoritative and comprehensive (we'll never be as reliable as google or a commercial business directory), and the high amount of maintenance required to keep our list current and accurate.  By contrast, some nationwide organizations have a small, stable list of chapters, and they don't present these same problems.  A list of boy scout troops would indeed be a directory.  A list of the five or six regional centers of a the Mayo Clinic, or the couple dozen franchises of Le Cordon Bleu throughout the world does not seem to be such a problem as long as the approach isn't spammy.  I don't know if this irons out the problem, just offering a possibility.  Wikidemo 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree that a list of Boy Scout troops would necessarily be a directory. If it listed the troop number, city, and date of creation, for example, that would be an encyclopedic list with relevant geographic and historical information. The fact that the list is long has nothing to do with whether it is a directory. If it is too long, it can be broken down by geography or some other characteristic. If the list contained contact info, number of members, or similar information that needs to be updated frequently, then that would be directory information that should be removed. Dhaluza (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: After all of the news articles that've survived AfD, it's really ineffective. We have three options:
#Remove it entirely.
#Reword it to remove the "front page on one newspaper for one day" types.
#Give it teeth.
Suggestions? Will (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor a reword, which has been in the back of my head for a while.  It should do a better job of delineating the difference between "today's news chatter" and "events (or people) of lasting significance".--Father Goose 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: another possible distinction is to differentiate the category of human interest stories from true new events. DGG (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some sort of requirement for extended coverage, to exclude flash-in-the-pan news events? If an event is still receiving coverage a significant period of time after it happened, chances are we can write a real article on it. If it just got coverage when it happened and got forgotten, chances are similarly good it's an event of fleeting notice on which a real in-depth article isn't possible. I also agree with DGG, "human interest" type stuff should generally be excluded. Newspapers use all sorts of stuff as filler, especially when real news is slow. That doesn't mean that should be in an encyclopedia. Maybe also make use of soft redirects to Wikinews? Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Give it teeth.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.  The vast majority of problems that I see with the project today can be traced back to difficulties making that distinction.  If we stopped trying to be a newspaper, most of our sourcing and verifiability disputes would become moot.  Human interest stories should definitely be excluded but I wouldn't necessarily stop there.  Most "sensational" crimes or tragic accidents are not really all that sensational a year later.  If a single event eventually has substantial long-term impact on society, we can always write the article then.  We ought not to be trying to predict potential social impact when deciding what to write about.  That is not an encyclopedia's place.  I do support soft-redirects to WikiNews as a way to make the point clearer to readers/editors.  Rossami (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording or removing NOT#NEWS 

message: I'm in a debate with another user about merging an article, citing lack of notability.  This user states that as (general) Notability is not linked from Five pillars or this page (save for the specific issues of self-promotion, businesses, and news reports), that notability does not hold the same weight as a policy/guideline like WP:V or WP:NOR.  
I certainly don't think he's right, but that calls into the fact that Notability as a general criteria for inclusion into WP is not spelled out here and may confuse editors.   I'm wondering if there should be statement, in the lead of the IINFO section that is along the lines of "Wikipedia uses Notability guidelines to set a standard for the inclusion of a topic within Wikipedia." (or something to that language).  --MASEM 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you suggest? "Wikipedia is not for non-notable topics?" WP:N is a guideline. It may be frequently cited, but it's no policy. --Pixelface (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the start of the WP:IINFO section, the current quote is: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.".  I would suggest possibly something like: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia; Wikipedia has notability guidelines to determine content to include within the encyclopedia." (not married to the langauge).  I know WP:N is not policy and only a guideline, but I've seen wikilawyering that its lack of mention on this page (the only part of WP:FIVE where notability applies) means it can be ignored freely; as long as we say "hey, there's a guideline to help you with this" here in that section, it doesn't make it policy, just that it exists. --MASEM 14:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly stupid question... 

message: How is wikipedia not a 'democracy'? It has a concensus system and other democratic protocols. Obviously just because it is not run politically, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a democratic protocol. If I am not mistaken, the Wikipedian founder directly said out of context, "Wikipedia is a democracy... although there are vandals... sometimes a little monarchy is required". He also mentioned that he meant it conceptually not politically. in the TED show (the one where all famous scientists and other profession gathered). --Storkian aka iSoroush Talk  21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also confused on the fact that Wikipedia says it's not a democracy. There's a voting process. It doesn't just "resemble" voting. It's voting. It's called voting. It's why there's such things as "Vote for Deletion" and "Vote for Featured Article. I mean, duh facts can't be voted on and it's obvious by the definition of a wiki that it's not an experimental egalitarian democracy. It's just a database. But content inasmuch can be voted on. I mean, can't you use a democratic process for some things without being a democracy? I think that the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" thing should make that clear: there's a democratic voting system for articles, but not for facts. And unlike articles, users aren't kept or deleted based on a democratic consensus. ForestAngel (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, there is no longer a "Votes for deletion" page. After a great deal of discussion, we changed the name because it was creating exactly the confusion that you are expressing.  Votes are decided by simple head-counts with every opinion weighted equally (after adjusting for suffrage).  Deletion decisions are made through discussion and consensus-seeking with the opinions weighted by a large number of factors including but not limited to their connection to established policy, their connection to externally verified evidence, the user's contribution history, etc.  A single well-written "keep" opinion that is based in policy can result in the article being kept despite a dozen "delete because I don't like it" opinions.  No established system of Voting allows for that kind of outcome.  Rossami (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democracy? 

message: Should lyrics to fight songs be included?  WP:NOT states that articles cannot consist solely of lyrics but many would argue that one excerpts from lyrics should be allowed and full lyrics be either linked to or on WikiSource.  Please visit Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs.  violet/riga (t) 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is getting over specific for a policy page. Details like that belong in a guideline. DGG (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly which guideline to add it to yet though and wouldn't want to create a new one.  The discussion is at CENT because of this.  violet/riga (t) 10:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics: Fight songs 

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

message: *Back to the original issue.  Other than copyright, why does this point exist?  This one point is being used to justify large parts of WP:FICT and (indirectly) a rather large number of AfDs.  But I'm not seeing a clear justification.  Is it due to copyright issues?  Is it due to something related to notability?  Hobit (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: because wikipedia is a real world encyclopedia that shows how things affect the real world. It's basically the difference between Readers Digest and CliffsNotes, one simply condenses the plot into a short story, the other offers only brief plot points to educate people about the importance and development and meaning of the work. Ridernyc (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't everything part of the "real world"? I've never understood this phrase as respects fiction. The important parts of the plot of Romeo and Juliet should be explained, because Romeo and Juliet is important, and understanding the plot is necessary for understanding the work. Obviously, we shouldn't pretend that the events in the story actually took place. But Romeo and Juliet's plot is as much a part of the "real world" as a painting, automobile, mathematical equation or other construction of humans. — brighterorange (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the plot is part of the real world just like an automobile but let me push your analysis a bit further.  We don't have an actual automobile in the encyclopedia.  We have text that talks about the automobile, explaining and describing it and, more importantly, explaining its implications within the context of the rest of the real world.  No one has said that we have to forbid all discussion of plot in an article - only that an encyclopedia article must be more than merely plot summary.  If, after a reasonable period of time, no one can find anything sourcable to write about other than plot summary, that's probably a pretty good indicator that we don't have anything encyclopedic to say yet.  Rossami (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll disagree here.  A short plot summary can be enough to me an encyclopedia article.  If someone wrote a book about dogs, a short summary of the book and links to a few reviews or sales figures should be enough.  Same with fiction IMO.  Hobit (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: On the Readers Digest and CliffsNotes I agree, but current WP:PLOT is used as an argument against CliffNotes-type summaries.  Red Hand of Doom has been cited as having too much plot compared to real-world content. WP:PLOT would seem to indicate that even short plot summaries aren't acceptable if "real world impact" stuff isn't included.  Is that the intent? Hobit (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes even short plot summaries are bad if there is no real world context in the article.  Another problem is articles that add minor bits of real world context to try to support massive plot summaries. I don't have a problem with the article you linked to, I Have a problem when 3 sentences of information about a voice actor is used to justify a 5 page character bio. Ridernyc (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than notability (which I think is covered elsewhere) why would a pure plot summary be a problem?  Is this just an attempt at defining notability?  Hobit (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's defining what is considered encyclopedic, analysis of plot is, summary of plot is not. Ridernyc (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How come? If we have a biography of a real person, must we analyze the important events of that person's life, or is it acceptable to simply recount them? I think the latter. What is the difference? — brighterorange (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Do i really need to point out that one is real one is a work of fiction. If you can't understand the difference, I'm not sure how to explain it. Ridernyc (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess you are not understanding my point. Of course we should not write about fiction as if it actually occurred, but I don't see why fiction needs "analysis" when we are otherwise willing to state facts without analysis. To say "At the side of Romeo's dead body, she stabs herself with her lover's dagger" in the synopsis of Romeo and Juliet is completely appropriate, is fiction, and needs no real-world anything or analysis in order to be encyclopedic. — brighterorange (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Exactly. Hobit (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break for readability

message: :Proposed - Wikipedia is not a features guide to be used to compare the features of competing products.
The ongoing Guitar controller compatibility DRV and its associated AfD reveal a struggle to identify why articles largely composed of product feature comparison tables should not be permitted within Wikipedia. There are many, many of these product feature comparison table articles, most of which lack cites to independent reliable sources for the table contents. The information is taken directly from the product manufacturer, so it fails to meet the independent requirement for source material. While it seems that Wikipedia is not a features guide to be used to compare the features of competing products, WP:NOT does not seem to specifically cover this situation. Wp:not#sales was written to keep prices out of these product comparison table articles (see Price guide (again)), but I think that is as far as it goes. I would appreciate seeing other's comments on this proposal. -- Jreferee   t/c 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you advocate deleting something like Comparison of vector graphics editors?  I've used that article, and others like it, to get overviews of products in specific categories.  They tend to be imperfect, but that's true of Wikipedia in general.  What do we gain by deleting them?--Father Goose (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is full of apparent original research, is mostly unreferenced, and includes prices; probably not the best example of why we should keep them. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I don't think pages that are essentially comparison shopping guides fit under that definition, even with a long stretch of WP:NOT#PAPER. Mr.Z-man 22:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I used that article as an example of something that is less than perfect, but still has some encyclopedic worth.  It could be improved in many ways, which in itself is not a justification for deletion (AfD is not cleanup).  I don't see the sense in proposing that any "Overview of products of type x" should be automatically declared "unencyclopedic" and banned.  I marvel at how often deletion is being treated as a substitute for good editing these days.--Father Goose (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Having seen a few attempts to use Wikipedia commercially, I wholeheartedly concur that feature guides and such are a bad idea. >Radiant< 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree here--I think prices are rarely relevant and can always be easily found on the web. Comparison articles are tricky because they tend to involve a certain degree of evaluation; articles specifically about notable products can be descriptive & therefore encyclopedic.  DGG (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose: Not Features Guide 

message: Take a look at St. Martin's Island, Pakistan Air Force, Independent University, Bangladesh, Haor ... there are more, many more. And, what do you see? Articles laden with images that add little or no extra information. As long as they are on the commons, no problem. But, why are we driving page sizes up, and reducing encyclopedic integrity of the project? There has been trmenedous outrage about trivia, and so little has been done about this picture book approach. Shouldn't something be done? Like, at least developing a template that says - "Unnecessary images and image galleries are not encouraged... please, put them to enhance information at appropriate places in the article, or reduce the number of images"... or something in that line. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - Haor gallery now removed by AK Johnbod (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Discussion initiated by banned sockpuppet removed per policy. - CheshireKatz (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can an admin censor negative comments towards him (and ban that person afterward)? 

message: Jimbo Wales violates section 2.2.4 of this policy on the talk page for Wesley Willis 216.164.51.162 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're picking on Jimbo for a single edit made back in 2003 - long before this policy clause existed.  Congratulations, you've found evidence that the project has matured and that we are now more professional than we were years ago.  I imagine you'd find the same in most of the older history pages.  Rossami (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Snitch!--Father Goose (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be that articles didn't even have talk pages, discussion went on the bottom. See for example some of the history here. Mr.Z-man 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: He should probably be de-opped. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:52, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypocrisy 

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

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

message: I'm proposing to add a new section to the project page. Anyone who has been contributing to the Wikipedia project for a few years, as I have, comes across a steady stream of disillusioned users. Whether it is inability to agree on article content, reaction to perceived arbitrary Admin action or a paranoid clique defending their patch, or just good people being worn down by the vast number of defects to fix and lack of support in carrying out their work, the loss of valuable contributors all comes down to one thing: disillusionment at the realisation that Wikipedia is not perfect. Much better to learn this at the beginning. Wikipedia is not perfect, and it is not possible to fix everything all at once. But rather than give up and leave, it is more rewarding to make friends and/or move on to other areas of this vast project where your talents are appreciated and welcomed. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good content but does it really fit on this page?  You can already refer them to meta:Eventualism, WP:REPLIES, WP:DEADLINE and WP:INSPECTOR (to name a few) which discuss aspects of what you're trying to say.  Rossami (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you mentioned below, the page is getting quite long. This idea is of a different type from those already listed here. And of course the problem with listing it in all the other areas you suggest is that no one will find them until it's too late! Perhaps this idea would be more suitable in a how-to introduction page. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not perfect 

message: are we "allowed" to share our thoughts about the topic / subject of the article?  what should we do if we make posts about things related to an article on its discussion page (for example, if we make a post about how the history channel had a show on nostradamus and portrayed osama bin laden as "the anti-christ" that nostradamus predicted on the "osama bin laden" Discussion page) and then someone deletes our posts, and cites this policy?  what if they also deleted a post pointing out a grammatical error on a protected page that cannot be edited by everyone?  isn't there a no revert wars policy?  what should we do?  Jaguar Verde (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk pages are provided for the sole purpose of building and improving the articles.  We tolerate a small degree of cross-talk from new users who don't yet know better (and we try to assume good faith when we do so) but it is not at all unusual for irrelevant tangents to be removed from a page.   The grammatical error example would seem to be an appropriate use of the Talk page.  Can you please provide a link to the edit in question?  It would help to see if there's something else going on.  Rossami (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion pages 

message: I've reverted this edit.  It changed this section:
: Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project. Wikipedia is not the white pages.;;
to this:
: Biography articles should only be for people with clearly established notability, as demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project. Wikipedia is not the white pages.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of enshrining the rather vague, often self-contradictory "notability" guidelines in the heart of our policy.  This policy sets out Wikipedia's purpose (and what it isn't for).  To say that those guidelines are definitive is incorrect. Sometimes they don't work, and that's why they're guidelines. --Tony Sidaway 07:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know its a guideline, but would it not make sense to suggest that these exist in not-so-strong language for reference?.  For example, from the original version, I would add after the 3rd sentence and before the last.  "Notability guidelines are available to assist in judging the appropriateness of the inclusion of a biography."     (note BIO which is specific to people.  I would recommend a similar change (not a strong assertion that notability guidelines are perfect) in the IINFO section.  --MASEM 12:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think something like that might work. --Tony Sidaway 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: See the claim put forth at WP:NPOV/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity and my edit that was reverted . ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT people's philosophy theses, either. Policy is hard enough without incorporating the nihilists, no? Chris Cunningham (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia does not consider objectivity. Rather, we consider neutrality and verifiability. Thus it is unecessary to use the term "objective" and possibly unwise given the irrelevant philosophical can of worms you open by doing so. Hyacinth (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I do, however, feel that it in no way makes Wikipedia look bad to claim it is not objective any more than it makes Wikipedia look bad to claim that it is not omniscient. Hyacinth (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That seems to have little to do with what Wikipedia is. Hyacinth (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not objective. 

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

message: Currently, the section entitled "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook" (linked to from WP:GAMEGUIDE), is broken into four pieces. Game guides are covered in the first section, Instruction Manuals: "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks." (emphasis mine)
The problem with this is that it implies that game guide content is restricted to "how-to" information. True, many game guides are filled with this sort of information, such as tips for beating a level or earning a high score, but game guides go beyond instructional content. For example, suppose someone created an article that listed the monsters found in a video game, together with statistics, such as how many hit points each monster had, amount of experience and gold awarded for defeating, etc. This isn't instructional—it doesn't say how to defeat the monsters—but it is clearly game guide material in my opinion. Whenever I find such content and remove it, I usually link to this section and say that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Often, someone will revert and say that it's not game guide content because it doesn't instruct the player on how to play the game.
I would like to split game guides out from instructional manuals as a fifth part of this section to deal with them more directly and explain them more clearly. The proposed section would state that Wikipedia is not for detailed descriptions of how to play a game (whether a video game, pen-and-paper role-playing game, or other), not for tips and techniques such as glitches or detailed strategies that are only useful to those playing the game, and not for lists of statistics or minutia such as one would expect to find in a game guide. Pagrashtak 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the split, and new proposed section. I've personally cleaned many articles up, and seen some reverted because they don't think it's game guide content. If a better section was made, this problem wouldn't be around as much. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the split also, though not necessarily the proposed language. This does need separate treatment. Given that NOT is policy, the actual wording will need a much more general discussion than just here. The discussion should involve at least the relevant WikiProjects, and probably should be announced at the VP.  In thinking about what is appropriate, consider the articles on chess, many of which are very strongly supported by reliable published sources, and also very detailed. DGG (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, something about easter eggs and secrets should be listed in it. I've seen many "secrets" and "easter egg" sections on video game articles. Nothing out of control (that I've seen at least), but I think it's right to put it in this proposed section as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm, maybe. Certainly DGG is right that this needs more discussion to develop consensus. Although the example of monster hit point data is a good one (and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia), it is already covered with WP:NOT#STATS (and probably other things). Since "game guide" is used so frequently as a reason for deletion, it probably makes sense to spell out what we mean by that, but it is also a sometimes contentious claim—so I'm not sure we're justified in expanding its scope. For example, I would disagree with a prohibition on descriptions of strategies or easter eggs; both are things that are sometimes notable and widely written about. From my perspective, the reason that "game guide" appears here in WP:NOT is more of a stylistic issue than a content one: We must write about things in an NPOV, external manner, not by walking the reader through a tutorial or giving advice. Still, we can write about games and their noteworthy aspects (which might include easter eggs and bugs and strategies), as long as we do so using an encyclopedic style and employing our other various policies of neutrality and verifiability. — brighterorange (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Should this statement by Jimbo be referenced or linked to? It is relevant to what Wikipedia is not (especially pertaining to game materials). Jappalang (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A NPOV manner is not incompatible with giving instructions on how to play a game, unless you mean we should also give instructions on how to play it poorly. NPOV doesnt seem to apply here at all, except as we would list the available sources in an even handed manner. Other things do, of course, but the only way to intelligently talk about a game to someone who  doesn't know it is to explain at least in summary how to play it.  actually this is the same as fiction: you have to explain the plot in order to know what you are talking about even at the very most basic level. On this I dont think Burtorange and I disagree in practice. There are articles with too much detail. where I think people differ, based on AfD discussions, is whether a list of the game objects is appropriate: I think that';s how a game is defined: the rules, and the objects, like the plot and the characters.  Obviously again, we dont want to give all the detail--but there are not all that many articles here that give the detail to the extent I would expect in an actual guide to playing the game. DGG (talk)
This debate seems to hinge on the meaning of game guide. Wikipedia is certainly not a guide to games, irregardless of what a game guide itself is. Hyacinth (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree with this proposal. I think it could be solved with a reword - remove the "how-to" implication and just make it a bit more broad. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Completely agree with the proposal. As Hyacinth suggested, perhaps a lot of the confusion over this comes from terminology as well: "game-guide" can imply an actual guide to playing games (like a walkthrough or strategies), whereas "guide to games" can cover the broader elements such as in-game statistics, unit and weapon lists, Easter eggs, and all the other undesirable unencyclopedic information. I'd recommend using the latter in any new versions. -- Sabre (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (To Hobit) That's an example of the type of response I'm discussing, although I agree that the actual article in question there does go beyond game guide material. For the sake of argument, consider this old revision of an article about dragons Dungeons & Dragons. If I called that game guide material (which I do, and I think you might agree) and someone were to give the response you cite above, how should I reply? The response is somewhat correct—it's not instructional and it's hard to fit it into one of the four currently listed types (instruction manual, travel guide, internet guide, textbook) but I would definitely call it game guide content. That's why I'm proposing this change. Pagrashtak 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I view that article as a stub currently looking a bit like a game guide.  I'm not being sarcastic.  What I mean is that if someone had a list of characters from a show, or list of "minor" theories and only listed the roughest of details about each, it would be a worthwhile stub for people to fill in.  I think the same thing is trying to happen there.  The topic need not be a game guide, and once filled in (if it ever were) would not be.  It may not be notable, but that's a different (and I'd claim the right argument.   Again, I'm opposed to topics being off limits if they are notable.  Ruy lopez should be in wikipedia because it is a notable strategy, even though WP:NOT might (I'd say _does_) imply otherwise...  Hobit (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the AFD for that article, you'll see that notability was in fact the reason I gave for deletion. I mentioned game guide content secondly, since the article was entirely composed of such. I think we're getting a little off-topic, though, as this discussion shouldn't have anything to do with notability—that's for Wikipedia:Notability and its subpages to handle. This is about article content. Pagrashtak 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deal with "game guide" content more directly 

message: Wikipedeia is not fun. 69.202.119.212 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or spelled that way ... a comment that you would probably place under "not fun" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fun