Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 8

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Should these be modified? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: In section "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information":

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  NOT a mommy or daddy. 

message: disscusion?--158.123.153.254 16:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy. What makes you think it is? 70.101.144.160 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is a Bureaucracy 

message: 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 []. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Not always correct

message: 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)
thread_title: Clarification on Issue

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia is not censored" question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistency between this and [[WP:EL]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reference Material at [[s:Main page|Wikisource]] 

message: (At right) Good idea or bad idea? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP != soapbox illustration 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why are you bringing this up? oTHErONE(Contribs) 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clayboy's suspicuous edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Entries for TV Show Characters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Policy /guidelines on film lists needed 

message: 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" , 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 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  07:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: *Not a straw man... a simple statement of fact... the tag reads what it read Radiant!, do cease from making it out to be something it isn't, that's tantamount to intellectual dishonesty. As far as m:Don't be a dick being part of some sort of a "trifecta policy" that page is some rather little edited (not even 50 edits to it's name?) WP:IAR construction that only came about last year. If WP:DICK was a part of Wikipedia:Five pillars then you'd have something. I'm probably going to be taking an interest in this trifecta page towards reducing this reliance on non-policy as policy.  09:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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).  10:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Better yet, tag it equivalently... complete with the "this page is heavily referenced and important" part.  11:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: **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)
thread_title: To what extent is "Wikipedia... not a democracy"?

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is the policy on having too much detail in an article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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! Please go there to contribute instructional articles. Whaddya think? — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 05:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a textbook 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Not a democracy, redux 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *I suppose you refer to ?--Samuel Curtis-- TALK 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep. I thought I added it here, must not have. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert per [[WP:NOT]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT#BLOG]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: See also WP:AVTRIV and WP:TRIV. —Centrx→talk • 02:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Another proposed addition to "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" 

message: 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 
# moved to Wikia
# moved to IRC
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sharing personal information, building community 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Active Wikipedia editors should socialize on Wikipedia 

message: A proposed change which I first made two months ago:
Current text
# 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
# 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)
thread_title:  Proposed change 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Rules on radio schedules

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: "Wikipedia is not a résumé book"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Help Needed on [[WP:NOT#DIR]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have removed the section as a sign of good faith. Robdurbar 09:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Almanac

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ''Plot summaries'' no longer applicable?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *I concur. I tried nominating TCM Underground on the basis that it was initially the same paragraph about it that the same editor added to Turner Classic Movies, and a table of films screened. The article has grown and matured a bit, but it's still essentially an article about something sort of out of context, with a listing making the bulk of the page. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree. -Will Beback · † · 19:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: (I restored your addition after reverting another edit.) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed addition - Lists of TV programmes/schedules (in reference to TV network/channel articles) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed addition- Games 

message: Your change --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 15:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already covered. Since propoganda is already mentioned, I'm reverting your change. Thanks. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 07:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed addition: Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_tool

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: That pretty much covers itJeff503 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Not a Legal Guide 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of Censorship 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a collection of Subject Guides

message: 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)
replies: text: Merging an article does not require a policy. See WP:CREEP. --tjstrf talk 09:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a phrasebook?

message: 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:
#Citizens who vote on some things, but not everything.
#Citizens who have a fair say in everything.
#Some people have more power in "governing" than others (admins/mayors, governors, congressmen).
#A select few have very high power (stewards, bureaucrats, members of the board/U.S. congressmen, justices, president and cabinet).
#General laws.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY]]