Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 14

message: Having seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks in various forms over time, I wonder if it's a good idea to clarify the portions of WP:NOT that talk about program guides and schedules.  It seems there is a consensus that certain forms of these articles should be kept, if not all, but there's a regularly recurring problem with folks nominated articles that seemingly meet the criteria but really don't.  I think the expression in the current page is unclear and needs to be modified.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the were kept as articles discussing the season's programs, which is straight forward enough. What wording do you suggest. DGG (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure of the exact wording to use, but perhaps something to indicate more strongly the difference between a record of shows broadcast by a network or channel versus an attempt at a current TV-guide style program schedule?  What's there now would seem to be enough, except for the numerous times people nominate these articles.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might also be better to do it as a note, rather than incorporate it into the main-text.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me just say that I'm strongly opposed to having these TV guides on wikipedia.   I think the newly instituted "time capsule" rule also suggests against having such a list.  Corpx 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sharing your position is one thing.  Sharing the reasons for your position is another.  I see the former.  I have yet to see you explain the latter.  Would you care to do so?  FrozenPurpleCube 17:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A program guide can illustrate which shows are adjacent or opposite others.  Popular shows attract other shows, both before and after, as well as competitors scheduling shows to be on at the same time.  Past TV scheduling may also become of historical interest if time-sensitive broadcasting becomes less relevant to television programming.  I note that a "program guide" for a season might show only titles of shows in timeslots while more detailed efforts require listing every episode week-by-week.  (SEWilco 20:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of Eletronic Program Guide 

message: I have read on several newspapers that Wikipedia has censored things written about Chinas government, politics, and human rights in the Chinese version of Wikipedia. Is this true? Or has that changed..?
:I've read something like that. Different language Wikipedias have different policies though, so the chinese one may not have "not censored" or at least have it worded differently. On the english Wikipedia, we're (supposedly) not censored at all apart from the exceptions listed. - Zeibura (Talk) 03:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the Chinese Wikipedia is censored by the Chinese government. Then again, I think I heard something about how the censorship applies specifically to the country of China, and that it is still edited without censorship by Chinese-speaking people in other countries...or something like that. In any case, these policies apply specifically to the English language Wikipedia. Calgary 08:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite the opposite, from what I've seen: the mainland Chinese government has firewall blocked the access of its citizens to Wikipedia for most of the past two years.  They haven't explained why, but most speculation runs along the lines that it's difficult for their government to control the flow of information. DurovaCharge! 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship? 

message: User:Durova/Wikipedia is not an experiment in consensus reality - currently an essay in user space, with a few links to demonstrate why an explicit policy clause may be a good idea. DurovaCharge! 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, it would be a valuable addition. ITAQALLAH 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems redundant, as policy.  I'm not sure what it would accomplish. -Chunky Rice 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An explicit disavowal of a notable misinterpretation.  With that as a tool it'd be easier to persuade new editors out of good faith disruption based upon that belief. DurovaCharge! 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I don't really object, because I don't see the harm, but why can't you just point to WP:V or WP:OR? -Chunky Rice 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For your consideration 

message: Whoa! This has reached over 80 entries on the Table of Contents...  We need another archive here, STAT!  --Luigifan 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel up to it?--Father Goose 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm already working on it. Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've moved threads to three archives: 11 (Threads completed in June), 12 (Topic: Newspaper articles) and 13 (Threads completed by July 31). Of the threads remaining, the first (WP:NOT - Gameguides) could probably also be archived, but there was a relatively recent comment. Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done. -Chunky Rice 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: Would providing a listing of the routes serivced by a company be a violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, among other things here?   The question is pertaining to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Egged_bus_lines Corpx 16:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bus Routes?

message: I'd like to suggest that this be added to the things WP is not.  In a lot of articles about controversial people the subjects are charged with offenses and evidence is presented to support the charges.  Then the subjects' defenders present counter evidence.  Steve Dufour 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a great description of an example of a synthesis of information, which is already covered by WP:SYNTH. Calgary 06:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, WP:BURO mentions it, albeit with a different context. >Radiant< 09:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Court of law?

message: I have run into many dictionary definitions on Wikipedia and wish to propose that this policy be changed to allow that Wikipedia carries dictionary definitions. I recently proposed deletion of de jure and had my proposal removed quickly by another editor (I now believe correctly, see the discussion). The other editor pointed to a recent keep decision for the article de facto, which is better described as a group of definitions, examples, and some non-definitional text on tangential topics such as a list of notable de facto dictators, and an explanation of why their rule was de facto and not de jure. To me, the decision to keep this article suggests that removing definitions is not the policy of Wikipedia as observed. I would propose that lengthy definitions with a large number of examples are Wikipedia what Wikipedia is. Pdbailey 02:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It;'s the depth of the discussion, not the number of examples that does it. There is an overlap: the OED for example does have encyclopedic information about many words, but the basic idea is that an entry here should not just list, but discuss.  Could you try a rewording along that line. DGG (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree on the overlap, and also on the expandability of the article. The concepts of de jure and de facto, for example, could certainly be expanded to discuss rather than define the concepts with references from law books and the like. On the other hand, many articles really can't go past "X means Y", those are more the ones that this applies to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DGG, this entry is no different than I'd expect out of the field specific jargon dictionaries that I've used (i.e. the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy). Seraphimblade's idea of expandability fits well into the focus on the far off goal of the Wikipedia, but it seems that then present dictionary entries should fall under stubs BUT only if someone should demonstrate (if not in final form or with complete references) a topic that is encyclopedic in nature that belongs on the page. Alternately, this page could change to the de facto standard I pointed out.Pdbailey 18:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DGG, in particular, I'd encourage you to look up de dictum in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, which is very similar to the Wikipedia definition for de facto and de jure--in the sense that if the Wikipedia entries were expanded and better written they might look more like the dictionary entry. I say this last part not to offend but because of the difference between the two. Pdbailey 02:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: thats one of my favorite parts of the OED. But that's a dictionary. Pdbailey 02:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggest change to policy due to de facto decisions 

message: I disagree with some parts of WP:NOT because of the very nature of wikis and how Wikipedia has historically been used. Lists and indiscriminately collecting information are fine on my part, I'm ok with reversible vandalism, and I see no problem with soapboxing on comment pages. Methinks I'll consider leaving WP and setting up my own Wiki Encyclopedia.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 03:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree with your disagreement. sadly, starting up a new wiki encyclopedia is not the answer. in order to be successful, it'd have to be popular and in order to be popular, it'd probably have to appeal to everyone that wikipedia currently appeals and then we'd be right back where we started. the (hypocritical) masses would think one way and you'd think another 209.209.214.5 05:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreement with WP:NOT

message: that's what WP:NOT#GUIDE says. that wikipedia articles should not include instructions. so why does greatest common divisor contains instructions on how to find them? why does euclidean algorithm contain instructions on how to prove it?
as written, both these examples are in clear violation. either WP:NOT#GUIDE should be rewritten to include exceptions like those or it should be removed as a policy. double standards, such as are currently present, don't do anyone any good (unless you're trying to advance a particular agenda - then silencing critics and empowering proponents is quite advantageous) 209.209.214.5 05:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first case describes various mathematical methods without giving detailed instructions in their use. The second example gives a proof, which is rather different to "intructions on how to prove it". This makes perfect sense to mathematicians, at least. Perhaps the  policy should be clarified to say that what looks like instructions might not be instructions when it's a specialist subject. SamBC(talk) 11:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Instructions can be encyclopedic content, but generally they are not. Context plays a big factor for all of WP:NOT. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ned Scott has it. Applying anything in WP:NOT literally can be a bad idea... would we remove any information about the rules of chess from the applicable articles? I suspect they would quickly not make sense, even to people who already knew the rules. A bit of information on how rules work can be encyclopedic and even necessary. The original spirit of the rule was, as far as I know, to prevent stuff like "Quake2 Mutliplayer Strategies" or "How to program C#" articles, which are clearly unencyclopedic as the goal is no longer to inform, but to instruct and advise. --W.marsh 13:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia articles should not include instructions 

message: ...where does one find the directory for Everything That Has Ever Existed? --Chr.K. 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "Not a Directory..." 

message: I've added two items to NOT#DIRECTORY, that come up regularly in AFD and would benefit the project to have a clear statement in WP:NOT. They cover gazeteer type directories, and directories that list arbitrary cross-categorizations. Hopefully the wording is self-explanatory. Both include suitable exceptions for those gazeteers and cross-categorizations that should have articles. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  I mean, I agree, in principle.  But if you're going to say, "Wikipedia is not X, except for the times when it is," I'm not really sure what the point is.  It's not clear to me what makes Jewish musicians the exception to the rule.  Without that clarification, I don't think it's that useful.  -Chunky Rice 21:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directory additions 

message: I added a "see also" to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) in criteria 1. I see this one quoted in AfDs from editors who do not seem to be familiar with the provisions of that stand-alone policy. I think the whole list policy may need overhaul given how rancorous those AfDs become (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Chinese people (second nomination) for example), but I think that making sure all editors are aware of the various core policies could be helpful in the meantime. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing claims that "[subject] in popular culture" pages "fails WP:NOT#DIR by design." now, per the loosely associated topics. Can we get that langueage tightened or, if for so0me mental reason wikipedia wants to ban pages of that type, and actual real policy banning them? Thanks. Artw 16:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT#DIR