Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 9

message: I reverted the change from "not yours" to "not solely yours" to describe user pages. "not solely yours" implies that my user page is partially mine. I don't think this is correct. Martin 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well not yours implies that it is not under your jurisdiction at all! There's got to be some happy medium here. → JARED (t)  02:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made my disagreement with this policy heard already, not only because it is in itself rediculous, but also because nobody can seem to agree on what the policy is anyway, or even how to word it. It would seem to me that, even though I disagree with it, "user pages are not exempt from the rules" and that "objectionable content will be removed" fits the bill, however the (in my view) pointless prerequisite for all policy here to be prefixed with "Wikipedia is not..." may prevent such a wording. 82.153.142.162 10:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not just remove the section altogether? It's mostly duplicating "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site". Martin 14:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that and the section above it really don't fit. → JARED (t)  15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oppose.  Wikipedia has a current and serious problem with abuse of the userspaces.  Removing the section on userspaces dilutes and confuses the message.  While it might possibly be consolidated with some of the earlier sections, the wording of this section has aspects not covered by the others.  It should not be removed until we have consensus on replacement wording.  Rossami (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What aspects of "What your user page is not" are not covered by the section "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site"? Martin 13:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main one is probably that there's no ownership of the user page, you don't own it, and anyone can edit it.  I think it's also worth emphasizing the point about userpages since they are so often abused. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Support removal. Roassami would you care to enlighten me on what this "current and serious problem" involves? I've still yet to see any evidence of a problem, and continue to fail to see how userpages affect the encyclopedia. I still don't see why we can't just leave people to put whatever they want on their userpage. The very name "user page" implies that it is the page of the user and nobody but the user - the question in my mind is why SHOULD other people be allowed to edit it? There is no reason for people to want to do that other than vandalism - it's not an article and the User Talk page is there for any communication other people might want to have with the user. What business would I possibly have editing your user page for instance? What would be the point? What would it achieve? What does it achieve by making user pages a communal editing space? What function do they possibly play if everyone can, are encouraged to, and do, edit them? Also you've got the problem of who is going to police this rule? How is it going to be enforced? What would even constitute a violation of the rule? If someone wrote "I own this page so don't edit it" on it? On the whole I think this policy is weak and poorly thought out beaurocratic nonsense. I don't see the necessity for such a policy nor do I see a problem with users having their own personal space to talk a bit about themselves.▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of reasons that people can't put whatever they want on their user page.  Some examples include soapbox ranting, copyright vios, attacks on other users, excessive self promotion, etc.  And others can edit user pages to fix those issues.  The point of a user page is to give people an idea who you are, not be a blank slate where you can do whatever you want.  We're all here to make any encyclopedia, and generally we should be spending our time on that, not making elaborate user pages.  Generally, people aren't going to edit other users' pages unless there is a problem - if there really is an issue, other editors will support the edits, and if the other editor is editing for bad reasons, other editors will likely revert it and support the person who's bage it is.  And generally, if people write "I own this page so don't edit it", it is ignored or even deleted if the page has other issues that require editing.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  As Milo said, there are many things which are inappropriate on a userpage and can become harmful to the project even though they are restricted to the userpage.  I'm sure you've read WP:USER and it's Talk page archives but that's where the rationale is really laid out.  WP:USER also established exactly what is and is not a violation of our standards.  As to policing it, that's a function of WP:MFD - and if you track that page for a few weeks, you will see the evidence of the "current and serious problems" we are having.  Rossami (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will happily concede that a user page does not afford the freedom that a website does, but that to me seems only logical; I would have thought that it would be considered more specific than a website. A User Page implies that it is a page about the user, IE the person behind the name, but I can see how it could be misinterpreted to mean "you can do whatever you want here". Perhaps "User Bio" would be less ambiguous/open to interpretation? ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not solely yours" 

message: Hi, there has recently been a large debate over Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy where one user has been saying the page does not violate anything here at Wikipedia:Not. This page hardly seems Encyclopedic over the many other celebrity fueds, and it's existance suggests that all tabloid celebrity topics are acceptable. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not an extension of EW or ET or People or any of those other gossip magazines/shows. So, I was wondering if perhaps Wikipedia is not a Tabloid should be added. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 02:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: I'm not sure if this policy covers this issue well enough. Here's a scenario. A page about special visual effects. On the page is a list of people who are "notable." It starts out with Wally Veevers, Albert Whitlock, Ray Harryhausen, Peter Ellenshaw, John Dykstra, Dougals Trumbull ... you get the idea. Suddenly the list starts growing. More and more names are added, Robert Abel, Gary Ralston, Greg Jein, Dennis Muren, Con Pederson... hey, they're notable, they've won awards, are credited by others, their names are on the films! They're supervisors on films, or they were interviewed on DVD extras, they created their own FX companies, whatever. Next you know, the list is 90 names long. According to a guideline or two, really the list ought to be a prose paragraph or at least names that could be worked into the article due to their notability (this is my interpretation of WP:LIST, WP:LISTV, WP:NOT#IINFO, and Five Pillars). But we really don't seem to have a bullet item that says "no long list of indiscriminate information." (Or do we, and I'm just blind today?) So there are arguments sprouting on a page I'm actually working, wherein some arguably notable people are adding themselves to the list, despite WP:COI and WP:NOT#SOAP. Complaints from editors that the list is too short. What's an editor to do? (Besides passionate apathy, that is.) Any opinions or suggestions welcome, I think we need to update this page so that we can at least strongly discourage overlong (43 lines?) lists within articles. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting the longer list to a separate article, conforming with Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people, seems like the best option.  It would still allow for two or three of the most important people to be listed in prose, beneath the  link to the list. Neier 23:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Who cares? Left-handedness is an interesting phenomenon. Wikipedia is not paper: we can afford to have lists like this. JROBBO 11:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long lists of people that just keep getting longer 

message: I always thought it was stated under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" but it's not really specified. Examples of this are/were in Donald Duck, Pinocchio (1940 film) and Magica De Spell. It seems especially pointless since you can always go to the inter language links to see the translation. It also is always removed in featured article candidates. Garion96 (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring specifically to film titles, I think the original language title of the work is appropriate as IMDb does. Only that. Listing the Gadzookistan title of The Wicker Man in the en.wikipedia.org is silly; it's an English language film. Have you checked the Film Portal (style) talk pages to see if it's been raised there? If not, it should be,... feel free. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition - 'Names in other languages' sections 

message: Someone brought this up in a thread at WT:COMIC and I thought it was quite a useful point.  The point is that whilst Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a fanzine.  Just thought I'd bring it here to generate some discussion and see if we can't take it a little further. Hiding Talk 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a fanzine 

message: I noticed that WP:Five Pillars includes the sentence "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory," but that the word "trivia" is never actually discussed in policies.  The best I could find dealing with a description of what "trivia" means is the essay Wikipedia:Trivia, which is unfortunately an essay is considered a subjective opinion and doesn't carry the same consensus weight as a guideline.  I also noticed that the terms "soapbox" and "web directory" are explained in more detail here in WP:NOT, and "Vanity" is discussed on the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
So it appears that the word "trivia" is left largely undefined by policies and guidelines.  But the word is also tossed around in afd and cfd discussions with great frequency, in many cases with vigorous editorial debate about whether an article actually falls under the qualifier of "trivia".  Given the broad power of the word "trivia" on deletion debates, is it worth exploring the creation of an actual trivia guideline of some sort?  Does Wikipedia even have enough consensus on what the term means to form such a guideline?  And if not, is there any consensus on how to interpret what that means in terms of the Five Pillars?
The reason I mention it here is that a number of editors seem to link WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE to trivia.  So perhaps WP:NOT is a good place to start discussion on the topic. Also, it's possible that there's something I'm overlooking, and I'm pretty sure the editors who follow this page have been around the block enough to know if there's a guideline that already covers this. (The only other thing I could find on that topic was Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, which deals more with the matter of trivia lists being poor stylistically, and that the information should be presented within prose form in the article itself assuming the information is notable.) Any thoughts? Dugwiki 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trivia" mentioned in five pillars, but not here 

message: Wikipedia is a not a dumping ground for all those heavily biased opinions that no RS will touch. Controversial material goes: biased source >>> RS >>> wikipedia. If it can't be found in an RS then it has no place here.
What do you think? I know that WP:V and WP:RS cover it but I think stressing the "not a dump" has value. --Justanother 05:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes citing opinions from all sides of a debate, including the extremely controversial ones, has value - but yes, they do need to have references. If it can't be backed up as debatable opinion with sources, then it should go, yes, but that's already covered by WP:V and WP:RS as you say. There's no need to expand on this with metaphoric references that people won't understand. JROBBO 06:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the current page already covers this sufficiently. I concur with JROBBO, sometimes controversial material can find its way in, with citations. Your proposed addition would just add more metaphors, which can (not necessarily does) weaken a guideline/policy page. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, controversial material often finds its way in in the circle I travel in (alleged cults) and the only citation is to the heavily biased POV site without support of a 3rd-party RS. In my circle I almost find that to be the rule rather than the exception. Certainly, my suggestion can be reworded without a metaphor. --Justanother 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a [[landfill|dumping ground]] 

message: Following the actions of a few editors in insisting it's their way or the highway, I'm highly tempted to add "Wikipedia is not Burger King. You do not get it your way." --Barberio 18:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is a separate official policy for what I can gather. Try WP:OWN, which states that no-one owns an article, to the point where they disallow other people from making changes. --tgheretford (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was also thinking more along the lines of "Wikipedia is not an experimental form where you can be unique and different. Editors are still expected to follow certain forms and methods." and "Wikipedia is not there to make you feel special for knowing the secret handshake.". --Barberio 01:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are some instances where you'll have it your way, when it is a good idea and upholded by consensus. It's more like "Wikipedia is McDonalds; your ideas are mixed with those of others". — Deckiller 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sign I saw at BurgerKing yesterday: "Push. You can have it your way and pull all you want but the door can be pretty stubborn." -- Donald Albury 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Radiant, please suspend your personal attacks and wikistalking of me. You yourself have been editing the project pages in order to make your argument stronger - []. If your behaviour continues in this disruptive and abuse manner, I will raise the issue in an user conduct RfC. --Barberio 13:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *It might surprise you to learn that I've been editing this page since 2005, and I've had it watchlisted for most of the time since then, and that I am a regular contributor to the village pump. The fact that you've been forum shopping is not a personal attack, considering the many different forums where you've attempted to bring up the matter of PER. On the other hand, accusing people of wikistaling, disruption and abuse is a personal attack. So cut it out already. >Radiant< 13:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read what I posted above? Did I mention your essay there *anywhere* there? No? Then... Gee, that means you just accused me of doing something I didn't do. You have been bullying me in order to get your way ever since the stupidness on WP:EL, and it should stop now. --Barberio 13:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Okay, that's another personal attack. Anyway, I said that you "appear to be trying to modify policy to get an edge in a dispute you're already forum shopping over". That's precisely what you seem to be doing here. Your remarks clearly indicate this proposal is in reaction to a dispute you're involved in; if it's not the PER dispute I'd be happy to hear what this is actually about? >Radiant< 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *A cue, perhaps, to remind people dispute resolution is that way.  Whether or not Wikipedia becomes a Burger King is something we can debate in the light of the already stated principle that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Hiding Talk 13:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind. I'm going to take an indefinite leave from the wiki since I'm fed up with Radiant's bullying selfish attitude. --Barberio 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burgerking. 

message: I'm kind of a newbie to editing Wikipedia (long time reader, though) and I'm curious if there should be an added provision that the Wikipedia is not a collection of facts and statistics (i.e. not an almanac)  Perhaps this is already covered under "1.8 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", but I think it could be made more clear, to prevent pages like 1963_German_Grand_Prix (and thousands of others like it) which really do not belong in an encyclopedia, they belong in an almanac.  Or perhaps Wikipedia is seeking to serve as both?  Like I said, I'm new at this. GileadPellaeon 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further reading of this talk page (which I probably should have done before posting, oops), it appears that the almanac debate has surfaced before.  But perhaps there could be some discussion of it separately from the discussion of Notability and whatnot else?  I'm not saying almanac-esque information is not notable, just that it's not encyclopedic.GileadPellaeon 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ugh, they also frequently end up at AfD and don't get deleted, especially if the topic is something that has a computer-based fan community.  -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an Almanac? 

message: I realise this policy has been around for a while, and many editors are no doubt fond of it, but it just struck me that the name is a bit uninformative. Could the name be changed to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia? This would seem more logical than the current name. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy name / Merge proposal 

message: From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia is not solely for the summarising of plot?. Hiding Talk 08:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if you remove that clause then you are saying that articles containing only a plot summary should be OK?  I think that's a poor thing to recommend. I mean we're going to get articles that have nothing buy a plot summary - and we might decide to let them slide on the grounds that maybe someone will come along and add more 'meat' to the article later - but to actually have policy that (in effect) encourages this style of article seems pretty poor to me.  Am I misunderstanding what you are saying here? SteveBaker 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've changed this to say "Raw plot summaries." - it better fits the description in the rest of the entry. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? --Random832(tc) 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  I can't see what reason you could have for wanting to remove that very sensible clause.  A plot summary is not a complete article.  Can you imagine being assigned to write about Beowulf for a university, and handing in nothing but a summary of the plot?  No mention of context, culture, meaning, language, just "he did this, he did this, he did this, the end?"  That wouldn't be good enough for publication elsewhere, so why would it be suitable for Wikipedia? zadignose 23:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from Village pump

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Excessively long plot as a suggested focal point for debate about long plot summaries. --GunnarRene 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summaries redux

message: Does this principle apply to internal WP links? (concerning the dispute about the Management section of Aeroflot, see Talk:Aeroflot) Colchicum 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you might be able to apply some of the same rational and logic in some situations, I do not think that is what people had in mind when the NOT a directory section was added. The advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links is where they should be looking. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That being said, even if WP:NOT doesn't directly apply, it is a rather sloppy addition.. It's a style issue more than a policy thing. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP: NOT a directory

message: I don't know if this point has ever been brought up, but I find many if not most entries on technical or scientific terms to be incomprehensible without a knowledge of these areas. I understand that for the sake of comphrehensiveness it is important to cover subjects in depth, which requires some technical language, but I think these articles should at least get a simplified layman's terms intro. It would be handy to have a template "Layman's terms intro requested" to slip into such articles for someone to come along and  write a simplified intro. Damiancorrigan 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact ALL articles should include a "layman's" introduction and outline. The overtly technical discussion can come afterwards. I believe that the simple wikipedia should not exist at all as all en.WP articles should begin as I mentioned. --Monotonehell 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. But is there a template for this? Damiancorrigan 23:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are ,  and . Garion96 (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also the more general . But I definitely believe that we should cover scientific/technical/specialist topics, even if context is just a matter of pointing to the more general field required as background knowledge, e.g., "In computer science, a complicated technical thing is ..." — brighterorange (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting any article be devoid of the really technical discussion. But that an article should have a hierarchy from a simple introduction that would satisfy a layman or an casual interest, then delve into more complex discussions. From simple to complex - It should never start with a highly technical introduction. --Monotonehell 17:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, but this is probably more of a manual of style issue, rather than a WP:NOT issue. Proto::► 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP: Not a scientific/technical/specialist encyclopedia

message: How about wikipedia is not a newspaper or a collection of media reports?--Lucy-marie 15:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the related guideline proposal at WP:NOTNEWS.  They are trying to come to consensus on how to handle news event related articles. Dugwiki 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new catagory 

message: For terms that are deleted due to their being "dictionary like" would it not be appropriate to put in a redirect link to the appropriate Wiktionary page instead of giving the hapless user a wiki-404? Note, for instance that the (deleted) Wikipedia page on Moral turpitude is #1 in the Google search results, which is not at all helpful for visitors. Can we be more hospitable? --Dweekly 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and do it.  Direct redirects are discouraged for a couple of technical reasons but the template  can be very helpful.  Rossami (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go on be bold.--Lucy-marie 15:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a dictionary 

message: There was (a few minutes ago) a "same to you with ketchup" exchange on the above page, now deleted - suggest that this is another category of "What Wikipedia is not". (Puns, dreadful or not are not included in this - eg the response to a question on the "brane" talk page to the effect that "You are brane-less").) Jackiespeel 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main page talk page exchange

message: What does this entail? Are some well-known features allowed? Simply south 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP: NOT Travel guide 

message: Long plot summary as active copyright violation discussion. Discussion here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 February 19/Articles --GunnarRene 17:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long plot summary as copyvio 

message: Seems kind of silly but it's come up a number of times where an internet meme explodes and someone inevitably starts an article about it. Unless a particular meme led to something really world changing this NOT idea would limit these memes to List of Internet phenomena.  20:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might make sense to see about adding something regarding memes to one of the notability guidelines first, such as WP:WEB or WP:N.  You could see about adding a section to one of those guidelines that says an internet meme isn't considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia unless it has received multiple, independent non-trivial published articles about it.  That way you are requiring that the word has actually been analyzed in a published article somewhere first, rather than doing original research and analysis here on Wikipedia.  Dugwiki 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is already covered at WP:WEB. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Memes also include religions, songs, phrases, etc., and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX covers these well enough. Netscott, I think you're trying to say that Wikipedia is not for the furthering of internet memes (the wording, not just a link, has to indicate this), and this seems a bit too specific for me, and the application of this potential addition is a bit too strict in scope. GracenotesT § 21:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not for furthering [[List of Internet phenomena|memes]]?

message: I thought it might make a good addition for some users. JackSparrow Ninja 02:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't disagree with anything that you wrote, I have concerns about m:instruction creep.  I'm pulling the text to here for discussion before we add a new section to the page.  Rossami (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not the place for a personal vendetta 

message: I am a bit confused.  This policy says (as does WP:WINAD) we should not have articles that are essentially dictionary deffinitions.  Yet invariably, if you nominate such an article for AFD citing WP:NOT or WP:WINAD, the consensus is to keep the article.  As an example look at the articles for Jahbulon.  To me the article is clearly is a dictionary def (more than 3/4 of the article relates to usages and meanings of the word).  Yet several AFD nominations have resulted in either no consensus or keep.  Now, I accept that result (although I fought hard to delete it), but it and other AFD decisions do make me begin to wonder if this particular policy (or at least the not a dictionary part of it) has community consensus.  It seems that policy says one thing, but consensus says another.
(In case you think this is just a gripe about the result of that one AFD... For an example that I did not participate in see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almighty dollar - which did result in a delete... only to have an article on Almighty Dollar recreated.  Do people not think this is a real policy?) Blueboar 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because WP:NOT is broken, always observe WP:NOT#PAPER, it's the only things that's mostly right. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is OR on my part, but the people who write these guideline pages tend to not reflect the community as a whole.  It seems like deletionists have a large influence on the policy and guideline pages, while inclusionists have a large influence on the encyclopedia's content.  AfD is one of the places where the two sides meet, and of course they don't agree. Personally I would like to see a policy that says other policies should be descriptive instead of prescriptive.  It's not going to happen though. - Peregrine Fisher 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common behavior isn't always consensus. Consensus suggests that people have been able to reasonably consider all sides of the issue and come to a conclusion (like in a discussion or some other whatever). The idea of WINAD is to keep things on Wikipedia about topics and then to use Wikitionary for things that are just definitions. This really isn't a controversial issue or anything, it's just practical thinking that people might not be aware of at first. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if your question is, does everybody support WP:WINAD? The answer is surely no; there was a recent discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Dictionary definitions. Personally I think it's one of our silliest policies. But I think with Jahbulon the question is more about whether that article is a dictionary definition or not; to me it looks like a well-sourced encyclopedia article about a word, which is quite distinct from a dictionary definition. — brighterorange (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks folks... good to know I am not the only one confused.  What about Almighty dollar, where the situation is reversed... an article is cut for being a dic def... only to have a dic def article recreated?  Same issues? (and if things are in such chaos as far as the consensus on applying these guidelines... why do we have them?)Blueboar 16:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *How about ? >Radiant< 17:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: I'm going to add 'Not a video game guide' to the indiscriminate collection section. Wikibooks does seem to have a section for this and from a quick search does host these items.--Crossmr 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to add it, it's already under the "Instruction manuals" section of WP:NOT#IINFO. "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes...." (bold added for emphasis) Dugwiki 16:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a game guide 

message: Wikipedians seem to focus a lot on what wikipedia isn't, why are we not focusing more on what wikipedia is. Odessaukrain 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is, but it redirects to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which may not be what you are looking for. -- Donald Albury 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]] 

message: This is a style issue. There is a lot of battle over wording where the opposing side adds weasel words such as "allegedly" to positive statements, and demands that the discussion is "fair to the both sides". I don't believe this represents a neutral point of view. Rather, it is non-neutral, trying to present the arguments of both sides as they are, unconsolidated, like in a courtroom. Synthesis is obviously difficult, particularly when a consensus is to be reached, but this doesn't mean it shouldn't be an aim. --Vuo 21:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a courtroom 

message: Inspired by a post on Jimbo's page, here. Proposed:
Wikipedia is not a Who's Who. Who's Who publications exist to catalog people that have done well in a particular field, whether it be academics, sports, business, etc. Many Who's Who are very specific like Who's who in Indian Engineering & Industry, some are more general like Canadian Who's Who, and some are debatable vanity publications like Who's Who Among American High School Students. While they vary widely in importance to their select audience, inclusion in a Who's Who or status worthy of such inclusion is not, of itself, sufficient reason for a biographical article in Wikipedia. The sufficient reasons are covered at Wikipedia:Notability (people).
What do you think? It would be nice to be able to direct people that think their favorite dentist deserves an article to that. --Justanother 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a Who's Who 

message: As it stands now, the Crystal Ball guidelines are self-contradictory. The 2016 Presidential election is listed as an event about which "nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." This is patently untrue, because the election is also is "notable and almost certain to take place." Sure, you can argue that there will be a revolution or an astroid striking the earth, but that same argument could call into question the 2008 election. That the 2016 election is scheduled to occur in 2016 is both verifiable and not original research. Sure, one can't say very much more about it, but stubs are not prohibited. Sylvain1972 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stubs which are so short that they are mere restatements of the title, however, are speedy-deletable.  Rossami (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but in an article such as 114th United States Congress that is not the case. There is more that can be said than a restatement of the title.Sylvain1972 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a great example.  I disagree with your conclusion, though.  The contents of that page (how many reps will be elected and what day of the year the session starts) are self-evident to anyone connecting the United States Congress article with the datestamp of the 114th session.  The current contents are so trivial that they do constitute a mere restatement of the title.  Rossami (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, someone has put that up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/114th United States Congress, and given the voting so far, it is almost sure to be deleted. --Xyzzyplugh 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The information in most wikipedia articles can be pieced together from other articles. That does not make them mere restatements of their titles. Additionally, there is no reason to delete a stub that will unquestionably be expanded eventually.Sylvain1972 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any good reason to create a stub before a substantial article can be written? zadignose 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be helpful to someone. There is no reason not to.Sylvain1972 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are unfortunately many reasons not to.  Every one of these trivial sub-stubs must be watchlisted and monitored for vandalism.  Not only do we have to fend off the obvious vandalism like pageblanking and the insertion of obscenities but we have to watch for and revert subtle vandalism like minor, plausible but deliberately false edits to the page.  Experience has proven again and again that pages like this just do not attract the necessary critical mass of informed and interested editors to watch the page.  Responsible editors are by far our scarcest resource.  We can't afford to squander their efforts over pages that add so little.  Once we have something substantial to write, the equation changes.  But while it's that far in the future, it's a maintenance nightmare.  Rossami (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see. Well, that is a good reason. Sylvain1972 12:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not for speculation. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 10:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crystal Ball is contradictory

message: Whatever happened to "Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields?" - Peregrine Fisher
:Glossary pages for various specialized fields got added to Wiktionary's goal, then deleted at AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/archive7#Glossaries for the discussion which resulted in the removal of the line about glossaries.  --Xyzzyplugh 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  glossary pages for various specialized fields 

message: After a series of too bold edits by me, since reverted by other users, a discussion has started on my talk page (User talk:Fram) about the interpretation of WP:NOT for instruction manuals. Basically, the question is if the rules of a game are considered an instruction manual / howto guide / tutorial / game guide (and thus should be removed or at least severely restricted), or not. My opinion is that rules are instruction manuals: other people have argued that I am wrong, based on precedent (Chess and other articles have rules sets), or semantics (a "rule" is not an "instruction", ...). I would like to have a discussion on whether in general, games articles should have no rules at all, a very basic rules section, or a complete rules section (ignoring for this discussion aspects like WP:V or copyright, which may or may not be applicable in some cases). I would prefer to continue the discussion here instead of on my talk page, but comments there are of course welcome as well. Fram 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This dispute is mostly about card games, which are "folk games" in the sense that no company owns the rules. So I do not believe that copyvio is an issue here. Of course, it is possible that there is copypasted text from a card game book, but at least I have not seen such cases. Yes, I agree that rules define a game, in particular a card game for which there is no special playing equipment. Thus, we need at least a summary of (essential parts) of the rules, but I cannot see any problem with a full rules text. From the essential parts of the rules one must be able to infer (1) to which group of games the game belongs to (plain trick game, point trick game, plain rummy, meld-scoring rummy, asshole group etc) (2) how the game differes from other similar games and (3) which varieties of the game there are, and how they differ from each other. Anyhow, I think full rules is a way better alternative than no rules at all. And it is true that many of the card game articles are quite horrible, but it is not an excuse to delete the rules completely but to improve the article.Punainen Nörtti 14:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that we can agree that no recipe can ever be the sole content of the article.  As you say, there must be historical or cultural significance before we even accept an article on the food.  But recipes still don't belong here because they have a nasty tendency to proliferate - every editor wants to change the recipe to his/her favorite variation, or worse, endlessly add variations to the encyclopedia article.  On the other hand, any recipe is acceptable at Wikibooks, specifically, in their cookbook section.  All recipes should be transwiki'd to Wikibooks.  Then, if you have a notable food product (like the classic martini), simply add a cross-wiki link to the appropriate Wikibooks page.  That way, readers can see not only the traditional recipe but also all the variations that Wikibooks covers.  Wikibooks is better structured to handle that kind of content.  Rossami (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruction manuals

message: "Recipes" are listed as examples of "instruction manuals" that are to be prohibited according to the "indiscriminate collection of information" principle. This is too coarse a directive. Should the recipe for simple syrup be deleted, for example? The classic martini? An overview of the regional variations of chai? These all have historical and encyclopedic value. Certainly we don't wikipedia to become a database of arbitrary, personal recipes like Uncle Bob's Blue Ribbon Texas Horse Lung Pie, but it doesn't follow that every possible "collection of instructions" is necessarily indiscriminate or subjective.
In the spirit of developing a more fine-tuned policy, let me propose that recipes are appropriate for inclusion in wikipeida when they:
* Possess historical or cultural significance (e.g. the classic martini)
* Serve to present a POV-neutral overview of a topic (e.g. popular or regional variations of the martini)
These are a start.. any suggestions? --Tlane 00:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we can agree that no recipe can ever be the sole content of the article.  As you say, there must be historical or cultural significance before we even accept an article on the food.  But recipes still don't belong here because they have a nasty tendency to proliferate - every editor wants to change the recipe to his/her favorite variation, or worse, endlessly add variations to the encyclopedia article.  On the other hand, any recipe is acceptable at Wikibooks, specifically, in their cookbook section.  All recipes should be transwiki'd to Wikibooks.  Then, if you have a notable food product (like the classic martini), simply add a cross-wiki link to the appropriate Wikibooks page.  That way, readers can see not only the traditional recipe but also all the variations that Wikibooks covers.  Wikibooks is better structured to handle that kind of content.  Rossami (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recipes