Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 6

message: After finding one article that was completely on the making of a food product, I searched for others and found several very recipe-oriented articles. To say that a certain sauce is usually made with the following ingredients, or a vegetable can be cooked or eaten in some of these ways is acceptable, but listing the actually preparation and/or measurement of ingredients does not seem conducive to an encyclopedia.
*That's generally considered to be covered by the 'how-to' section (consensus is to move to wikibooks). --InShaneee 20:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a Recipe Book

message: A grouchy rant for the day.
Perhaps this should be integrated with "Wikipedia is not a blog" or "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", but:
Several critics of Wikipedia (including the noisy crowd at such places as wikitruth, wikipedia review, and a few other forums) seem to think that because Wikipedia is a forum that anybody can edit--it is (or should be) a free speech platform which must suffer the rants, opinions, and beliefs of anyone who wishes to write here (regardless of how encyclopedic)--and that many Wikipedia policies, both those (like WP:NPOV and WP:V) which apply only to articles, and those (especially WP:NPA), which apply project-wide, somehow constitute an infringement of their "rights".  (And that users who are disciplined and/or banned for violating Wikipedia policy are being "censored" or "oppressed" or such).  
We probably should emphasize loudly and clearly:  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Everything we do is intended to build a better encyclopedia; there is no reason whatsoever the project should tolerate behavior or content which is counter-productive to that end.  Users who wish to rant on their favorite topic (say, Israel--a popular topic, it seems, among the WR crowd), should get a blog and do so.  Of course, it happens that Wikipedia is a popular and well-read website, whereas most blogs are routinely ignored--and many with axes to grind think that their opinions will get a better airing if presented here, and especially so if presented as encyclopedic fact (or as a notable point of view) in the article space.  The fact that nobody cares about someone's blog doesn't entitle users to exploit Wikipedia's good reputation in order to more widely disseminate (before a larger audience) editorials that the world at large would, in most cases, otherwise ignore.
Wikipedia is not a free-speech platform, and is under no obligation to endure the rants of every drive-by malcontent.  
Rant off.
--EngineerScotty 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a free speech platform 

message: How do other people read the mirror part of "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files"? I take that to mean that WP should not duplicate the content of another page (unless it substantially changes it, in which case it is no longer a mirror). I've read another interpretation that this applies to mirroring repositories of links and that WP may mirror encyclopedic content. I think the neither/nor excludes that reading. Шизомби 00:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point there, even though I was the one who brought this issue up here in a bold statement of my view. Possibly too bold now that I think about it from another perspective. However, I still think that the fact that the content is actually encyclopedic (IMO) overrides the fact that it was from a mirror. Ansell 06:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too share the same opinion about this with user Ansell. If the content is encyclopedic, it has to overide the fact that it was from a mirror. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''''Wikipedia''''' is not a mirror

message: I understand completely how everyone feels "indiscriminate collections of information," and I fully agree that random information bits have no place here, however when it comes to anime characters with special "attacks" that they use I feel differently as they can be an important part of these characters and the story that they tell. 
As for Wikipedia policy,  I quote "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic" which the character attacks do very much. 
Not only do the attacks give the Wikipedia readers a feel for each character's unique fighting style, but they give insight into their personalities and help reinforce their attitudes. Take Monkey D. Luffy from One Piece for example, all his attacks are based on real objects and weapons (Pistol, Rifle, Windmill) thus reinforing the idea that even though he's a pirate on an unimaginable journey, he is in essence a normal person. In contrast take someone like Eneru, also from One Piece whose attack's are mostly based on various Thunder deites, thus reinforcing the fact that he sees himself as a god and nothing less. In closing I feel very strongly that they are essential to the character's Wikipedia profiles and as a loyal fan to Manga, Anime and the hard working people who create them and will do everything I can to keep them in their rightful place, because if they were not significant then why would writers and animators bother to make them in the first place? (KingKogs 7 May 1:46 GMT)
::Readers might also note I've been transwiking said information to wikibooks for more consise organization. See Talk:Roronoa Zoro#Incriminate information for an ongoing discussion, as well as the most recent posts on my talkpage. A demonstration of my actions can be seen in the previous version and the transwikied version. There is no removal of data here, its simply classified as indiscriminate and for that reason I moved it to wikibooks (per policy) and made the appropriate link from there. Everyone wins. -ZeroTalk 06:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack Lists and other trivial stuff for Anime, video game, manga, etc. Characters 

message: So far I have not been able to find an official definition of the word "Abbitis"
Here are my search results so far:
:"... the abbitis that was round the fort."
Page 242, 1776 by David McCullogh
:Col. Sumter having no cannon to destroy the abbatis or the buildings selected some of his bravest followers to remove the abbitis and to endeavor to set fire to the buildings, while his troops, under cover of the trees and rocks, on the declivity of the mountain, maintained a heavy fire upon the Rocky Mount garrison. After three attacks, in the last of which some of the forlorn hope penetrated within the abbatis, the Americans retreated with loss and precipitation."
The Southern Campaigns of the American Revolution,  Vol. 1, No. 1 September 2004, Charles B. Baxley, editor
Here are the results when you type  'English definition of abbitis' in Google:
:Did you mean: English definition of rabbits  
:Our line was quickly formed, as I looked across the intervening space to the bristling forts, and viewed the rugged mountain side, with the interminable abbitis that lay between, and then cast my eye along our slender line, I thought to myself, there will be hot work here if the regiments are made of resolute men.
MEMOIRS OF THE CIVIL WAR, W. L. TRUMAN  
--66.90.229.82 14:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If all you want is a definition, I recommend that you try Wiktionary, the open-source dictionary.  The word you are looking for, though, is properly spelled "abatis".  It is a barrier made by cutting down trees and interlocking the branches.  In Civil War times, the branches were often sharpened to make the barrier even more impenatrable.  The name shares a derivation with "abattoir" which should give you a sense of how effective they are against infantry attacks.  Rossami (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference desk is also a good place to ask questions. bibliomaniac15 00:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbitis 

message: Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.
Recently this guideline has been used in a AFD debate regarding a page entitled Structures of the GLA. It has been settled that the page can not be maintained here in its current form, a discion which I accept; however, this AFD has been riddled with claims that the page voilates the game manual clause of WP:NOT.
By their very nature both real-time strategy and turn-based strategy games rely almost exclusively on a collection of units and structures that are operated by a player or by the player’s opponent. I feel that there must be a way for this encyclopedic information to be listed and maintained here on Wikipedia without violating the game manual provision. To that end, I feel that a better definition of a game manual as it pertains to RTS and TBS games is needed here. I submit that a list of units and/or structures that appear in RTS or TBS games, the general roles of those units and/or structures (ie vehical manufacturing, resource gathering, etc), and any upgrades for units/structures appearing in these games is encyclopedic and therefore should not be in violation of the game manual clause. By omitting the cost, tech level, and prerequists we aviod produce a game manual by requiring a person to either research such information or purchase the game. TomStar81 01:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took part in this AfD and there certainly seems to be a need for specialist input into definitions, rather than a reaction of "it looks like stuff in a game manual, so it's not valid". Tyrenius 01:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd think that such a list would violate the current WIKI NOT guidelines. If these guidelines need to be changed is a matter for the consensus and community. I would like to suggest instead that it be considered if a page that merely sums up the major points of each side and the major structures/units of each side existed, would it be against WIKI NOT? --Lakhim 02:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How about this? General information should be the limit of such articles, such as what so and so does and makes available to the player. The moment it starts mentioning technical details in excess such as what is mentioned above, or even more in-depth data such as game formulae, consider it unnecessary and open to culling. CABAL 11:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I could a gree with that, but I would take it one step further and say that all RTS games and TBS games should adhere to that, not just generals. In this way other games like StarCraft and Dune can follow in C&C's footprints and expand there pages accordingly. TomStar81 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of game guides and lists of game items online. Just link to them from the wikipedia article. No need to saddle wikipedia with this kind of information - its unencyclopedic Bwithh 23:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Those who have commented here may want to look at and/or participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft units and structures, which is retreading these arguments. Specifically, in that AfD, I make a comparison to chess and go, including that chess has a mountain of separate WP articles covering specific mechanics and strategies, such as 137 articles in :Category:Chess openings alone. Yet, I would not doubt that these articles on specific mechanics and strategies of chess, as well as of StarCraft, are indeed encyclopedic; and that a good set of criteria for defining their encyclopedic nature is that they are both notable and referenced, and their notability can be referenced. (I make arguments in the AfD for StarCraft being of similar notability to chess.) I don't think evaluating whether something is "a game guide" is a useful criterion so much as evaluating whether it is notable, and referenceable (outside of the game's own manual). Or put another way, there is a big difference between WP providing advice on strategy for a game (not encyclopedic) versus WP providing objective information on details of a notable, globally popular recreational pursuit (encyclopedic), including details such as well-known, referenceable strategies and mechanics. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 21:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The critical point that I (and, I suspect, many others) would disagee with is your premise that StarCraft is of similar notability to chess.  Chess traces its history back to the 6th century.  It is played around the world, has been written about in literally thousands of books, has a formal and long-standing structure for international tournaments, has been widely researched and discussed in academic journals in a number of different disciplines, etc.  StarCraft is a computer game created in 1998.  To attempt to equate the two games stretches credibility past the breaking point.  Rossami (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely said. I was going to a comment about why some editors want to elevate ephermeral pop-culture, but decided it might look like trolling. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replied to this concern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft units and structures with some facts on the rising, global popularity of StarCraft - but notice that this argument has completely abandoned the concept at hand of whether something is a "game guide" in favor of argument over notability. Which I agree with readily: if content provides objective information on game mechanics and rules rather than recommending strategy, it should be evaluated for notability etc. like any other content. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List vs. Game Manual

message: I'd like to add the following to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:
* Database extracts, especially from readily available authoritative sources.
We have deleted a number of articles including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SWIFT codes (Second nomination) where the content of the article is simply an extract of an offsite database.  Others we have kept, like List of ...For Dummies books, despite the fact that the entire content is a (non-authoritative) copy-paste of the lists on the publisher's website which appears to include around 1,400 entries, among which as far as I can tell there is not one single bluelink despite the fact that we have recently doubled the number of For Dummies books on which we have articles.  There are now two of them.  
Database copy & pastes are not technically a copyvio as long as the data is presented in an obvious order (or so I'm told), but there is surely nothing encyclopaedic about copying and pasting lists of text - especially if a fully authoritative source is freely available online.  It was noted in a discussion some time back that if you find yourself copying and pasting the bulk of an article from another source it's a sure sign that what you are doing is wrong.  Whether that's entirely true I don't know, but I do know that, for example, maintaining a mirror of the UK's list of statutory instruments for 1996, all 3,278 of them, of which only a handful are bluelinked, is probably less useful than having a category for the articles and adding a link to the OPSI website which lists the rest.  Yes, we're not paper, but neither are we the Yellow Pages.
This would not prevent a Wikiproject from making an article in Project space with a number of redlinks for filling by interested parties, but it would reduce the problem of lists which are mirrors at sme fixed point in time of an easily available authoritative source which is, if the reader wants current information, the place to go. It seems to be what was meant by WP:NOT a mirror or collectionof external links, but I find some reluctance to interpret that guideline as covering copy and paste from database extract or online databases. Just zis Guy you know? 13:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't have such a blanket rule.  What if the entries are for encyclopedic topics?  What if its just a limited portion of a larger article?  Such a rule could be used to delete the track listings from albums, imdb credits from bios, neighborhood listings from municipalities, and various other things.  Let's keep the section to things everybody agrees on.  For instance, there's wide agree any directory listing company phone numbers is bad.  BTW, I agree List of ...For Dummies books is bad, but List of ...For Dummies books to win award X might be ok, even if gathered in the same way.   Oddly, your proposal would actually discriminate against well sourced lists, done with no originality.  Yet lists based on originality would be unnaffected.  --Rob 15:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Example:  List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning would be exempt from your rule.  As the unaccredited ones, aren't (AFAIK) in the source database, and hence aren't from an extract.  It is made from original research by Wikipedians, combining many sources, often adding names individually, based on investigation.  However if List of accredited institutions of higher learning were copied straight from International Association of Universities (or whatever is the appropriate reliable source), with no additions/removals of individual entries, it would violate your proposed rule, even though it would list encyclopedic topics, and be properly sourced.  Personally, I would rather have a verifiable list of accredited institutions, than an original list of unaccredited ones. --Rob 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Database dumps 

message: I've noticed that many location articles, especially the ones about towns and villages that are popular tourist destinations, read like a travel brochure. Words like "stunning", "splendid views", "offers four star accomodation" and other suggestions about what to do and where to visit blah blah blah. It never fails to piss me off that no matter how obvious it is that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA people still write up articles that seem to've been copied straight out of the Going Places guide. Perhaps we need some legislation on this? --Badharlick 12:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a travel brochure 

message: Following a Village Pump discussion here, I would like a propose a change to the wording of section 2 of the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" section of this policy:
* Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary: "Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields."
I propose changing this to clarify that disambiguation pages are not lists of dictionary definitions:
* Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary: "Wikipedia articles are not: [...] lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these disambiguation pages are not intended to be lists of definitions, but are used to distinguish between articles where the words used in a title can refer to several different meanings. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields."
Please also see the related proposals here and here. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested wording change to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" section of policy 

message: Would anybody have any objection if I expanded point 1 from WP is not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons." to "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)"?  Vizjim 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection

message: I've seen a number of articles, especially radio articles start to contain full schedules of television and radio programmes. Because schedules change often and don't usually contain information about the TV/radio station of the article, could it be classed that schedules in articles can not be seen as encyclopedic, and would be better suited to a dedicated TV/Radio guide? Sonic 18:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is somewhat covered under 1.7.7, "a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable)". I think you might consider tweaking that a bit rather than creating a new section. --W.marsh 19:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll make a little tweak to that point now. Thanks. Sonic 20:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually disagree with this point, as we have schedules of all the major networks (and nice tables too) at the respective articles for American Broadcasting Company, NBC, and CBS respectively. Network originated programming for network articles and local station originated programming for local station articles should be acceptable. Calwatch 04:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a TV/Radio Guide 

message: Eric Zorn, a journalist and blogger, coined a law in his blog, and then created the article Zorn's Law to legitimise it.  This seems to exploit a hole in the WP:NOT rules, specifically the line "citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion", which doesn't work when the editor is himself a print-medium author.  Further discussion on Talk:Zorn's Law....  /blahedo (t) 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything in wikipedia also has to be notable. If Zorn's law is only mentioned in Mr. Zorn's blog/website/article, then it's not really notable. If it catches on then we can have an article on it that cites Zorn's work, but if it hasn't caught on or been used elsehwere then it's really NN. --Bachrach44 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Citing your own research is acceptable on Wikipedia; this is obviously true, because to tell a Nobel Prize-winning physicist he couldn't write on the subject of his published research would be lunacy.  However, everything on Wikipedia must be from a reliable source, and I very much doubt this guy's blog counts. -- SCZenz 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd say his blog is borderline.  If you think the phrase is non-notable, merge it, or put it on AfD.  This isn't a whole in the rules, though, just a grey area. -- SCZenz 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On citing your *own* "original research" elsewhere 

message: A bit of advice I've included in some speedy nominations, as part of RC patrol:  Wikipedia is neither the white pages nor the yellow pages; we're not a directory of people, business, or other organizations.  The fact that some people or businesses are given articles doesn't mean that anybody gets one. --EngineerScotty 23:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already say wikipedia is not a directory - is that good enough? (It's number 7 under "inidscriminate collector of info). --Bachrach44 01:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could add the white/yellow pages as an alternate expression; to drive the point home.  :) --EngineerScotty 04:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP is not the [white|yellow] pages 

message: I removed a link to a Nazi propaganda, anti-Semitic film called "The Enternal Jew". It was being linked to from a neo-Nazi website through Wikipedia. The film is banned everywhere in the world and only available for viewing with special permission or explicit educational licenses.
Was I right to remove it? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.194.50 (talk • contribs) 
: Depends; what page was it removed from?  If it was an article on anti-Semitism or a similar topic, the link may have been relevant.  If it was on an article on Judaism itself, I would remove it--the screeds of neo-Nazis are seldom a reliable source on the topic of Jews.  The fact that it is illegal in some countries doesn't matter.  It's legal in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted (our First Amendment generally prohibits the outlawing of political texts, no matte how offensive); and Wikipedia links to much content which is illegal in many parts of the world (including other Neo-nazi sites).  In some cases, this is clearly appropriate; Wikipedia links to works on the Falun Gong, for example, which are illegal in the People's Republic of China.  --EngineerScotty 16:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I actually would have left the link. The Eternal Jew clearly labels the film as a piece of Nazi propaganda, and linking to the film in question seems to be a logical step. (For the record, The page on Mein Kampf links to an English version of that book). I would put it back, but we can wait for a few other people to chime in before doing anything if you want. --Bachrach44 17:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems a perfectly logical link: this is an article about x; here's a link to x. A concern here, though, seems to be that the hosts of this film themselves are unsavory. I'm not sure I like where such thinking leads because it seems to violate the principle that material should be judged as itself, not as a proxy for the contributor. For the sake of community cohesion, it seems important to me that this principle hold for external material as well as internal. --Apantomimehorse 07:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was I right to do this? 

message: Last week, there was a case in which a user had put a male pornographic picture on his user talk page. He was convinced to take it down, but it appears there was no Wikipedia policy specifically addressing the issue.
The problem was not that the picture exists on Wikipedia but rather that it was placed where people would not expect to see it. If someone wants to see porno, that's that person's perrogative, but no one should be "subjected" to it if he or she wasn't looking for it.
I'd like to propose an addition to this project to address this situation:
===Wikipedia is not a shock site===
While shocking or disturbing content, such as sexually explicit or violent images, is not prohibited on Wikipedia, it, like all content, should only be placed where it is appropriate. No one should be subjected to shocking or disturbing content he or she was not looking for. This is not simply an issue of people seeing something they don't like. Users can get into serious trouble at school or work for viewing what their teacher or boss considers "inappropriate." 
A topless photo might be appropriate on an article about a porn star, but should not be placed in an article about the porn star's home town, even if she is the only famous person to come out of the town. 
Editors be sure that any links to potentially shocking or disturbing content clearly indicate what is on the other end of the link. For example, do not simply write, "John Atherton was executed for buggery." Because "buggery" is not a commonly used word in much of the English-speaking world, some users would be likely to click on that link, not realizing it leads to an article on anal sex. 
Mwalcoff 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually been doing some thinking about this lately in regards to a case I've been dealing with and the whole discussion about images on the ejaculation page. I think this should actually go under the "wikipedia is not censored" section. Many peopl eassume that not censored = anything and everything goes. This is not true. The fact that it's not censored means we'll have open and adult discussions (as well as informative pictures) relating to genetalia, reproduction, and human sexuality. I think you've hit the issue right on the head though - when considering a given image, is the purpose of the image to inform, or is the purpose to tittilate or shock? If the later, then it doesn't belong. --Bachrach44 20:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *This concern is actually already discussed under the guideline Wikipedia:Profanity and the precedents described at Wikipedia:Pornography. It seems to me that WP:NOT should clarify site-wide content issues, rather than specific concerns. We could just as well create any number of similar NOT additions.--LeflymanTalk 20:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agreed.  A link to the drill-down discussion might be appropriate in the "not censored" section.  But we must be very cautious about adding more full paragraphs to this page.  This page is too long already.  Rossami (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * The problem with a policy such as this would be that people who disapprove of any particular kind of content can always claim to be "shocked" by its "explicit" depiction or discussion. They can then set up an argument, grounded in this policy, demanding that material of which they disapprove be excised from the encyclopedia, or replaced with material of such vagueness as to be uninformative. Any number of topics, such as social or cultural practices, religious works, human and animal anatomy, or controversial artworks could be targeted this way. If we're going to make a "shock site" distinction at all, it needs to be on the basis of preventing Wikipedia from being used trollishly rather than on the basis of content. For instance, goatse is a shock site, but medical images of the human rectum aren't. --FOo 04:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless, of course, the medical image of the human rectum is at dinosaur or something. -- Mwalcoff 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that highly reasoned argument almost convinced me of the need to censor WP. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you tone it down and find less offensive words to say. Your words don't really help the argument. bibliomaniac15 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Wikipedia is not a shock site 

message: While shocking or disturbing content, such as sexually explicit or violent images, is not prohibited on Wikipedia, it, like all content, should only be placed where it is appropriate. No one should be subjected to shocking or disturbing content he or she was not looking for. This is not simply an issue of people seeing something they don't like. Users can get into serious trouble at school or work for viewing what their teacher or boss considers "inappropriate." 
A topless photo might be appropriate on an article about a porn star, but should not be placed in an article about the porn star's home town, even if she is the only famous person to come out of the town. 
Editors be sure that any links to potentially shocking or disturbing content clearly indicate what is on the other end of the link. For example, do not simply write, "John Atherton was executed for buggery." Because "buggery" is not a commonly used word in much of the English-speaking world, some users would be likely to click on that link, not realizing it leads to an article on anal sex. 
Mwalcoff 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually been doing some thinking about this lately in regards to a case I've been dealing with and the whole discussion about images on the ejaculation page. I think this should actually go under the "wikipedia is not censored" section. Many peopl eassume that not censored = anything and everything goes. This is not true. The fact that it's not censored means we'll have open and adult discussions (as well as informative pictures) relating to genetalia, reproduction, and human sexuality. I think you've hit the issue right on the head though - when considering a given image, is the purpose of the image to inform, or is the purpose to tittilate or shock? If the later, then it doesn't belong. --Bachrach44 20:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *This concern is actually already discussed under the guideline Wikipedia:Profanity and the precedents described at Wikipedia:Pornography. It seems to me that WP:NOT should clarify site-wide content issues, rather than specific concerns. We could just as well create any number of similar NOT additions.--LeflymanTalk 20:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agreed.  A link to the drill-down discussion might be appropriate in the "not censored" section.  But we must be very cautious about adding more full paragraphs to this page.  This page is too long already.  Rossami (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * The problem with a policy such as this would be that people who disapprove of any particular kind of content can always claim to be "shocked" by its "explicit" depiction or discussion. They can then set up an argument, grounded in this policy, demanding that material of which they disapprove be excised from the encyclopedia, or replaced with material of such vagueness as to be uninformative. Any number of topics, such as social or cultural practices, religious works, human and animal anatomy, or controversial artworks could be targeted this way. If we're going to make a "shock site" distinction at all, it needs to be on the basis of preventing Wikipedia from being used trollishly rather than on the basis of content. For instance, goatse is a shock site, but medical images of the human rectum aren't. --FOo 04:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless, of course, the medical image of the human rectum is at dinosaur or something. -- Mwalcoff 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that highly reasoned argument almost convinced me of the need to censor WP. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you tone it down and find less offensive words to say. Your words don't really help the argument. bibliomaniac15 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a shock site

message: Lately there have been some deletion debates about articles that are, essentially, lists of how to translate proper nouns into other languages.  For instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages.  Sometimes, translations can make good subject matter for an article, if people have written interesting things about translation (see, for instance Harry Potter in translation).  I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't have articles where the only purpose is to provide the translation of X between languages.  So far, the only counterarguments I've seen are that the translations might be useful... but to me, that's too much along the lines of "all useful information should be in Wikipedia" which policy rejects (WP:NOT).  The only kind of translation I've found interesting as a translation on its own are unusual non-literal translations; for instance, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is translated into German as "... Chamber of Fear," which is pretty different.  There's GOT to be a point where we don't accept translation.  I'd like to add "Wikipedia is not a translation guide" or "Wikipedia is not an intra-language dictionary" or something similar to the list.  Any thoughts?  Mangojuicetalk 17:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a translation guide 

message: Item 2 under "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" says 
:Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. 
I think this is outdated as far a lists are concerned.  First of all the term structured list isn't defined anywhere and it isn't clear to me what it means.  The part about "assist with the organisation of articles" makes it sound like the only lists that are allowed are the topic lists that predated the Category implementation.  Yet lists are allowed.  There are guidelines that instruct the best way to format and present lists and not just those that assist with the organisation of articles.  My suggestion would be to remove this item as it hasn't been enforced for a long time.  --JeffW 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to disagree.  The lists that I know of which are clearly supported are those which meet the listed criteria.  Yes, we have many other lists.  I would argue are merely tolerated or just have not yet been cleaned up or deleted.  Rossami (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff and I have been having a discussion about this after meeting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies. I've been drafting an essay at WP:BO after being involved in several AfDs and discussions about these kind of lists. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 01:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm with Rossami on this.  A list which has no encyclopaedic content might as well be a category (which is at least self-maintaining).  The best lists are ones which contextualise and order articles by some significant and encyclopaedic criteria. Just zis Guy you know? 17:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also with Rossami here.  JzG put it better than I could. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what if the listed content should be ordered? What if the items don't/shouldn't have their own pages? Also, the current views of the category pages are not terribly elegant and lack the good sense most human-edited pages use in formatting. --Apantomimehorse 07:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP is Not a Mere collections of internal links... 

message: I was reading the Wikipedia policy regarding who Wikipedia "is not censored." It says that the content cannot violate the laws of Florida. I was thinking, since this material is accessible to anybody without any kind of obvious warning about objectionable content, is there some concern about children accessing the material and how that could be a violation of the law? I understand that Wikipedia is provided primarily as an educational resource, but there's no doubt that some images (such as the one for the Prince Albert piercing) wouldn't be too hard to be considered pornographic or unnecessarily lacking in educational value. As an avid supporter of Wikipedia, I just want to know what the policy is on this, and, if I don't understand the law sufficiently, what prevents the Wikimedia Foundation from being required to institute some sort of click-through notice of potentially offensive content. If this was addressed previously, forgive my ignorance; Wikipedia can be so dense with content that I sometimes find adequate research a daunting task. Please be gentle when answering my question; I'm relatively well-schooled in law, but I have delicate personal sensibilities. Thanks. Lemonsawdust 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Wikipedia is doing anything illegal. Wikipedia does have disclaimers, linked to at the bottom of every page. But since most sites have a "you must be 18" screen before showing any adult content, many assume that Wikipedia could get in trouble for not having one... I don't think there's really a legal case for that, despite what many people assume. Such laws have been proposed, like Child Online Protection Act, which was struck down as unconstitutional. I'm not sure what the situation with the Florida law specifically is though. --W.marsh 14:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Pornography 

message: Given guidance on writing about fiction, any objections to adding the following to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information?
10. Plot summaries - Wikipedia articles should not act as repositories for plot summaries, annotated or not, but should offer plot points where germane to sourced, critical discussions of the work, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance.
I think that's common consensus? Hiding Talk 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Saying it would be "difficult to apply" is a bit of an understatement. I suspect that if this were to be seriously promoted, a veritable rebellion would be fomented on Wikipedia. One need only see the antagonism generated by removal of DVD cover images on a single "List of" episodes page: Talk:List_of_Lost_episodes#DVD_Covers. Now imagine raising that to the Nth fandom power. Editorial improvements can be shaped with good policy and guidelines, but attempting to ban plot summaries outright just isn't going to meet with success. (Hint: Nearly everything on Wikipedia is, in effect, a "summary" so why stop at "plots"?) --LeflymanTalk 00:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summaries 

message: Recently, a bunch of AfDs were made on lists of minor things in Star Wars. While I agree that this information in the current state should NOT be on this site, we also have to look at it this way: if we delete fictional cruft lists, we risk the chance of each minor topic exploding out. Having one beats having 150; and lists always have the potential to become well-respected articles (per Spira (Final Fantasy X)). I think this whole idea to be clarified. — Deckiller 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There also seems to be a tendency for some users to attack almost any list as "cruft", regardless of the subject matter. Some people just don't like lists. --SigPig 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cruft Lists

message: If so, why? If not, where did it go? Santtus 15:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WOW damgae, undone now. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion deleted? 

message: The Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy page is actually narrower than Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Policymakers, please put them in sync, otherwise a broken telephone game sometimes happens. `'mikka (t) 00:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of sync 

message: I recommend changing the wording of:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. 
to
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example.
What do you think? This should clarify a lot of the misinterpretations shown on AfD. — Deckiller 06:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I wouldn't call that a list.  I think you should just rename the article to Locations in Spira.  --JeffW 13:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True; and it will solve the problem of people citing WP:NOT for those kinda of "list" articles. — Deckiller 06:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording change?

message: I recently removed the alma mater and fight song lyrics from two high school articles (St. Edward High School (Lakewood, Ohio) and Saint Ignatius High School (Cleveland, Ohio)) citing the sub-section of  WP:NOT that excludes Wikipedia as a place for an indiscriminate collection of information.  Another editor brought up the issue in this discussion on my user talk page.  I'd like some input into this issue.  Do high school fight song and alma mater lyrics qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information? -- backburner001 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions for me are whether someone looking up these places would benefit from seeing the words of these songs (perhaps they give a flavour of the place), and whether the schools themselves see these songs as important. Are the some dusty remnant from pre-history or regularly sung at events to give tribal solidarity? My school never had a song, so I don't know how important these songs are in these cases. Perhaps the strength of the cite would indicate the importance. Stephen B Streater 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Another issue is copyright status. A lot of school songs are under copyright. We should avoid any school songs unless and until we can establish they are PD or equivalent. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indisciminate collection of information issues

message: We have "Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy"  "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy".  I thought it used to be just "wikipedia is not anarchy" and "wikipedia is not a democracy."  Oh well.
Can we add "Wikipedia is not communism."  Or "wikipedia is not an experiment in communism."  Though, " an experiment in " sounds kinda weak and should just be removed from this page entirely--it just takes the certainly out of a phrase to say "an experiment in"
My request is because I've seen a lot "wikipedia is communism" vandalism recently and if wikipedia just says it's not communism, this would be a good thing.  Anomo 23:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding Wikipedia is not communism will not deter the Wikipedia is communism vandals. In fact, adding it to the list will probably encourage them. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've not seen a "wikipedia is a democracy" vandal. Although, despite "Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site," I've seen far too much stuff on user pages in today alone talking about peoples' sex lives all in the form of userboxes.  Anomo 02:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we add communism to the list? 

message: I'd like this page to include a section on how Wikipedia is not a fan page. Many of the articles I read and edit are entertainment-related, and far too many of them have very serious tone and NPOV issues. Articles on comedians and shows read as a loose colection of various editors' retellings of their favorite jokes from that source.  Many include far more content about a single editor's pet interest or concern, usually with lots of original research, than that issue comes close to deserving. While all of this is clearly against Wikipedia policy, I think that spelling out that the encyclopedia should not read as a fan page would be helpful. Croctotheface 09:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think this would be a great addition.  Articles on musicians, bands, actors and atheletes are rife with the same sort of problem.  Spelling it out would be very helpful, IMO.  Frankly, some of the articles make me embarrassed to be a fan of the article's subject!  :)  -- Xtifr 11:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a fan page (?) 

message: I would like to add a section that Wikipedia is not a Gossip Rag.  That is, it is not a repository for disparaging non-notable (not nationally or internationally known) persons.  I have seen entirely too much of this, particularly when it comes to lawyers.  I have battled one article that clearly fit within 'speedy delete' attack page, and was finally deleted, and I was astonished that a few people defended it so intensely.  It was initially unsourced, and after lengthy explanation of why it fit within 'speedy delete', the author added a couple of references -- a local newspaper and "Overlawyered", which is notorious as a political group with dubious validity.  I do not see anywhere in this "What Wikipedia is Not" that addresses this.jawesq 20:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a Gossip Rag

message: As a resource that may be helpful, I've knocked together an initial list of articles that may be candidates for migration to Wiktionary - each article given its own Wiktionary Appendix, for example.  It's a sub-page of this debate, here /Candidate lists to be migrated to Wiktionary.  It is by no means perfect - I can't get the links to the categories of Lists of Words and Lists of English Words to work correctly, but perhaps it'll help us to hone policy, and provide a set of thought-experiment test cases.  I would hope we would contact recent editors of these articles/lists to garner their opinions before migrating them. WLD 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm late to the discussion but this is an excellent suggestion.  This is exactly what the Wiktionary Appendices were designed for.  Move them over and provide whatever cross-wiki links are appropriate.  It will be a cleaner solution for both projects.  Rossami (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the debate. Have you a pointer to text in Wiktionary describing what the Appendicies are for?  I'd like to find out before wholesale moves take place. If/when moves take place, what should be done about the edit histories, and the very extensive talk pages on some of the articles?  Should a stub article be left on Wikipedia to preserve them, with a cross namespace link to the Wiktionary Appendix?  This has the advantage of also allowing the 'What Links Here' link to work, as currently, I don't beleive that takes account of links to/from other Wikis. Or should the talk pages be copied across? Are there any tools for converting internal Wikipedia links into Wiktionary cross-namespace links automatically - otherwise they'll be a pain to edit manually. If moves (transwikis?) are to take place, I think they should be carefully planned. WLD 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikt:Category:Appendices, specifically the description at the top of the page (which is currently a transclusion from wikt:Appendix:Contents).  Wiktionary appendices are "most often used for glossaries of words with a common topic, but can also be used for grammatical or other lexicographical information."  In virtually every example cited so far, this would be an appropriate solution.  In some cases, we might want to move a list to wikt:Category:Concordances instead.  Wiktionary concordances are "vocabulary lists based upon specific works of literature and are a sub-category of the Appendices."  I recommend leaving the edit histories intact but replacing the current contents in Wikipedia with a redirect to the appropriate Wiktionary page.  Cross-project redirects should be made with some caution but I think it is justified here.  I probably would move the Talk pages over just so users can more easily participate in the discussion but that decision should probably be made on a case-by-case basis depending on the content and quality of the discussion on the Wikipedia talk page.  If we use a simple redirect, most of the internal Wikipedia links won't need to be updated.  But if you really want to anyway, there are several people who are quite experienced at writing bots.  I'm sure one of them could help us convert the links.  Rossami (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the very helpful reply.  In terms of links, I was thinking of links in the Wiktionary Appendix text that should point back to Wikipedia, rather than links in Wikipedia to the article being moved. Thinking about it, a simple search & replace in an external text editor on all the [[ replacing with [[w: should work, shouldn't it? WLD 10:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah.  I misunderstood.  I thought you were worried about the inbound links.  If you worry was only the outbound links, you are correct - with a qualifier.  If you want every link on the page to point back to Wikipedia, your search and replace does work (and I've used it when transwiking some pages) but it really does require an individual review of each link.  In my experience with such moves, some links should point to Wikipedia and others are better staying in Wiktionary (and some should just be unlinked).  That will vary with each individual page.  Rossami (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aid for debate

message: Since User:JzG has removed most of my announcements from the various slang glossary talk pages and from the Village Pump, I humbly withdraw my proposal.  --List Expert 12:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal withdrawn

message: The "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" maxim is being widely abused at AFD as a synonym for "I don't like the subject of this article.".  In part this is because editors are applying excessively wide definitions of what is an "indiscriminate collection", and not actually looking at the bullet points in the list at all.  I've therefore moved "news reports" to "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" (which is what primary source news reports are) and moved several "indiscriminate collection" items to the old "Wikipedia is not a directory" maxim that we used to have.  The other "indiscriminate collection" items require attention. Uncle G 10:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this section abused in AfD in order to remove certain anime-related articles, chiefly lists of characters that have outgrown their main article. I would suggest that the entire section be removed and move the bullet points, which few have been paying any attention, to other sections or placed into their own section. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" has been misused. However, I wouldn't support eliminating the section because, well, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Even the most hardcore inclusionist would agree at least a few things don't belong here. As it stands, I think the examples cited are appropriate. There's no way a page meeting the listed criteria would survive an AFD. szyslak (t, c, e) 10:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that other editor are not reading the content of the section, instead they see the section's title and then make an interpretation on what the section means. If they had read the content of the section, then it wouldn't be a problem. But if you are going to keep the section instead of moving the contents around into other section, then it clearly needs to be retitled to something less broad and open to interpretation. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how any improvement in the wording or organization of a policy can address the problem of people not reading the policy. (Or not reading it carefully, or not representing it honestly, or echoing what some other discussant has said about the policy rather than reading it for themself...) Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widespread abuse of "indiscriminate collection of information" 

message: I can seem to find a section that matches this topic. But I've seen far to many rumors put into articles or whole articles that are rumors. So we need a section that references WP:OR in a way thats more direct about rumors. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think Wikipedia:Verifiability is also a relevant policy. WP:V and WP:NOR support each other very well for this sort of thing. No need to cite What Wikipedia is not. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a rumor mill 

message: ...And, maybe, Wikipedia is not a MMORPG. (alternate: not a contest)
Just a suggestion of what is omitted, but what people often try to turn Wikipedia into. -- CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: eh?not sure what you mean ST47 12:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addresses frequent suggestions on introducing an elaborate levelling system, like formalizing EXP Points (editcountitis), registered time, complex Service Awards, skill levels like Skill Badges, and so on. And, in general, addresses all that editors comparisons. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MMORPG 

message: The image showing a soap is confusing. See soapbox. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soapbox image 

message: The wording of the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" guideline currently undermines itself. I'm under the impression that it's a general rule and the bulleted list are just examples of things ruled out completely. The current wording implies the list is of the only areas where this guideline applies. Which is correct? Can something be deleted on the grounds of being "indiscriminate information" if it doesn't fit one of the categories mentioned? --Dtcdthingy 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not read that implication into the current wording.  I believe that your first interpretation is correct - this is a general rule and the sub-bullets are examples of things that are almost always ruled out.  This page was never intended to be an exhaustive list.  Things which you consider to be "indiscriminate information" but which do not fit one of these categories can certainly be nominated for discussion and possible deletion.  Rossami (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still might be a good idea to explicitely state that the bulleted points are not the only examples of indiscriminate collections, to remove any doubt in the matter. --Mako 00:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indiscriminate infromation bullets: Exhaustive? 

message: The following is not good: 'Note: Don't misinterpret that a disambiguation page is against the policy of what Wikipedia is not regarding "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". A disambiguation page is here to resolve conflicts of articles carrying essentially the same title. It is not just for a reference of links or anything similar to that'.
Someone really oughta rewrite that.  (Someone who is not me, my writing is also not good) --Xyzzyplugh 04:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clumsy section

message: The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#Newscast_schedules has seems to reached a moderate consensus that newscasts and other local programming of a station are notable and should be included in articles (or at least, enough people aren't objecting to it). Before I revise the section about radio "schedules" by permitting the addition of locally originated programming times in station articles (much like we have the times of network originated programming in articles such as 2005-06 United States network television schedule and the CBS#Fall_2006_schedule articles), I'd like to see some discussion. Certainly, it is a clear double standard to permit network schedules to be displayed but locally originated programs not to get the same treatment. Calwatch 05:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the one hand we list bus schedules, at least in some form. On the other hand we don't predict future events. The trouble with any of these schedules is keeping them up to date, especially for smaller networks and stations.  Listing the exact times of a show is more demanding than simply saying that they air a show and then giving a link to the latest schedule.  -Will Beback 05:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, as noted in the project discussion, television news generally doesn't change, unlike syndicated programming. News times stayed fixed for long periods of time, and are not like the example given in WP:NOT, implying that Wikipedia would provide a list of songs played on a radio station on a given day, which would be absurd. Calwatch 06:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's certainly a difference between posting the times of regularly-scheduled programs versus announcing future guests, special programs, and other irregular future events. -Will Beback 06:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Newscast schedules are important, it's not like we are adding full fledged schedules, and if someone does I remove it. I think  should have gone through WP:TVS before he/she/it decided to singlehandedly remove all newscast schedules, apparently he/she/it forgot how to discuss things before making major removals. I am reverting all of he/she/its edits related to that until we can come to a decision. --CFIF ☎ 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think using the  template here was not a good choice. This is a content dispute, User:Amgine has no history of being blocked and very few page moves, so what was the point of using the vandal template, other than implying (quite wrongly, IMHO) that Amgine is a vandal? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, sorry, I forgot that there were other templates for that use, I just didn't care to look for them. Anyway, let's not change the subject. Amgine shouldn't be deleting others' work so sweepingly without discussing it here for others' to decide. --CFIF ☎ 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm probably in the minority in saying that there is no need in mentioning a full-scale schedule of each station's newscasts, where a person access the same schedules from that station's website.  I never really understood the logic behind that.  Maybe a subtle mention here and there, but it's just a waste of space mentioning the schedules of a station's newscasts. ShawnHill 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newscast schedules, redux

message: Hello. I would like to ask your opinion on the interpretation about the rule "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", with reference to relevant future events.
According to you, an article about the future season of a football club, whose only content is the fact that the club has signed an agreement to play in that season with its football federation, is relevant enough to supersed the "not a crystall ball" rule?
I am referring to articles like Adelaide United FC Season 2007-08, Adelaide United FC Season 2008-09, Adelaide United FC Season 2009-10.
(Note: I requested to remove these articles on the basis of non-notability and WP:NOT breaking on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject A-League. There, only the original author of the article, User:Daniel.Bryant, and another user, admin User:Wiki_alf, showed, rejecting my request — Daniel.Bryant also showing a rather arrogant attitude, if I am allowed to say. Since I was not convinced by their explanations, I brought the matter here.)
--217.26.87.7 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This dispute has been settled with the intervention of an administrator, who has given their expressed permission for this article to to stand. This user is verging on WP:POINT by trying to change templates that exist for a Wikiproject which promotes their use in their original state. This season page, which is fully sourced and was ruled by an administrator to be perfectly fine, when they said: "I would certainly have no objections to an editor preparing the next few season's pages", was created at the pushing of the IP address. Daniel.Bryant 11:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute was not settled. You showed no intention of reaching a compromise of any sort, so I am asking also to other editors their opinions. If the majority agrees with you, I shall drop my requests, but I think that only two opinions are not enough.--217.26.87.7 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no problem with the page you quote, to me it does seem to improve the encyclopedia, which is what we're here for. Is the real problem that another similar page you have in mind is finding some sort of resistance? --Alf melmac 11:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The problem is that those pages and those templates are not notable enough (yet) to exist, and should be removed. I have no interest in future seasons of PL, BL, or Seria A, if this is what you mean.--217.26.87.7 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that the examples cited would fall afoul of the "not a crystal ball" criterion and should probably be deleted.  That is, however, a judgment call and my personal views on crystal-ballism are stronger than average.  The best way to determine the consensus on this judgment call is to make a formal nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and see what the community has to say.  This page is really not the place to argue the merits of a particular case.  Rossami (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They were speedy-deleted. However, this matter is important to me, since I would know the "correct" interpretation of the "not a crystal ball" rule.--217.26.87.90 13:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would ask you to check WP:V. I have cited sources, which is better than 50% of most Wikipedia articles. Also, that won't resolve the problem of the template, because I will still leave the red-links in there. Having red-links to future created pages isn't against policy, as much as the IP seems to think it is. Daniel.Bryant 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a matter of verifiability, it is a matter of notability.--217.26.87.90 13:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I had them speedied. Great. Issue solved. However, having red-links of articles which will eventually be filled is not against Wikipolicy, and hence the links will stay. Surely having red-links will only benefit Wikipedia by having a route to create the article when it's required. Agreed? Daniel.Bryant 13:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a matter we will discuss in the relevant place, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject A-League. I hope this time you will not close the discussion only because you are the most active contributor to that project.--217.26.87.90 13:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a shame that you asked me to speedy them, as I see that as creating the same work for someone else in the future. I think that they would have survived the deletion process which I feel would have been a better avenue for the anon to engage in, too late now. --Alf melmac 13:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crystal balls and relevance 

message: I have a simple question: Is Wikipedia an atlas? --Dijxtra 14:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not an atlas, but it does incorporate aspects of a gazzetteer. -- Donald Albury 14:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? Check this out: Maps of Europe. --Dijxtra 15:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Looks like the start of a nice wikibook. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (After an edit conflict.) Hmmm! That looks like a violation of Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files to me. I would also say that it does not look like an atlas, but rather is simply a indiscriminate collection of images. I'll wait to see what others say, but I think it should be suggested to this atlas project that they look at starting another sister project ala Wiktionary, although I also questions how much work it would take to assemble/create good-quality free-use maps suitable for a real atlas. -- Donald Albury 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (A note before notifying initiator of the atlas project about this discussion) I'd like to state that I like the project, I'm not writing this because I think the atlas thing is wrong but because of this. The page got deleted because it was collection of images. This seems like a valuable project, and I wouldn't like to see it deleted. So, I feel it is time we either change Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page or do something with the atlas project to save it from AfD or something like that. --Dijxtra 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest to the map project that they propose a WikiAtlas. -- Donald Albury 12:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wikipedia an atlas? 

message: I'm surprised that "An exception to this rule ("Wikipedia is not a dictionary") is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers." Is this true? --Grand Slam 7
*Wiktionary is "the lexical companion to Wikipedia", and it is often good to consider the two working in tandem.  In this case one can have complementary articles.  For example: Whilst wikt:forty-two tells readers the translations of forty-two into different languages, 42 (number) tells readers about the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  Neither content is appropriate in the other project's article.  Uncle G 16:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Exception to " Not a Dictionary" true? 

message: there is a contradiction on this section as it mentions wikipedia is not for self promotion, which is not under the actual rules of what is not allowed on user pages and to which most admins use theirs as blatant self promotion of their wiki exploits
:Please read Wikipedia:User page. -- Donald Albury 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What your user page is not