Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 13

message: A discussion I think relevant to WP:NOT occured in Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Editing_live_events. My synopsis is that at least one editor thinks it proper to "live update" an article on a major sporting event while the event is occuring and (so far) most others disagree. There seems to not be an explicit guideline; WP:NOT seems closest but the one editor is resistant to that interpretation. I'm not sure it's important enough to take on - I doubt there's much effect on the final article -  but I thought I'd mention it. Studerby 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Live events

message: Someone added a link to a personal essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper in WP:NOT#IINFO, incorrectly implying that the essay is an officially sanctioned position of WP:NOT.  Without commenting one way or another on the essay itself, it is premature to link a brand new personal essay from the WP:NOT policy page.  My advice is ask people for feedback on the essay to build consensus for it, then if it appears to have strong enough consensus advocate it becoming a guideline and/or a subpage of this policy.  Dugwiki 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper]] 

message: I wish to explore further the notion of Wikipedia as historical data. Should Wikipedia be considered a historical database? What kind of knowledge is Wikipedia to cover and what knowledge should it not? If a topic has been chosen as valid to create an article, what criteria of said topic is not to be put into the article? Is it enough that the information is historical in nature, meaning it does is not concern current events, products, books, people, etc, to validate its inclusion in a Wikipedia article?
If not, what other definitions must be applied for the information to be able to be included within an article?
If so, is that the only criteria or are there other exceptions to case?
--Dharh 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the encyclopedia's very nature, this sort of thing is bound to happen over time inside nearly every article. I add an entry, and cite a reliable source that happens to be web based. Ten years later, the reliable source is gone, but the Wikipedia article remains. This is one reason why print sources are preferred over online ones. -- MisterHand 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Since I brought this up, I'd like to clarify things here. By "primary historical data", I don't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't record historical data and facts, but that Wikipedia should not be the primary source of such facts. When a web-based source disappears, the correct thing to do is wait to see if the website comes back, then, if you can't find a replacement source, use HTML comments tags to hide the source (don't remove it completely, as the details can help others find new sources). If a new source is found, great. If not, then there may be a notability problem. In general, if something is notable enough, a record of it will survive in primary or secondary records somewhere. If not, then Wikipedia can't do anything more than speculate that once upon a time, this website said this. You can try using internet archive sites, but the trail can get more and more tenuous. There is great potential for wikis to be used to record historical data, such as prices of computer games over several years, but that should be done on another wiki, not Wikipedia. Carcharoth 11:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to reply directly to Dharh's question, only add stuff if you can find a source. For a price, just looking at the price in the shops is not enough. You have to link to a souce that confirms what the price is. And where. And when. eg. £34 in the UK in June 2007. But then it tends to look like overspecific trivia, so a range is better "Product X was sold for £30-40 by JoeBloggs Company, was marketed for ten years from 1997-2007 and then withdrawn from the market". The trouble there, though, is that you have to credit all that to a single source. If you credit the "£30-40" bit to one source, the "1997-2007" bit to another source, and the "withdrawn from the market" to another source, then you are verging on original research. I don't think it quite qualifies as original reserch, but it would be close. Carcharoth 11:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Historical Data 

message: I think we should assert that WP is not a religious tract or a recruiting tool for any particular religious sect or set of beliefs. This seems to be violated frequently at articles related to evolution and creationism, and it would be nice to be able to point to a rule here to that effect.--Filll 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WP:SOAP already encompasses that. -- MisterHand 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I expanded it slightly to make it more explicit, with a shortcut: WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. Dhaluza 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I propose another heading 

message: Tell that to Nancy Benoit 71.124.116.230 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the proper link there might be WP:NOR. --tjstrf talk 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball...

message: I propose a slight change to the section dealing with plot summaries on Wikipedia:
:Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
The impetus for this is the recent spate of "Plot of..." articles being put up for AfD. When keep voters are told that the site does not allow plot summaries, a number of these keep users either say that the (very large) article is supporting the main article about the work or that all articles on works of fiction should be deleted since they all contain plot summaries. These additions should make it a bit more clear what kinds of plot summaries (and within what context) are acceptable on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 07:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. This will complement User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction) well. Perhaps we should extent it to "gameplay information", which is different from gameguide information; "gameguide" explains how to beat the game or provides tips, while "gameplay" info merely describes the gameplay without venturing into that guide territory. Nevertheless, articles shouldn't be solely explanations of gameplay as well. — Deckiller 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I don't know about "solely a detailed summary"; it might give the impression that a brief plot summary warrents its own article, which is questionable. — Deckiller 14:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article to clarify that point? NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, although a couple users might oppose. — Deckiller 17:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm wondering. Is there anybody else who has any ideas or objections to these changes? NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 20:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess not. It's nothing to advertise across Wikipedia about; might as well implement it and see if anyone reverts. — Deckiller 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really hate to be the one to object, but the point of saying "topic" and not "per article" helps us avoid people saying that WP:NOT#PLOT is disputed. It's saying the same thing, with using wording that leaves just enough gray area for special cases, but not enough to actually abuse. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording the plot summary section 

message: I don't know whether this has been discussed before, but I think this section of the policy needs to be revisited. While its intention of removing pages about details of everyday news is correct, many people are indeed notable for one event. Maybe there should be some guidelines about the length of time the incident is mentioned in the media, about the notability of the event, or some other criteria. There are often pages at AFD up for deletion or a merge that appeal to this principle, but I don't think a consensus has really been reached about its boundaries. Recurring dreams 23:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOTNEWS (here the "not" stands for notability).  I don't have a definable opinion on the issue, but I do place extreme violations that fail the "ten-year test" of notability on the deletion stack. Shalom Hello 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone wants to write about every breaking news story right as they first appear, I imagine Wikinews is the place for them. On the other hand, we can wait to write an encyclopedia article until it's clearly established that the event really is of lasting and historic significance. If that means we wait a day, a week, a year, whatever, then we wait! If it means it turns out no encyclopedia article is ever warranted, that's fine too, it's still archived on Wikinews. Our scope is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and articles outside that scope can and should be deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack and 2007 London car bombs. Doesn't the same argument apply there? That those articles should be Wikinews articles instead, and that Wikipedia should wait a certain length of time before producing an encyclopedia article? Carcharoth 07:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to briefly counter something Shalom said above, there is no "ten year test" for notability.  That is something that some editors unofficially use but which has no demonstrated consensus and isn't part of WP:N.  Moreover I doubt that such a test could reach consensus if someone attempted to add it to WP:N.  So I'd highly recommend not using the ten year test when looking at whether something is notable. Dugwiki 14:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I saw it somewhere, maybe on an old version of the page.  I try to work within policy, but sometimes it helps just to use ideas such as WP:HOLE (which is an essay) as a starting point for consideration. Shalom Hello 17:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ten year test was something that was discussed once as a change to WP:N, but it never got anywhere.  The topic still does come up occasionally though so maybe that's where you've seen it. Dugwiki 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT#NEWS]] 

message: I am working on an article which is a bio of a living person and about 50% of the information in the article is garnered from one single tabloid source.  This policy does not make any statement about tabloids such as “Wikipedia is not a tabloid.“.  If it does, please correct me.  The WP:Biographies of living persons  policy states that  “Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets”, emphasis on avoid.  Other editors have been trying to get this article revised and/or deleted but can not because of these two weak policies.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Period.  Do you think other encyclopedias like Britannica, Encarta, etc allow their writers/editors to utilize information found in tabloids?  Your weak policy is hurting Wikipedia and as long as articles like Margita Bangová which almost completely rely on tabloids like the Toronto Sun are allowed to withstand the editorial and deletion process because of your weak policy, then Wikipedia will never be a true encyclopedia.  I urge you all to revisit this issue and take a stronger position.  Not even my daughter’s first grade teacher would have allowed her to use a tabloid in any of her projects.  Why can’t Wikipedia, which proclaims to be an encyclopedia, have the same standards for our educated, adult editors?--Chicaneo 16:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the proper forum for contesting AfD results, and once an article has passed AfD as keep it's not permissable to speedy-delete it. I notice, however, that the previous AfD set itself up for automatic failure from the beginning by making empty allegations of racism, which spurred quite a few reflexive keeps based on the nominator being a sockpuppet who gave no actual rationale for deletion, rather than considering the article content. So in this case, creating another AfD page which gave an actual rationale for deletion might make sense. --tjstrf talk 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know how to contest AfD results - - it's all spelled out on the AfD pages.  That's another matter entirely.  In bringing this issue here, I was hoping to see a discussion of Wikipedia's low standards not skirting our responsibilities to living persons and thus, the real issue. --Chicaneo 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a wider discussion like this I would bring it to the Village Pump. JoeSmack Talk 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is a tabloid

message: Allow articles that are substantially or mostly plot summaries as long as they have some regular, encyclopedic treatment of the plot in the article.
Current language (italics added to last sentence):
::Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article.
Replace the last sentence above with:
::"A plot summary may be appropriate as a large part of a separate article about the plot of a fictional work if normal Wikipedia notability standards are met: multiple, reliable, independent sources that give substantial treatment to the subject (the plot must receive substantial treatment, not just the work as a whole). If the plot summary can fit into the main article about the fictional work, no separate article should be created."
I'm becoming convinced by Deckiller's points made throughout this discussion and Otto4711 (at 16:00, 7 July in the "Suggestion" subsection).
;Some points to consider:
#It's an easy way of avoiding endless arguments about what's worth putting in the encyclopedia and what shouldn't be in. If multiple, independent, reliable sources can't be found for Plot of the Dukes of Hazzard Episode 9 then no go. 
#It fits pretty smoothly with rules and guidelines for other Wikipedia articles. It's easy to understand.
#It will encourage more encyclopedic treatment of plots and it demands at least a certain level of that kind of treatment (in the same way we do for other subjects).
#Classics that have received attention from scholars, critics and others for years will be saved from deletion debates like the one over Plot of Les Miserables.
#Other works that have received attention for their plots will also get articles. Where critics and scholars have written substantially about the plots of Harry Potter books or Buffy episodes or other works of popular fiction, we will inevitably get plot articles. But we'll get them with a degree of encyclopedic treatment. 
#There is no definition of "substantial treatment" in Wikipedia and this proposed language reflects that. Some things just have to be argued about on a case-by-case basis.
#This proposal doesn't offer any guidelines as to how much of an article should be plot summary and how much should be sourced analysis of plot. We need to respect the fact that articles should differ depending on the subject, and articles will differ depending on the editors.
;Technical points to consider
::(A) Should we just change the "plots" section here or do we also need to put this policy on some other page? 
::(B) Any suggestions about tweaking the language?
If the Les Mis plot article survives the deletion discussion, I'd be open to another nomination in six months if nothing is added to it and I'd vote to delete at that point. Noroton 17:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I disagree.   Plot summaries should "summarize" the work, not "describe" them.  I dont a seperate article would ever be summarzing the work, regardless of the attention it receives from sources.   You can find a lot of news articles on the happenings on Lost, but I dont think we should go episode by episode describing what happened on that show.  Corpx 18:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In essense, if you can provide links to secondary sources analyzing or reviewing the plot of this novel, that's information that can be added to the article. And when that info is added, the article will adhere to WP:NOT, and there will be no issue. Some good helping guidelines are WP:N, WP:WAF, and my rewrite of WP:FICT at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction). — Deckiller 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think my proposal (a) makes explicit what was implicit and avoids confusion; (b) allows for substantial plot sections whether or not they overwhelm other sections of the plot article; those other sections howerver, would establish notability for an article concentrating on plot.Noroton 18:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Deckkiller later expands that to say "they'll realize that it's all stuff that can be placed on the main article in the first place, since most fiction is about the plot".  You can say that secondary sources are reviewing or analyzing the plot, but I think that's pretty much the same as analyzing the book itself.   Any article "reviewing" a tv show could just as easily be construed as reviewing its plot, warranting a page for plot summaries.  Corpx 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're arguing too hard here. I've already said that if everything can fit in the main article, then put it there. Separate plot articles are for those plots where the synopsis or the analysis of the plot itself is too big for the main article. My main difference with Deckiller's position is that he doesn't want plot summaries to be too long even in plot articles, and I don't think that should matter. If sources can't be found that analyze the plot specifically, delete the plot article. Noroton 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, most movie or book reviews don't analyze the plot in a substantial way, but that's got to be taken on a case by case basis. A book about a work of fiction would probably have enough in it to cover a plot. A scholarly article might, too. Noroton 22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the really bad plot exposition articles, which probably engendered the prohibition here, are the overly detailed scene by scene, shot by shot writings of dedicated fans about shows which other editors consider fluff. The language should be such that if a fan of a show watches it and writes a plot summary as detailed as the ones on www.televisionwithoutpity.com there is a clear basis for removing it as original research and as a violation of something in WP:NOT . Where there has been independent substantial coverage of the plot in reliable sources, it adds importantly to the coverage of the work, and can be ideally included in the main article about the show, and only stay as a separate article if its inclusion would make the main article too long. Few fictional works will have so many sources with so much encyclopedic content that the length with plot summary would exceed some standard for the maximum length of a good article. We will inevitably have disagreement about whether a review is about the show or about its plot, and it is rare for a review (which usually avoids "spoilage") to include enough detail about the plot and especially its ending to serve as the basis of an encyclopedic plot synopsis. Per all the recent discussion, Wikipedia can and should include "spoilers." Sometimes the TV show/play/novel/movie itself will be the only reliable source which includes the details of the shocking finale.  Rarely, as in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer there will be books which include complete scripts and discussion of all the events of a series. Sometimes, for TV shows, the boxed DVD set has been used as a reliable source for episode or season plot summaries. Can a work serve as its own reference without the synopsizing being original research? Can actual "Cliffnotes" be a reliable reference? Edison 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the language of my proposal, I specify "independent" -- that is, independent of the makers/authors of the work. You'd have to find at least two other sources. I think the work itself has to be an original resource in most synopses. That's the way it works in all synopsis sections that I've seen. I see no reason why Cliff Notes or any of its competitors should not be a source. They seem to be reliable. (I even think they can establish notability.) I see no point in footnoting them in the article for plot developments that we should be getting directly from the book itself, unless there's a dispute between Wikipedia editors on some point. Then a Cliff Notes would be helpful in settling it. Noroton 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Independent substanical sources about (plot of) TV shows can also be found.  It seems like every hit show has books/articles about it which analyze it and what not.   I put in some random shows on amazon and came up with LOST, CSI Miami, Desperate Housewives.   I really dont see a difference in a person watching a show and documenting it and a person reading a book and documenting it.   A plot of a TV show should also receive extensive plot summary because of the independent works that cover it.        Corpx 21:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If multiple, reliable, independent sources can be found for any subject in Wikipedia, that subject is generally allowed an article. I can accept that for CSI Miami if, in fact, the sources have substantial information on the plot of each individual episode. Noroton 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corpx, I followed the links to the CSI and Desperate Housewives books and, glancing over them, I didn't see a single one that focuses on the TV series plot. Most of them are novels based on the shows -- they wouldn't be sources for anything to do with the original plots. The links you provided prove nothing. Noroton 22:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Book1 and book2 about lost and book1 and book2 about desperate housewives.   Although I havent read any of them, I would guess that these books provide analysis on the plot and here's some news articles that talk about the plot.   I think plot analysis of a work gives notability to the work itself and not to "Plot of _____".  Corpx 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *:Category:The_Simpsons_episodes is precisely what I'm trying to avoid.  It goes through every single episode of the series describing it in detail when a plot summary in The Simpsons is all that's needed per WP:FICT.  Corpx 21:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at some of the Simpsons episodes articles and I didn't see multiple, independent, reliable sources. A web site where volunteers contribute information is not reliable under standards Wikipedia already uses. Noroton 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *They'll all be claiminig IAR if I nominate it for AFD Corpx 17:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion 2

message: :* I disagree.   Plot summaries should "summarize" the work, not "describe" them.  I dont a seperate article would ever be summarzing the work, regardless of the attention it receives from sources.   You can find a lot of news articles on the happenings on Lost, but I dont think we should go episode by episode describing what happened on that show.  Corpx 18:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In essense, if you can provide links to secondary sources analyzing or reviewing the plot of this novel, that's information that can be added to the article. And when that info is added, the article will adhere to WP:NOT, and there will be no issue. Some good helping guidelines are WP:N, WP:WAF, and my rewrite of WP:FICT at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction). — Deckiller 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think my proposal (a) makes explicit what was implicit and avoids confusion; (b) allows for substantial plot sections whether or not they overwhelm other sections of the plot article; those other sections howerver, would establish notability for an article concentrating on plot.Noroton 18:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Deckkiller later expands that to say "they'll realize that it's all stuff that can be placed on the main article in the first place, since most fiction is about the plot".  You can say that secondary sources are reviewing or analyzing the plot, but I think that's pretty much the same as analyzing the book itself.   Any article "reviewing" a tv show could just as easily be construed as reviewing its plot, warranting a page for plot summaries.  Corpx 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're arguing too hard here. I've already said that if everything can fit in the main article, then put it there. Separate plot articles are for those plots where the synopsis or the analysis of the plot itself is too big for the main article. My main difference with Deckiller's position is that he doesn't want plot summaries to be too long even in plot articles, and I don't think that should matter. If sources can't be found that analyze the plot specifically, delete the plot article. Noroton 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, most movie or book reviews don't analyze the plot in a substantial way, but that's got to be taken on a case by case basis. A book about a work of fiction would probably have enough in it to cover a plot. A scholarly article might, too. Noroton 22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the really bad plot exposition articles, which probably engendered the prohibition here, are the overly detailed scene by scene, shot by shot writings of dedicated fans about shows which other editors consider fluff. The language should be such that if a fan of a show watches it and writes a plot summary as detailed as the ones on www.televisionwithoutpity.com there is a clear basis for removing it as original research and as a violation of something in WP:NOT . Where there has been independent substantial coverage of the plot in reliable sources, it adds importantly to the coverage of the work, and can be ideally included in the main article about the show, and only stay as a separate article if its inclusion would make the main article too long. Few fictional works will have so many sources with so much encyclopedic content that the length with plot summary would exceed some standard for the maximum length of a good article. We will inevitably have disagreement about whether a review is about the show or about its plot, and it is rare for a review (which usually avoids "spoilage") to include enough detail about the plot and especially its ending to serve as the basis of an encyclopedic plot synopsis. Per all the recent discussion, Wikipedia can and should include "spoilers." Sometimes the TV show/play/novel/movie itself will be the only reliable source which includes the details of the shocking finale.  Rarely, as in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer there will be books which include complete scripts and discussion of all the events of a series. Sometimes, for TV shows, the boxed DVD set has been used as a reliable source for episode or season plot summaries. Can a work serve as its own reference without the synopsizing being original research? Can actual "Cliffnotes" be a reliable reference? Edison 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the language of my proposal, I specify "independent" -- that is, independent of the makers/authors of the work. You'd have to find at least two other sources. I think the work itself has to be an original resource in most synopses. That's the way it works in all synopsis sections that I've seen. I see no reason why Cliff Notes or any of its competitors should not be a source. They seem to be reliable. (I even think they can establish notability.) I see no point in footnoting them in the article for plot developments that we should be getting directly from the book itself, unless there's a dispute between Wikipedia editors on some point. Then a Cliff Notes would be helpful in settling it. Noroton 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Independent substanical sources about (plot of) TV shows can also be found.  It seems like every hit show has books/articles about it which analyze it and what not.   I put in some random shows on amazon and came up with LOST, CSI Miami, Desperate Housewives.   I really dont see a difference in a person watching a show and documenting it and a person reading a book and documenting it.   A plot of a TV show should also receive extensive plot summary because of the independent works that cover it.        Corpx 21:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If multiple, reliable, independent sources can be found for any subject in Wikipedia, that subject is generally allowed an article. I can accept that for CSI Miami if, in fact, the sources have substantial information on the plot of each individual episode. Noroton 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corpx, I followed the links to the CSI and Desperate Housewives books and, glancing over them, I didn't see a single one that focuses on the TV series plot. Most of them are novels based on the shows -- they wouldn't be sources for anything to do with the original plots. The links you provided prove nothing. Noroton 22:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Book1 and book2 about lost and book1 and book2 about desperate housewives.   Although I havent read any of them, I would guess that these books provide analysis on the plot and here's some news articles that talk about the plot.   I think plot analysis of a work gives notability to the work itself and not to "Plot of _____".  Corpx 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *:Category:The_Simpsons_episodes is precisely what I'm trying to avoid.  It goes through every single episode of the series describing it in detail when a plot summary in The Simpsons is all that's needed per WP:FICT.  Corpx 21:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at some of the Simpsons episodes articles and I didn't see multiple, independent, reliable sources. A web site where volunteers contribute information is not reliable under standards Wikipedia already uses. Noroton 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *They'll all be claiminig IAR if I nominate it for AFD Corpx 17:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: In Pokemon articles, is putting the level at which they evolve in violation of the Wikipedia is not a Guidebook rule? - ~VNinja~ 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *My understanding is that the guidebook thing is only referring to the whole article in question.  Inserting trivial details should not be a problem unless the whole article could be construed as a guidebook.  Corpx 17:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, and you don't want trivial details. Keep the encyclopedia encyclopedic please. Also, this maybe a better question for the article's talk page. JoeSmack Talk 18:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon Evolution Levels 

message: Could someone please explain this and its potential to be overused? I thought Wikipedia was truly uncensored and free of disclaimers warning readers that an image may be potentially shocking, harmful to your health, psychologically damaging... whatever. Take your pick. We have this list to advise and bring to light the images that we feel may actually cross a certain decency border, but I see the template above as one of those IAR-projects taken out of control. For example, how can gangrene be free of this Linkimage nonsense, but a revert war beginning in acral necrosis and maggot therapy over the same thing. Sorry if I sound frustrated; honestly, I'm not sure if I'm in the right place to be discussing it. Linkimage has already been put up for deletion twice and saved, but since I don't see any guidelines or policy guiding it, its just a "Wild West" template thats being flung in front of picture after picture around Wikipedia. Somebody please help me. -- VegitaU 03:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then if you feel the use of the template not appropriate for an article, then bring it up on the talk page of the article. Everything has a potential to be overused and it takes editors, such as us, to determine what is consider acceptable and not acceptable use for this template. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Wikipedia is Not Censored then... 

message: Note 3 in the main article says "Also telling the reader how something is used is encyclopedic, telling how to use something is not. "  Does this imply that telling how something is done is OK, but telling how to do it is not?  And telling how something is played is OK, but how to play it is not?  (Of course, the distinctions may be subtle.)  Bubba73 (talk), 14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 3 

message: What is the policy on this? Should they be included, for example, in info boxes about organisations or not? --ROGER TALK 18:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think addresses are fine for most cases, but phone numbers would be a violation of "WP is not a resource for conducting business" Corpx 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought. Phone numbers are appearing in school info boxes. To my mind, they make them look like classified ads. --ROGER TALK 18:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What are other's views on this? Should a slightly more specific statement, particularly about phone numbers - go into the policy? --ROGER TALK 12:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street addresses and phone numbers 

message: People have been quoting this for deletions of most lists: Wikipedia is not for: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)"
*: How did this sneak in? We have lists of almost all award winners, and lists of people associated with each town, and we have lists of burials in cemeteries? So, how did it get banned, and when was it added? What exactly is a "loose association", and what is its converse, a "tight association"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The key here is "loosely assosiated".   I think it mostly applies to trivial intersections and "famous _____" etc.  Corpx 04:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Among the ways things can be tightly associated is having a common authorship, or location, or origin, or creator, or producer, or subject. They are all important. The most important one that takes effort to organize in an encyclopedia is by subject -- the others can be handled more or less mechanically. Thus, information about what material deals primarily with a particular subject is highly encyclopedic, such as the novels with a particular theme.  There are various ways of getting this information--sometimes by direct inspection of the title. One which we ought to consider using is library subject headings, such as Whales--fiction. This is an objective secondary source. DGG (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The term "loosely" is problematic, and if it stays it needs to be defined in a clear manner along with examples. This section is used so often now for justification to delete lists that it is absolutely staggering, and clarity is far past due. The term "loosely" is an adjective, and so begs clarification. Of course we each have general knowledge as to the meaning of "loosely", but without examples our perception of what it constitutes will differ greatly. For this we desperately need consensus, for countless lists governed by WP:LIST have been deleted by voters exploiting this very section. So long as a list makes clear criteria for inclusion and the topic is considered notable enough, I'm not sure "loosely" can ever be included as policy. It seems to be a favorite of deletionists almost exclusively, and thus should raise red flags for some. (Mind meal 10:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the vagueness of the wording, in leaving the judgment to be made on a case by case basis.   We'd have some endless, unmaintainable lists otherwise Corpx 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, being vague might be acceptable for essays. But this is official policy, and should be explicitly clear. (Mind meal 02:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of people

message: At one point, this policy mentioned that Wikipedia is not a quote farm. I would like to see WP:NOT#INFO once again reflect this. Wikiquote would be the appropriate project for such collections. Thoughts? Vassyana 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its still here - "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote."  Corpx 07:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking for something a bit more substantive and broad against quote mining. Vassyana 13:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Wikipedia is not a collection of quotations' or 'Wikipedia is not a encyclopedia of quotations' would sound much better if you're looking for a firmer statement of this idea.  'Qutoe farming' sounds a little too subjective for my tastes. CaveatLectorTalk 21:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote farming 

message: I am rather confused here. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, there are constant rationales by editors who use WP:NOT#LINK as a rationale to delete lists. They have interpreted the language to mean that any list that contains only internal wikilinks should be deleted. Often this is in spite of a lead section that clearly states the criteria for inclusion on that list. Is the intention of this policy to be construed as meaning lists are to be deleted? I find these constant rationales quite troubling, as they seem to contradict Wikipedia:Lists when they assert this is the intended outcome of the guideline. Thanks. (Mind meal 09:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already an exception in the text here for "[structured] lists that assist with the organisation of articles", so I don't see a conflict.  Anyone citing this as an argument that a list should be deleted is either asserting that the list provides no useful organisational function or they are wrong about the meaning of this section.  The word "structured" (which has recently been deleted) may have served to eliminate lists that would be better as categories rather than articles, i.e. those that add no information beyond the fact that the linked article is an example of the kind of thing the list is talking about. It could probably be phrased better. JulesH 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no conflict, why is the argument constantly being made that lists (just in general) violate WP:Not#Link? The word structured was removed for obvious reasons, as WP:LIST is not WP:STRUCTURED LIST, and the entire article governing lists at WP:List is sufficient in laying down the guidelines for layout. According to WP:List, you need a lead section, references and WP:Verifiability (ie. references) and explicit criteria for inclusion. It says nothing of how categories are superior to lists, nor does WP:Categories, and nor does Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. The arguments constantly assert Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and users then subesquently ignore those pointing out the "except lists" part. Surely you realize this argument is advanced regularly, as I've noticed you voting at many such discussions. The language certainly should be clearer, we agree. (Mind meal 11:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS - You stated that "i.e. those that add no information beyond the fact that the linked article is an example of the kind of thing the list is talking about. It could probably be phrased better." The problem with this is that WP:Lists, to which that section refers to as an exception (prior to the removal of structured and after), does not state that you must include anything other than the link once criteria, lead section and references have been added. (Mind meal 11:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NOT#LINK]]