Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 4

message: There wasn't actually a decision to keep, it just languished on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old for a long time without anyone deciding what action to take. Apparently the debate is now resumed at Talk:Images of Saddam Hussein. --Michael Snow 21:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Images of Saddam Hussein

message: I'd like some comments on the status of extremely detailed plot summaries like those at Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary and Harry Potter (plot). Is it worth having if it is too long to fit on the main page for the book or movie? James 23:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
:Transwiki to Wikibooks. Not here, not here. Summaries should tell someone, as briefly as possible and with minimal spoilers, what they'll get out of that book/movie/game/llama. GarrettTalk 00:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A dust jacket will tell you what you might expect with extremely minimal spoilers. That is advertising, this is supposed to inform. I agree, there is a possible problem of telling someone what they did not want to know, but i think there is a greater problem of failing to tell them what they are here looking for. This is more a problem of organisation, rather than content. Myself, I looked at HP articles after reading the books, because I wanted to see what i had missed. I was rather startled to see the amount of long description deletion which has been going on. As with any article, the amount of input is likely to be proportionate to the amount of interest. Why is there still a debate about too much content on a non-paper encyclopedia? I would agree, a short jacket type introduction might be appropriate at the start of an article, but this is inadequate and needs an accompanying longer description, of a length which would make it a reasonable article by itself. I checked wikibooks, their own policies officially preclude hosting simple long plot summaries. Sandpiper 02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not CliffsNotes 

message: "Soapbox" is a word that is not well understood by all English speakers in the sense that it's being used there. Also, there are items of two sorts in this list: outright propaganda, which is blatant abuse, and earnest critical thinking which is easy for newcomers to get into.
Since this page is an important reference for new users, which I am of, I suggest clarifying the topic by breaking up the section heading "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" into:
"Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought"
* no original research / essays
* not a discussion forum
* no critical reviews
"Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine":
* propaganda / advocacy
* self-promotion
* advertising
User:Bob2000
:Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~).  And why not just link to soapbox, which explains the idiom? —Cryptic (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A link will not solve the problem raised. The term is already explained within the section, and there is a link indeed. The problem is with the heading, which is cryptic (no pun intended). I must say that I don't find the beginning part of contributing to Wikipedia to be a very simple or enjoyable experience. In fact it's pretty discouraging. There's all these rules that you only know about after making the mistake--you provide another very good example: how was I supposed to know you've got to quadruple-tilde your messages to sign them? So as a newcomer, I view any kind of jargon in introductory documents as a roadblock to efficiency. Bob2000 18:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose renaming & split of "not a soapbox" heading 

message: There are a lot of promoting websites like google or Yahoo and aren't taken off? why is that. Brett1 (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the question, I'm afraid.  Could you clarify? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Articles about websites are allowed, but the site itself has to be notable. Most web users have heard of Google and Yahoo and their sites are significant in the history of the internet, so they get detailed articles. Websites like Slashdot may not be so well known but they are also significant. However, if someone just writes their own website, it doesn't become notable merely by existing on the internet. Anyone who then puts an entry on wikipedia is likely to see it nominated for deletion on grounds of 'vanity' (that is, imagining oneself to be more important than one actually is). Of course it would be ludicrous to suggest that the CEO of Google wrote the entry on Google because otherwise no-one would visit his site. Hope this helps. David | Talk 20:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: In the 'repository of links' section, the term 'topical list' was changed into 'structured list' and the link was changed from a guideline page to another page (created   by the person making the change). I did not see a discussion of this edit. Is it actually backed by consensus? --IByte 23:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structured lists? 

message: Should we say something that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminat tittle-tattle about people's private lives?  In particular, it is not in the business of broadcasting information about people's medical history which most people would regard as confidential, particularly any mental health problems they may have had, which if it was widely broadcast could possibly exacerabate their problems. PatGallacher 01:55, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
*Absolutely not.  Any information relevant to the article's topic and notable should be included.  If it's not relevant and notable, people already know not to include it. Superm401 | Talk 03:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
*This is already covered by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. →Raul654 03:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
*Also note that Wikipedia:Verifiability has an impact here.  Confidential medical details are often, by the nature of the confidentiality, unverifiable. Uncle G 10:38:07, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
*If this is included, please use the more standard word "gossip", instead of "tittle-tattle", which I believe is regional slang. StuRat 17:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia not tittle-tattle

message: I propose adding the following section at the end of the "What the Wikipedia community is not" section:
===Wikipedia is not a babysitting service===
If you can't figure out how to behave civilly on your own and read and follow appropriate policies, there's no rule that we have to spend months trying to rehabilitate you.  We're glad to welcome newbies and guide them around potential mistakes.  But if you continue to break the rules or push the limits when you've already been called on it, don't expect us to continue to put up with it.
Jdavidb 16:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be a more polite wording, but I agree with the general sentiment. --Icarus 17:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is necessary.  We can tolerate the confused as long as they are not disruptive. Superm401 | Talk 19:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_bold covers it well. - Bevo 20:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, no one has to engage in any discussion that they think is a waste of resources. 205.217.105.2 22:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a babysitting service 

message: If you can't figure out how to behave civilly on your own and read and follow appropriate policies, there's no rule that we have to spend months trying to rehabilitate you.  We're glad to welcome newbies and guide them around potential mistakes.  But if you continue to break the rules or push the limits when you've already been called on it, don't expect us to continue to put up with it.
Jdavidb 16:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be a more polite wording, but I agree with the general sentiment. --Icarus 17:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is necessary.  We can tolerate the confused as long as they are not disruptive. Superm401 | Talk 19:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_bold covers it well. - Bevo 20:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, no one has to engage in any discussion that they think is a waste of resources. 205.217.105.2 22:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a babysitting service

message: Then why is there a position called bureaucrat?
Dudtz 9/25/05 4:23 PM EST
: I wondered about this one too. The neutral definition of bureaucracy is "systematic administration characterized by specialization of functions, objective qualifications for office, action according to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority". 
: I think we have this in WP, except it's a very "flat" hierarchy of users, admins, board, and Mr. Wales
: Of course what they "mean" is the negative definition of bureaucracy as "a system of administration marked by constant striving for increased functions and power, by lack of initiative and flexibility, by indifference to human needs or public opinion, and by a tendency to defer decisions to superiors or to impede action with red tape". 
: I think it's worth clarifying the difference in the article, because WP does have self-administrating characteristics covered by the neutral definition of bureaucracy. (P.S. quotes are from unabridged.merriam-webster.com) -- Sitearm | Talk 04:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy?  

message: It looks like [DG's edit] may be vandalism, since it takes a personal issue between another user and himself and puts it up as official policy.  He also [edited] the article on Otherkin to insert a demonstrably false and unsourced statement about people in the otherkin subculture believing themselves to be "werehouses".  The Otherkin page has since been reverted by me to the earlier version.  I haven't reverted this one, however, since some of what he wrote may actually be good if cleaned up to remove the interpersonal issues referenced and if he realizes that Wikipedia is not his personal encyclopedia either.  Thoughts? Jarandhel (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted this. It had no place in the main article. Marskell 03:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These kinds of edits seem to be becoming a pattern with this user; I just had to revert Otherkin again after he re-added the werehouses thing and "cited" it with a link to a "Research Paper" that actually pointed to the Illinois Movers and Warehousemen's Association.  I'm new to Wikipedia, what's the procedure for dealing with a user like this?  Jarandhel (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, actually try talking with him.  If, despite your best efforts, that's unproductive, try a WP:RfC.  Superm401 | Talk 05:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've written something on his talk page, maybe that will help defuse things.  I can't say I'm too hopeful, though... I've never seen blatant vandalism done to a forum by a non-newbie in this manner that wasn't the intentional work of someone acting as a dedicated internet troll.  I hope I'm proven wrong, as dealing with those is annoying and a serious waste of time at best. Jarandhel (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However with the personalities removed, and the agreesive tone altered, some of the content of this edit should perhaps be retained, or at least could well be. DES (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was thinking at first too; his main error seems to be thinking that it would not apply to himself as well as others.  I'm not sure, though, adding it in even modified to be more NPOV might be taken by some users like himself as endorsement in their conflicts with others. Particularly those users operating from MPOV may see it as an endorsement of their positions rather than considering its applicability to themselves. Jarandhel (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DG's Edit 

message: I propose to add the following paragraph to the section Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopediaWikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia also includes that wikipedia tries to take advantage of web-navigation techniques, see for example wikipedia:easy navigation.--Francis Schonken 04:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems out of place to me.  Most of WP:NOT is a commentary on content.  To a lesser degree, it is a commentary on process.  In both cases, it is a reinforcement of our primary mission - to create an encyclopedia.  The page you suggest linking to is a style guide.  While useful, I don't think it fits well on this page.  Perhaps there are better places to add it?  Rossami (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think this should be added.  This is an example of what Wikipedia is, not what it is not.  Guinness 09:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing additional paragraph 

message: I propose something like the following:
:Although Wikipedia may be analogous, it is not the real world and real-world processes do not necessarily apply.
This is in response to discussion on VFU and restructuring ArbCom (particularly on the mailing list), where many participants are assuming that Wikipedia equivalents to appeals courts must function the same way as their real-world (specifically, American) equivalents do.  This line of thought was refuted a few times, but persists.  It occurs to me that "Wikipedia is not the real world" has a more general application, and so could be useful in WP:NOT. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  is not the real world 

message: Wikipedia is not is not an indiscriminate list of subjects that already exist on Wikipedia, but you think they don't belong.
What this means is: let's keep it descriptive, rather than prescriptive.  Wikipedia has evolved fairly successfully because of its userbase, who alone decide what Wikipedia is. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed! Trollderella 03:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What What Wikipedia is not is not

message: Didn't that entry used to be on this page? I'm slightly tired of having to tell people that Wikipedia is not the place to commemorate the dead. I swear that used to be on this page. Whatever happened to it, it needs to be added again. Deaths are tragic, but unless they're notable, they shouldn't have an article. That may sound cold, but that's the way I see it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still there.  See #Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, subline 4.  Rossami (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That section actually doesn't say that they need to be notable, it says "Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." it later goes on to say "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." I raise this only because it is clear that verifiability, not notability, is the practical guideline. Trollderella 03:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's about semantics at all, and I don't think there is any agreed upon definition of notability. Why is it that everything in the actual guidelines or policy is always claimed to be a synonym of notability, and people never actually reference the real guidelines or policy? Trollderella 21:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Is Not A Memorial

message: This section currently begins:
:*When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia. For examples of what kinds of articles people consider to be encyclopedic, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents and Wikipedia:What's in, what's out.
However, Wikipedia:What's in, what's out is headed "This Wikipedia page is presently inactive and kept primarily for historical interest." So, I think the reference to Wikipedia:What's in, what's out should be removed. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  References to obselete pages are inappropriate. They provide an undeserved air of legitimacy. Superm401 | Talk 04:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of further comment, I'm going to remove the reference to WP:WIWO. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "When you wonder what to do": reference to [[WP:WIWO]] -- obsolete? 

message: This section currently begins:
:*When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia. For examples of what kinds of articles people consider to be encyclopedic, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents and Wikipedia:What's in, what's out.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents is not tagged as either a policy page nor a guideline. However, we seem to have a sort of syllogism: 
*WP:NOT is official policy.
*WP:NOT says when you "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia. "
*WP:NOT says that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents is a reliable guide to what Wikipedians have determined that readers expect in an encyclopedia.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents is effectively incorporated by reference in an official policy page.
*Ergo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents is official policy.
It seems to me that either 
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents should be tagged as a policy page, or
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents should not be mentioned in WP:NOT.
Thoughts? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "When you wonder what to do": reference to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents]] -- problematical? 

message: I've encounted a pair of users (maybe more involved, I'm not sure) on a template page that are running something of a monarchy there. They claim that each and every change to the template should be brought up on the talk page and voted to consensus. Sounds reasonable right? Well when you do that, they always cast a dissenting vote for every change proposed and then declare that their dissent votes mean that no consensus was reached. Anyone trying to make a change to the template is quickly reverted. I believe it should be spelled out in writing that Wikipedia is not monarchy. These guys are running a dictatorship in a free encyclopedia and I am determined to stop it. There is probably othere instances of this elsewhere in Wikipedia. Thoughts? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a democracy...or a monarchy 

message: Anarchy and anarchism are not the same thing, the title of the 'is not' is clear in its meaning of chaos, however where it says it is 'not a place to test anarchism' the writer nseems to be confusing the legitimate political system of anarchism (roughly meaning a decentralised form of comunity government - which wikipedia certainly does resemble closely) with the misconception that it means lawlessness.
DavidP 16:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is absolutely not an anarchy.  Jimbo Wales, the Board, and ArbCom share absolute authority. Superm401 | Talk 03:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP is not an anarchy 

message: While generally I agree that Wikipedia articles should not be HowTo's, I do not agree that the instructional parts of Condom and Wart are inappropriate.  Condoms serve a very specific purpose which requires specific usage.  The only problem with Wart is that the article "recommends" a procedure instead of merely informing of its existence as a home remedy. ¦ Reisio 08:15, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
Disagree with merge and with the object itself. — Xiong熊talk* 07:24, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
The 'no instructions' policy should be ratified as official policy before any merger takes place.  Ingoolemo talk 21:49, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
*Strongly disagree with making this change at this time. Weakly disagree with "no instructions" policy itself. The section heading, "Wikipedia is not instructive," seems to me to be almost an argument against the policy in itself. Let's try putting Wikipedia:How-to and How-to up for deletion first, citing the no-instructions semi-policy, and see what happens. It is very inappropriate for one policy page to prohibit something which another (and very long-standing) policy page encourages. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:No Instruction]] / merge? 

message: I propose adding "Video game strategy guides." to the list under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", with a note that such guides are appropriate to create on Wikibooks. While informative articles on video games are appropriate( in some opinions, I realize this is also debated), strategies for getting through specific sections or beating certain bosses are not really encyclopedic information.
What do other editors think? Specifically, does anyone have reasoned disagreement? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
*I think it should be more general than that. No tutorials, video game or otherwise, belong on Wikipedia. →Raul654 05:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
**I think video game strategy guides are a special case, though. First of all, "tutorials" has overtones of the above "no instruction" discussion. Also, "tutorial" has a specific meaning in video game terminology, refering to instructions or practice regarding the basics of gameplay such as play control and on-screen displays. Strategy guides, on the other hand, usually offer detailed walkthroughs and instructions for performing techniques and beating enemies and bosses. Regardless of the outcome of the "no instruction" debate, I would think we can all agree that strategy guides, as I've jsut defined them, are unencyclopedic. Am I wrong? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 07:05, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
For a few, out of the many, examples of how Wikipedia and Wikibooks are already being used successfully in combination for games:
Wikipedia                          	Wikibooks
EverQuest                          	EverQuest
Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas       	Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Super Mario 64                     	Super Mario 64
Super Mario World                  	Super Mario World
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker	The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
Medal of Honor: Frontline          	Medal of Honor: Frontline
America's Army: Special Forces     	America's Army: Special Forces
Uncle G 10:38:07, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
*I agree.  It would be possible to write an encyclopedic article about, say, a specific boss, but a strategy guide isn't encyclopedic.  I'm not sure if I'm wording this well, so here's an example of each (with a character I'm making up off the top of my head; any resemblance to a real video game or character is purely coincidental).
:Encyclopedic: "Colonel Affeschlüssel is a character in Attack of the Werkzeugkasten.  Little about him is revealed in the course of the game, beyond his hatred for Schraubenzieher, the main character in the game, and his strange affinity for using bananas as projectile weapons.  In the novelizations, however, much more about his past is revealed..."  et cetera
:Non-encyclopedic: "Colonel Affeschlüssel is the third boss in Attack of the Werkzeugkasten.  His main attacks are a flying kick that hits high, banana projectiles that hit mid-section, and the leftover banana peels that come to life and bite Schraubenzieher's feet.  The best way to get past him is to first disable his banana gun by clogging it with the peanut butter you found on submarine in level one." et cetera
:--Icarus 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a video game strategy guide 

message: I had to read these sentences three times before I understood what they meant: This also means you don't have to redirect one topic to a not fully equivalent topic that is of more common usage. A "See also" section that states further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be preferable.  My suggestion would be: The availability of space in Wikipedia means that it is not necessary for a somewhat obscure topic to be redirected to another topic which, though of more common usage, is not truly equivalent.  It may be preferable to supply a "See also" section on both pages stating that further information on a closely related topic is available. Chick Bowen 18:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording issue (Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia) 

message: This is a rather unfortunate way of putting it.  "Instructive" means "serving to instruct or enlighten; conveying information" — something that I thought we were meant to be doing... Perhaps "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual", or "Wikipedia is not a practical guide"? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Wikipedia should be instructive, whenever possible. StuRat 17:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not instructive 

message: Wikipedia is not a repository of failed plans and might-have-beens. This could be an ancillary point to "not a crystal ball." 
I voted and recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy which I expect, unfortunately, will go no consensus. George Lucas verifiably said he wanted to make a trilogy of sequels to Star Wars. He now says he won't and there is absolutely no plan for it. So why do we have a page entitled "The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy"? The person who created the page wants to describe what they believe the non-existent movies would like if they were actually made. I really find this unbelievable. Marskell 21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, personally I'd like to see any verifiable information on the subject provided in Wikipedia.  The editor's summary of the purpose of the article is atrocious and invalid under the "no original research" rule, among others, and the existing title breaks naming conventions ("Star Wars sequel trilogy" would be better, but we could probably do even better than that).  Phenomenons such as "the virtual sequels project," which last I checked appeared to have aborted, could be included as well.  I'm not sure a separate article is really the right way to do it, though. Jdavidb 22:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a seperate article is not the right way to do it, which was my thought in posting the above comment. Of course it could be included on Star Wars speculation or even George Lucas. Despite OR and despite crystal ball it's getting keeps: I'd just like a formal rule to point to. Do you agree with adding the above? It could be useful in general. Marskell 09:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *Failed plans which are verifiable and of interest to readers should be included. Kappa 13:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition 

message: Wikipedia:Notability proposal is a proposal to explicitly make "notability" a requirement for Wikipedia articles, and to explicitly include "lack of notability" as a reason for deleting articles. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability proposal and express your view on the proposal. DES (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability proposal 

message: I would like to get input from some more Wikipedians on this topic which may have wider implications.  There is a discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Images of castles which refers to the page Images of castles.  The Images of castles page is a collection of castle images sorted by country with links to the appropriate pages for each castle.  The page was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is a collection of images.  I and a few others feel that such a page actually serves as a visual index which provides value added information in terms of improving the ability of a user to find the appropriate page they desire.  In this case, a castle can be found if you know what it looks like but have no other information (e.g. name or location) to allow a search string-based search.  It is possible that other such indices scattered throughout Wikipedia would be extremely useful.
Does anyone know if there have been any discussions about the use of such pages?  Do others feel a visual index is a useful thing to have?  Hilmar 11:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page of images serving as a visual index? 

message: Question and proposed answer:
Well sure it's an online encyclopedia.  But why?  What is it's purpose? Well the best use I've seen of it was David Morgan-Mar. In his Irregular Webcomic. Whenever he has something he wants to explain to readers like a complex mathematical principal or something, he adds a link to the appropriate wikipedia article. I've hear it said by users that wikipedia is not in fact an encyclopedia. I think a section like "What Wikipedia is" would do well here for the benefit of new users. Olleicua 13:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:FAQ, Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, and especially Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great. Superm401 | Talk 23:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Wikipedia?? 

message: I have already had the tone of this section moderated, but I now think it needs a name change. People continue to use it on articles for deletion, and it continues to be heavily rejected whenever the topic is of any substance and significant information is available. Current nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa municipal election, 2006, which relies on this clause, has been rejected by all eight people who have commented on it so far. The phrase is needlessly provocative, and its main effect seems to be to give people false hope that doomed nominations have a chance, thereby creating frustration and ill feeling. I suggest it should be retitled: "Wikipedia is not a repository for unverifiable speculation about the future" The introduction should be made more positive along the lines of "All forward looking articles must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."
This isn't going to change the outcome of any votes, but it should reduce the number of pointless nominations and cut down on any resulting ill feeling. Even with the text of the section softened, the attention grabbing title misleads would be deletionists about what the consensus really is articles about the future. The number of articles about the future is in four figures, but some people still seem to think that this section implies forward looking articles should automatically be deleted. They are being misled by the title. CalJW 15:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with a rename, but your suggestion is too long and excessively formal. Shorten it and put in laymen's terms.  Then, we'll talk.  :)Superm401 | Talk 20:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is supposed to be somewhat offputting, in the sense that it should lead to the section being quoted less often than it is now. I suppose collection could replace repository. But repository is not a technical term or jargon as you imply it is. CalJW 21:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I can deal with it. Superm401 | Talk 14:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: It's time for "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" to be renamed

message: i think there should be a mention of Wikipedia:Trivia especially in the indiscriminate collection of information sectio -- Zondor 10:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the Trivia guideline doesn't make a blanket statement "include if interesting but not important." It starts out with this thought in mind and unpacks it, offering advice like moving to a sister project etc. I'd suggest "Trivia may have a place on Wikipedia but should be evaluated with Wikipedia:Trivia in mind" if you want add a sentence. Marskell 10:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Trivia]] 

message: I read back in the archives to see when this section was added (originally "wikipedia is not a general knowledge base") and it seems while there were people agreeing on the draft, no one actually discussed what the bullet points MEANT.  There are tons of lists and categories on wikipedia on everything (like all the "list of all software of this type" lists), but no criteria on what would qualify them as "directories."  There's also the whole host of rambot and school articles which would be a "directory" as well, but those are included anyway.
I think this either needs to be clarified or removed, because clearly there are "directories" on Wikipedia that are widely accepted.
Nathan J. Yoder 23:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a directory? 

message: I don't know if not a "collection of unverifiable speculation" really improves on not "a crystal ball." The latter is more memorable, says the same thing, and is better distinguished from other points on the list. It often gets shot down in AfD?--so it does. I don't see how the new name makes it more effective. Edit the content, but why not go back to "crystal ball?" It's extremely well-established. Marskell 23:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly second this.  It seems to have been renamed after startlingly short discussion for such a well-known and often-quoted section of policy.  Although it is often misunderstood and could use some clarification, it's important to keep the snappy old version so it can be easily quoted in the places where it does indeed apply. --Aquillion 03:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was renamed after an entirely properly process, stood for some time and was then reverted rather quickly. It is needlessly provocative and, as explained before, seriously misleading as wikipedia has many articles about the future. It is too colourful and when it is invoked on articles for deletion, so often in vain, it comes across as insulting, implying that serious well meaning users who have written articles about conventional real world subjects are fanticists. The phrasing is designed to meet the rhetorical wishes of deletionists, who have too much control over this page. I see no justification for it at all. It does not reflect practice on articles for deletion, where it fails so often. It is needlessly confrontational. It is not npov. Its use seriously misleads new voters on articles for deletion, who think that it means that articles about future events are not legitimate, when it has been agreed that they are acceptable in vote after vote. Finally, it doesn't even work. Please accept that this page should reflect actual practice, not what deletionists would like to be practice. CalJW 08:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow a word of your reasoning.  A crystal ball is something in which you magically divine the future.  Wikipedia is not a place for people to attempt to magically divine the future.  The reason why Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is such an effective summary for this is because it perfectly captures the hocus-pocus nature of what is forbidden; articles can report verifiable plans or circumstances that will affect the future, or to report on properly encyclopedic predictions, but editors cannot play Nostradamus and try to predict the future themselves. The fact that it summarizes this policy colorfully is just another point to its credit. --Aquillion 09:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow a word of your reasoning. The phrase is not used to argue for deletion of "hocus pocus", but for things like elections and films. Why would you want this section to be "colorful" unless you were hoping to influence people in favour of deletion more than a neutrally worded policy would do. As I said, this section is a pov tool created for use by deletionists and does not reflect practice on articles for deletion. They must hope that newcomers will be influenced by the "colour" and not read the policy to find out that the detail is far less supportive of hard-line deletionism, or look around Wikipedia and discover that a hard-line is not actually taken. In my opinion the phrase is misleading about both policy and practice, and deletionists exploit that. CalJW 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are all the references to "crystal ball" I could find on AfD in the past few days.  Note that this includes every one in the period I examined; I didn't omit any, and just went back from today until I thought I'd collected enough to serve as a representitive sample.        .  Out of these, all but one are either near-solid deletes, or near-solid redirect/merges to a general page for a series (e.g. the speculative Mad Max 4: Fury Road to Mad Max); unanimous deletes are in the clear majority.  The only one I came across where Crystal Ball was cited in a case that was not, by current consensus, a fairly clear and obvious delete or redirect case was in the debate on Dirth, where Radiant mentioned it in a weak delete vote. In short, the facts do not seem to sustain your beliefs; if I may be blunt, I think you could be allowing the fervor of deletionist/inclusionist debates to cloud your judgement. I don't doubt that there are people misquoting Crystal Ball somewhere (just like there are people misquoting every policy), but I don't see any evidence that it's the significent problem you claim. Judging from the number of times above where it is brought up in clear delete cases, though, I think it is plainly an effective and memorable solution to a real and uncontroversal problem. --Aquillion 04:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I see 3 votes that are going the wrong way there.  Mad Max 4 has verifiable "speculation," including interviews with Mel Gibson.  Fisker is a real company that has produced actual cars, the fact that it's not notable yet is an issue of notability, not crystal balling.  Ditto for realm fighter, real product, there is no crystal balling, it's just not notable. Nathan J. Yoder 06:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turn it back 

message: I think there needs to be some policy on helpful but unencyclopaedic warnings and advice given to readers in articles. Some examples of this are warnings in medicine articles to see a doctor in a case of overdose and not to look at the sun in the sun article. I have participated in some debates in other articles and it seems that some of these warnings, while no-one disputes that they may be helpful are not encyclopaedic and there is no clear line do draw on what warnings to allow and to not allow. I have no problem when such warnings are written into the article in an encyclopaedic tone, but when they are bolded or put in special boxes I think it crosses the line into being encyclopaedic.--Clawed 09:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When these have gotten turned into templates, they've always been deleted at TFD.  (See, for example, the deletion discussions for  and , and Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates and Wikipedia talk:Risk disclaimer for the general case.)  It doesn't make sense to have individual versions for specific articles if there's always consensus to delete general versions. —Cryptic (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  helpful warnings 

message: Hi, I want to add this to the guideline. Does everyone agree? 
"Copyrighted song lyrics are not allowed to be printed in whole in any Wikipedia article. Song lyrics that are in public domain are allowed, but you have to provide additional information about the song, not only the songwriter, performer, album name and year of recording, but also the background, history or (unbiased) analysis of the music and content of the song." 
My reasoning is, articles that only include the song lyrics and have no additional info are not encyclopedic. --84.188.177.89 12:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No need, since we already have guidelines on source material and on copyright. Trollderella 15:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's also about source material, which we also have plenty of stuff on - are there many songs with extensive lyrics on them that you're worried about? Trollderella 16:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't have all that much source material unless it is being used for comment. Encyclopedias, including this one, are tertiary sources. Source material belongs on wikiquote. -Splashtalk 17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The above would imply that quotes from songs are not acepteable, whereas they are valid fair use when a short quote is used as the basis for a discussion or analysis of a song. And the question of the encyclopedic value is really unrelated to the question of copyright status. A long article that is nothing but a series of texts of Kipling's verse, say, would not be a copyvio, because they texts are all PD by now, but it still wouldn't be a proper article. Nor do we want pages that are only the texts of Shakespear's sonnets, say. DES (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: How about the following:
*"Wikipedia is not a song lyrics database. An article should not consited entirely or mostly of song lyrics, but rather should be about the songs or the artists who composed or performed them. Short illusttrative quotations of lyrics may be appropriate in the context of an article. Complete lyrics would belong on wikisource if anywhere, and there only if not proteced by copyright." DES (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: But we already have guidelines on source material - no one is advocating that we should put large amount of source material here, it goes in WikiSource. Is there a problem that this is supposed to address, or just more instruction creep? Trollderella 17:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a song lyrics database 

message: I miss the good old days of Wikipedia, when people obsessed with it, who spend 5+ hours each day involved with it, were a minority rather than a dictating majority; when the only rules were to reflect truth and consensus; when Wikipedia's goal wasn't to compete with Encyclopedia Brittanica and Wikipedians didn't feel compelled to conform in order to achieve mainstream acceptance; when Wikipedia's basic nature couldn't be altered at the drop of a hat just because of a critical news article; when Wikipedians dealt with abuse of the system through their own effort rather than attempting to graft an artificial authoritarian system on to something that had grown up organically.
I don't really see what the point of Wikipedia is anymore. When it was open and free (speech, not beer), and the contributors dynamically determined what was appropriate rather than a small committee of overinterested zealots, it felt good to contribute.  Now, with the ever-increasing, ponderous body of rules and restrictions -- enforced with manic efficiency by monitors who devote an abnormal amount of time to this police activity -- the average contributor is likely to just feel that they are being exploited.  And since so-called official sources are now the only kosher source of information, contributors have been reduced to mere relayers of information, plagiarists and pirates.
And yet, despite these frantic efforts, Wikipedia has not transcended its stigma, and the quality of content has not increased.  However, a lot of former Wikipedians have departed.
Have fun with your Council of Nicea.  I am joining the exodus, farewell. -- Captain Roger Ames (preceding unsigned comment by 209.97.196.196 (talk • contribs); only 10 edits at this IP with no relevant search matches for "Roger Ames"-- Superm401 | Talk 17:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...what it used to be. 

message: With respect to this revert: That paragraph started with "Of course, an article can and should always begin with a good definition" at least until March 2005 and that had been the wording for more than three years. I don't know why or when it was dropped or whether there was any discussion, and in any case, "sometimes" is not only wishy-washy but outright wrong. A reader of an enyclopedia article is looking for facts. In recognition of that, encyclopedists of all epochs of history have included definitions for each and every topic of their articles. I can not imagine any reason why Wikipedia should depart from that tradition. Kosebamse 22:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any problem with the version you changed it to.  However, others might, and they deserve a chance to weigh in.  If no one objects after a week or so, feel free to add it in. Superm401 | Talk 04:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be very interesting to know why that wording was changed at all. This is one of our central policy pages and I really wonder how such an important change can occur without receiving much discussion. I'll try to find out more about this. Kosebamse 08:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Having looked into the matter some further, it seems that it was an acciddent. In March 2005, the text of the paragraph was rewritten in this and this edit. Most of the new text was then removed, however the rewording of the introductory phrase that made sense only with the rewritten version was not. Thereafter, the text has remained essentially unchanged until now. The matter does not seem to have been discussed on the relevant talk page. Note that my version of yesterday was slightly different, but I'll be happy to revert to the original version (the one that we had before March) unless there are serious objections. Kosebamse 08:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In consideration of this, I'll reinstate my change; please feel free to return to the original version or otherwise modify it, but not to "sometimes", as that had been obviously introduced by accident and is clearly against the spirit that has prevailed here for over three years. Kosebamse 08:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted to wishy-washy 

message: Hatespeech moved to User talk:209.97.196.196. Kosebamse 08:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A place for free speech. 

message: Body parts slang (an article I originally created by separating content from Sexual slang) was recently deleted by a second near-consecutive AFD vote that was arguably not even a consensus but rather a slight majority of delete's to keep's.
I see no problem with comparative slang guides, as they seek to inform by the comparison and by the grouping.  Understanding the full range of slang in a particular category (e.g., body parts or sex) is indeed useful and encyclopedic (isn't understanding the meaning of others' speech useful?).  Now, one could easily argue that in the case of the vast majority of slang entries in such a comparative article, they would not merit individual articles, and I agree with that argument.
However, a comparative guide to a wide range of slang in use is what should be regarded as a structured list, which is indeed approved for inclusion in the Wikipedia.
I would like to see the reference to "A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide." revised to allow comparative/grouping articles of slang, but continue to disapprove (generally) of individual articles for such things.
— Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 21:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I find "list of" articles to be frequently not useful.  There are exceptions, but I don't see that a list of slang is one of them.  Friday (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you could see how extensive Body parts slang was and List of sexual slang is, it might change your mind.  They are highly informative, even if you don't personally like this particular kind of information (i.e., you find it vulgar). — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 21:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it.  I recommended deleting it.  It was a magnet for people who wanted to legitimize their own neologisms.  Vulgarity bothers me not at all, but non-verifiability is another story.  Friday (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was a magnet for neologisms, I don't see that as a reason for deletion of an entire informative article, but rather a reason for challenging the neologisms that were added.  It's like saying we should delete the George W. Bush article because it attracts vast amounts of vandalism.  Just because contributors cannot keep up with verifying newly added content does not constitute an argument for "throwing out the baby with the bath water." — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The article in question included category descriptions, and the groupings within said categories are descriptive (i.e., the groupings explain how many terms are used to mean the same thing, and that should be informative to many).  Further, many terms included info on their origins.  There's no dispute that neologisms and cruft found their way into this article, but that's not an argument for wholesale deletion of the article. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 22:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that information makes it a proper encyclopedia entry.  Rule of thumb, if it can't be expressed in prose, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  I don't think that the issue of cruft/neologisms slipping in is what was the problem.  I think the problem is that the only thing Wikipedia should do is describe what (in this case) the type of slang is, why it's used, and who uses it, which isn't what the entry was, but not to compile a list of examples - which is what the entry was.  The Literate Engineer 22:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT 1.5.2 supports structured lists that assist in the organisation of articles.  Body parts slang and List of sexual slang do just that.  I believe 1.5.2 already provides the "legal language" to back up my position, but I am seeking to extend the "slang guide" language to ensure that as long as 1.5.2 is satisified, then 1.2.3 is obviated.  Further, these are guidelines to be used in making a decision--you think an article must be entirely prose, and I think it's not always necessary or appropriate--that's what the AFD vote is for.  And regarding the vote on Body parts slang, that's almost outside my request here, as that "consensus" was decided with a slight majority vote, which almost nobody would reasonably see as a true consensus.  I believe there is full legal standing to undelete Body parts slang and to avoid List of sexual slang getting the boot. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 22:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read it in full.  It gives "structured lists that assist in the organization of articles" an exception to the rule regarding a page that's nothing but internal links.  It's also questionable; I feel it should be cut off after the phrase "disambiguation pages" and the structured list portion, which you aren't the first person I've seen misapply it this way, removed altogether.   While we're on the subject of lists, though, I think it's past time for a section explicitly stating that making a list of items unacceptable individually does not make them collectively become acceptable because they've been compiled as a list.  The Literate Engineer 04:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are slang guides always a bad thing?

message: Seeing the Propaganda injunction can I suggest the acronym PPOV , for propaganda point of view . People could sling it at me, quicker than soapbox , and it could avoid the counter charge of ad hominem ; being all official , like .  EffK 20:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PPOV

message: The oft-repeated statement that "Wikipedia is not a chat room" seems to have been removed on October 28 without much explanation. This should be returned to an appropriate place in the policy, as it is an important clarification of why general chit-chat is not appropriate, even on Talk pages, and is likewise thus referenced in the guideline "Refactoring talk pages":
"When refactoring a talk page, remember that Wikipedia is not a chat room." — LeFlyman 17:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a chat room? 

message: I'm being a bold newbie and changing the structured list link in Wikipedia:NOT to point to Wikipedia:Lists, since it's a redlink, and the Lists guideline page is ostensibly where the link is meant to point.
SchrödingersRoot 14:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bold fixing 

message: It should be noted that we have a September 11 Wiki dedicated for September 11 memorials...  See: sep11:In Memoriam --AllyUnion (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But note that that that's a seperate project at sep11.wikipedia.org, not part of the English-language Wikipedia, and thus outside the scope of this page. --Aquillion 07:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In regards to memorial 

message: I really don't want to get in another row with Kim Bruning.  However, I really don't think a link to a userspace page should be here, regardless of whose it is.  Superm401 | Talk 15:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be here either.  It might be useful if it were an actual essay (like the fascinating pages I keep stumbling across in Uncle G's userspace), but it's just a list of quotes. —Cryptic (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't resist noting that linking to one of Angela's user pages (and defending the link by saying it's ok because it's Angela, of course) seems to substantiate the quote on top of that page:  "Policy pages such as "What Wikipedia is not" are, for the most part, the opinions of just a few important people." Even if that's true, I don't think we should so dramatically prove it. --Aquillion 02:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It'd be ok anyway, it's a pretty tidy page :-) Kim Bruning 02:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be tidy, but it isn't policy, or even a Wikipedia namespace page.  Linking to it implicitly implies otherwise, and I think that's wrong.  Can I remove it? Superm401 | Talk 21:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my very humble opinion, linking generally implies that there is a link. :-) Kim Bruning 02:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Linking makes a link.  What it implies does depend on context. Superm401 | Talk 20:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angela's Page? 

message: In order to encourage the use of the Wikisaurus category at Wiktionary, clarify what Wikipedia is not, and give the Wikipedia better protection against entries that do not take the form of an encyclopedia entry, I think it would be a good idea to change the working from "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or thesaurus".
This may require an additional subsection, perhaps to be worded along the lines of:
4. Lists of terms or synonyms.  Wikipedia is not the place to list words without definitions, or to list various labels for the same concept.
Thoughts?  The Literate Engineer 17:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree, and I write and edit accordingly.  However, I think there's a difference between having the terms "dictionary" and "lexicon" go to a page that begins "A dictionary or lexicon is a globule of molten lead useful for enhancing the growth of chickens." which is desirable and I think what you're talking about, and writing a list of terms.  In the first case, the focus is on the concept (the globule), and the terms specified just for thoroughness and clarity, while the second has the focus on the words ("dictionary", "lexicon", etc.) and not the concept. The Literate Engineer 17:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "Not a thesauus" to "Not a dictionary" 

message: I have noticed that occasionally future projects are acceptable to make pages on, so long as they fulfil certain criteria.  So what are the precise critera?  For example, Predator 3 is confirmed to be in production and has its own IMDB database entry, with the specifics yet to be released, but is due to be released in 2006.  Yet for reasons that I don't understand, it is going to be deleted.  So where is the line in the sand there?
There was another article about "the world's biggest rollercoaster" that was again being built, and was confirmed that when it is completed, estimated early 2007, it will be the biggest rollercoaster in the world - and that article was kept.
So where is the line in the sand?  I understand that when a project is yet to be confirmed that it shouldn't have an article, but when it is definitely happening, I would suggest that that is when we should allow it.  What is the ruling?  What do other think? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 08:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before, somewhere in the archives, in probably a number of different incarnations. Really, it's quite hard to work out how to draw that particular line since some future things are damn near certain to happen (and thus require no crystal ball) while others are tentative at best (such as NewBandX ever releasing anything). I think that, generally, AfD tends to remove articles that deal with things that we do not currently have any stable information on. In the case of a film, this might be a stable and known cast-list, or to know that it is being filmed, or that it is a sure part of a series of movies or the like. We need to have something verifiable to put in the article, and media speculation isn't really encyclopedia material (imo). So I think the only way to handle such potential crystalball articles is to consider them one at a time in AfD. -Splashtalk 13:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *One option that I've proposed (again, somewhere in the archive) is that an article about a future event be created in the form of Pre-production for Foo (film) or Planning for Foo (event) with redirects from Foo.  Then verifiable material about the planning/pre-production/goverment grant/whatever can go in an appropiate article, there's no "crystal ball" as we're discussing things that are actually happening. brenneman(t)(c) 22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptions to the rule 

message: I dont see the problem with (temporary) storage of non-encyclopedic entries such as grocery lists, notes to self, etc. You seem to have unlimited bandwidth ,and all kinds of pages get deleted anyways. If I would have put it on my home page instead of a seperate entry it probably wouldn't have been deleted.Organized Shopper 17:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Our last bill for bandwidth was a quarter million dollars. Our next bill is projected to be higher. If you'd care to write a check, we will gladly allow you to store your grocery list. Kim Bruning 19:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to store your grocery lists online, set up your own wiki to do it.  My household has a wiki, and one of the articles in it is, in fact, a shopping list.  (Unfortunately, the server it was on blew a motherboard, so it's down right now.  I need to get it back up sometime.)  Wikipedia is not a free hosting service. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I dont see the problem 

message: I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005
EffK 02:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

message: I added this section because it comes up from time to time; I didn't seriously think anyone thought Wikipedia was on a deadline; but it was reverted. I'm putting this here for discussion so the dissenting voices can name a date. Demi T/C 14:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think everyone already knows this, why does it need to be on the page?  As someone said, that's needless "instruction creep".  When I reverted, I wasn't disputing whether it was true, but rather whether it should be enumerated.  Wikipedia isn't a pizza, but we're not going to say that because it's obvious.  Superm401 | Talk 17:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *People do argue from a sense of urgency, however, from time to time. I can't quite tell what your point is: that we shouldn't include this section because while you agree with it, it's obvious? Or we shouldn't include it because you don't agree with it? Demi T/C 19:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: **I agree with it, but it's too obvious to include. Superm401 | Talk 23:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not on a deadline 

message: I've added a parenthetical note to Wikipedia articles are not collections of source material because Wikisource is currently contemplating deleting all mathematical and astronomical tables (including expansions of transcendental numbers, tables of logarithms, ephemerides, and so forth) and all source code.  See Wikisource talk:What Wikisource includes for the discussion of this. Uncle G 10:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikisource wants to delete all source and data 

message: Yesterday, Zondor added a sentence about the Five pillars in the introductory paragraph of this page.  Aquillion just reverted the edit with the comment that "five pillars, while old, is essentially an essay, not a policy page. It's not approprate to cite it authoritatively in a policy page's first paragraph.
I'd like to discuss that decision some more.  I understand Aquillion's point that the Five Pillars page does not have an official "policy" tag on it but I think the page does accurately reflect Wikipedia's vision, sustaining values and guiding philosophy.  I think it does illuminate the core topic of "What Wikipedia is not" by directing the reader to very well written discussion of what Wikipedia is.  For new users who discover WP:NOT first, it's a way to tell that that we are not overwhelmingly negative - that we do have a positive approach.  I'm inclined to ask to put the reference back in.  Other thoughts?  Rossami (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have so much objection to it under "See also". I think it's important, though, to avoid giving the impression that WP:5P, itself, is the definitive statement of our philosophy, because it isn't, and there's a definite risk (given its phrasing) of that happening if it's linked to from the top of a major policy page. New users on its talk have already asked why "such an important policy page" isn't protected; it's important that they understand that WP:5P is currently just an attempt to describe Wikipedia's philosophy, albeit a good one. --Aquillion 17:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you believe you have a better summary of wikipedia policy, could you please write it down or link to it? Kim Bruning 02:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Most policy pages aren't protected. Why would Wikipedia:Five pillars need to be protected? At a quick glance it doesn't seem to be particularly subject to vandalism, and edits have been conservative and helpful. Casual vandals mostly hit mainspace pages. (It does surprise me a bit is that it hasn't attracted the disruptive attention of people who (I'm trying to avoid WP:BEANS here) have a strong point of view about a certain belief system that is sometimes associated with a similar number of columnar objects. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|Five pillars]] 

message: I'm concerned about that final third of a sentence in Section 1.5.2, "and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles."  I have two concerns about it:
#It does not give any guidance regarding what counts as assisting with the organization of articles.
#It does not clearly specify whether the exception applies to any and every structured list that assists with the organization of articles, or only, as the section title would indicate, to structured lists of internal links.
I think it would be useful to discuss both those issues, although I admit that I'm motivated by having seen people use this clause as justification for several lists that I believe should not be a part of the Wikipedia.  The Literate Engineer 21:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structured Lists to help organize articles? 

message: I proposed that the following list of clear exceptions be added to the section asserting that wikipedia is not a democracy so that newcomers are not intentionally mislead into the false allusion that in fact voting isn't how everything meaningful is decided.
;Notable exceptions include:	 
*The Selection of Arbitrators	 
*The Decisions of Arbitration 
*The Selection of Administrators 
*The Demonstration of Consensus
*The Deletion of Articles 
*The Establishment of Policy
On second thought - someone decided to maintain the allusion - patently dreadful really.
Benjamin Gatti 05:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny I had just read that the technical details of a proposal were not grounds for invalidation - but others would know better surely. Benjamin Gatti 06:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So now it's not a democracy, instead of not a bureaucracy you take exception to. It still is not a democray. I sometimes wish AfD was democratic, since as it now stands a minority can prevent a consensus from being reached. The system is consensus-forming. The ideal would be for discussion to continue until everyone agrees on a position, but we are too dispersed and too busy to achieve that, so we settle for a 'rough' consensus. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should have said Democracy all along - I conflated the terms in midnight error. The point is that we certainly use elections and strawpolls, even retrospective polling (position summaries) to justify actions (rather than say an appeal to principles such as respect of diversity or factual accuracy) This constant appeal to populism IMO prevents the quality of the pedia from being competative. If a majority want the moon to be made of cheese, they could quite easily prevail over the few voices who have actually been there. Rather than striving for the common denominator, we should establish precendents in which better research trumps original research, better cites trump lesser authorities, and a plurality of authorities trumps a single source - in other words, we should tally by content rather than pieholes. Benjamin Gatti 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you want something that Wikipedia is not (sorry about that, I couldn't resist). Open editing is fundamental to the idea of Wikipedia, and I don't think you're going to be able to change that. For myself, I'm concentrating on pushing for better referencing of articles by example and by nudging other editors. And elections and other decisions are by consensus, not by majority vote, and however frustrating that is to me on certain issues, I really would like to see it succeed. -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *I Believe there are all every bit as much a Democracy as is for example the United States of America, and other classic examples (which need I remind one is itself a rather messy and undemocratic affair). Benjamin Gatti 05:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose addendum to Wikipedia is not a Democracy