Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 7

message: I have seen some biographical articles that are clearly resumes, i.e., they are bullet lists of schools and universities, previous jobs, and awards.  Although the subjects of these articles clearly merit Wikipedia articles, does this resume-style format belong in Wikipedia? Patiwat 01:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wikipedia a resume book? 

message: It is possible that a list contributes to, not detracts from, the quality of an article. In particular to the goal of increased understanding of an article's topic in the mind of the Average Reader. This is so for at least one fundamental reason, human psychology. Some Readers are best able to make sense of a topic by induction from several examples, after which the brilliant expository prose we all (hmmm?) write in the rest of the article will perhaps be of even more help in further understanding. The other reason is more craftsmanlike. Some material is best conveyed, as a matter of writing/editing craft, in a list than in a paragraph, or several, of prose. 
So, I suggest that this aspect of WP:NOT be changed to include the following:
:<Lists are to be avoided, for many reasons, except> in situations in which the list contributes to the article's quality as an encyclopedic article. That is, allows readers to more readily understand the presentation, or includes relevant material which is not otherwise easily included in a standard prose manner. In short, eschew lists which are merely lists. Lists which contribute to the article, to the reader's understanding, or which contain information which will be help that understanding, are acceptable. 
A recent example illustrating this problem may be found at Digital rights management, and is discussed in the talk:DRM under heading 'removal of list...'. ww 14:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with ''NOT A LIST'' policy & proposed remedial change

message: I think that the section on "travel-guide" needs to be more explicit.  Frequently articles about tourist destinations include adimssion fees. Space Needle has an entire section on how much it costs to get in, as does the Eiffel Tower.  More deveolped articles such as Disneyland, Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building  don't mention the admission fee.  Unless there is some story about why the admission fees are the way they are, or notable history of the admission fees, I don't think it should be included.
 
Other articles (like Katz's Deli) contain directions on how to get there.  I don't think that it is really appropriate to include such information.  Am I crazy?  Cacophony 07:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I don't think you are crazy. I do think you have to make you own decisions about which issues are worth pursuing in the face of opposition. -- Donald Albury 15:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More examples related to "Travel guide" information 

message: Please take a look into Lightbulb joke. Does each section really need more than 1-2 examples? Clearly every joke is unique. But does the article has to have them all? The same about Knock-knock joke, and a really devoted person may do the same to all other joke articles. Is there a way to prevent this from happening? `'mikka (t) 06:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Jokes are so POV in terms of being funny or not; I believe even if said articles were renamed to "list of <FOO> jokes", they would become huge and unmanageable within a short time (as well as being unverifiable). Perhaps they need to be boldly edited. Although this may be covered by "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate..." --SigPig 10:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For a long time, the consensus decision was to move them over to Wikibooks:Jokebook and to provide an cross-wiki link for those interested in reading or documenting more such jokes.  I don't know if that's still the preferred solution but having more than one or two illustrative examples is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  Rossami (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps we could deal with this in the external links section of the joke entries.  What provides a "good" example of a joke is highly subjective.  There are many sites that catalog jokes of certain "types" like the lightbulb joke.  If there need to be examples, perhaps they would best be handled off site? 63.254.143.241 03:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...not a jokebook? 

message: I propose that we remove the link to Wikipedia:Notability that appears under Wikipedia is not a soapbox point 2. It is a stub proposal, with as of yet no support. The link was previously to the well-known essay on notability, and if people don't think we should remove the link, it is obvious that we should preserve the original intent of the link (which is to link to the essay).
I think we should remove the reference entirely as neither the proposal, nor the essay, are policies or guidelines, and simply don't fit in with the other two which are: Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Vanity. Fresheneesz 07:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does a stub proposal deserve to be on this page? Why not the proposal WP:NNOT (which I am also *not* suggesting we put on this page)? Both are proposal, but one is distinctly more drawn out, and has more recent discussion. Fresheneesz 21:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it deserves to be on the page because notability has become a well used term on Wikipedia and it makes sense that we attempt to write a short guideline on what it is.  Let us not forget the intent of the link is to describe a reason why one should not engage in self-promotion, not to link to the essay, which it should be noted, has changed over time itself. Hiding Talk 21:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of term usability, this link has nothing to do on a policy page, as it is an essay. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow you, are you asserting that policy pages should only link to other policy pages? Hiding Talk 21:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only, guidelines as well, but essays only when closely relevant and having no better substitute. Notability is about slightly different things - that section is about "not a soapbox", meaning "not a cheap propaganda media". WP:VANITY and WP:AUTO cover that topic quite well, and in fact far better. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The prevelance of the term "notability" doesn't give reason to put up a link to that proposal - which isn't about the term, but is about enforcing notability criteria. Policy should only link to things that have sufficient consensus, be they other policy, guidelines, essays, or articles. However, I don't think that WP:NN has that consensus yet. Fresheneesz 04:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Wikipedia:Notability 

message: Continuing this discussion, I think it might be good to add a bullet point to "Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site":
:2. Wikipedia is not a fan site.  Articles about famous people, places and things should be be encyclopedic in tone.  The articles should not be a place for fans to gather and discuss, reminisce, and post links to any imaginable site that has any reference to the person, place or thing in question.  See also: WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:External links and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
The wording could probably use some work (a lot of work?), but I think the basic notion is sound, and potentially quite useful.  Comments?  -- Xtifr 00:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong agreement on addition of "Wikipedia is not a fan site." In the Comics Project, certainly, there is a tendency among some editors to treat their favorite characters' articles as their own personal fan sites, with overly detailed, issue-by-issue plot synopses, rumors, breaking news that may or may not be encyclopedic ("So-and-so appears on the cover of the next issue!" Seriously, that's a real one.), and lots of original research speculation/analysis/conclusion. While various of these can be deleted on things like WP:POV, etc., an overall "this is not a fan site" dictum would streamline and simplify matters, and save time and effort. -- Tenebrae 15:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * Support: I added Wikipedia:External links to the proposed language, since it seems relevant to what Xtifr is addressing, but wouldn't object if someone wants to take it out. TheronJ 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Add quickly: Some vandals tried to make an article about a fan character, which left much of Wikipedia in an uproar.  Adding a policy like this would nip such things in the bud later on.  Oh, yes, and various Sonic-related articles have been ruthlessly vandalized by various users; we need to make it stop somehow!!!  --Luigifan 20:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a fan page... 

message: There have been a lot of video game guides and other instructional articles created (and deleted) recently.  Can we get a consesus that Wikipedia is not a how-to manual?  How-to guides (FAQs, lessons, etc) are not encyclopedic and should be relegated to other sites.  (i.e., Wikihow, GameFAQs, DIY) Adamkik 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a  how-to manual 

message: I'm going to add some apparently inadvertently lost language back into the policy, and wanted to get some thoughts:
# The plot summary section was introduced July 9, 2006,, as the result of a talk page discussion and consensus.
# Prior to September 3rd, the Wikipedia policy on plot summaries included the statement that plot summaries might be appropriate " as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series.  (See, e.g., )
# It looks like the language was then dropped inadvertently - it was first replaced by broader proposed language, , which was then modified slightly..  In the course of those mods, the "article series" language was lost, but I don't think that (1) either of the editors specifically intended to remove the language, or (2) it was discussed on talk.
Accordingly, I am going to add it back in for now, pending discussion.  Thoughts?  TheronJ 14:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * (I added point 1, above, to clarify the history - TheronJ 15:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * I guess I do imply that.  I would argue (1) that had been the policy for months before it was inadvertently deleted, and (2) if an appropriately abbreviated plot summary is nevertheless too long to fit in the main article, then yes, it should be spun out.  If not, does it make sense to discuss what extra information should be included in an existing "plot summary" article to bring it within Wiki standards?  TheronJ 14:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: ** (1) is not really an argument, because it had not been in the policy for years before it was inadvertently added. I'd say that if a plot summary is too long for the main article, it is too long period. An encyclopedia should analyze information from books, not restate it. >Radiant< 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that we need to be right on the copyright and fair use issues.  Given the various "plot summary" debates cooking on Wikipedia, does it make sense to start working on a proposed "plot summary" guideline, working off Wikipedia:Writing about fiction and Wikipedia:Fair use?  Would we have any chance of reaching consensus?  TheronJ 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia:Writing about fiction already does it.  I don't think any article which follows that guidance would meet any of the concerns Radiant or Rossami raise. Hiding Talk 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summaries as part of article series 

message: However, how about this... Wikipedia:Cluocracy? >Radiant< 23:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah. Why invent new terms where a perfectly good one exist? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a word now? :) >Radiant< 09:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But clever, nevertheless.  --Rednblu 09:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT a democracy 

message: As has been discussed previously, those names are not totally inclusive, and (especially bureaucracy) misused in this context. I'd like to suggest we merge those three sections into one under heading 'Wikipedia is not an experiment in any social or political system'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have come to the conclusion that while we are not a democracy or an anarchy, it is nevertheless important to use consensus because we rely on voluntary adherence to the decisions we make. Fred Bauder 12:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you both, but it is not my intention (primary) to start discussion about that; I just want to point out that those titles are misleading (in case of bureaucracy) and somewhat POVed in case of D and A (why don't we have a section that wiki is not a monarchy, a communism, a dicatorship, a federation and such?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Because people frequently think that Wikipedia is anarchy, democracy or bureaucracy, and thus we wrote this to tell them why that is not the case. I have not seen anyone claim that Wikipedia is a federation. >Radiant< 08:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a federation!  The one I've always wanted to add, well the two I've wanted to add, are "Wikipedia is not a personal playground", which would cover vandalism and vanity and some user page abuse, and "Wikipedia is not a lightbulb". Hiding Talk 15:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchy, Democracy, Bureaucracy need to go! 

message: Quote: "More importantly, your user page is not yours." What an utterly stupid remark. Of course it's not yours in the context of true ownership. Everyone realises that. It doesn't need spelling out in such a pompous manner. I would suggest it is yours in terms of managing its content. We wouldn't want everyone having free reign on our user page. That's what the User Talk page is for. Arcturus 17:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that lots and lots of users don't realize that.  Many new users get quite upset when their page is nominated for deletion even though their page was a blatent violation of WP:USER.  Rossami (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, people don't realize that they don't own their talk page. Many new users who do not understand the wiki will remove warnings, add stuff that does not belong, and sometimes don't think they have to be civil since we are at their talk page. HighInBC 16:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User pages

message: Wikipedia could easily contain a collection of caresheets. How to keep pet tarantulas, lizards, snakes, cats, gerbils you name it. Most caresheets are species specific, there might be a lot of them if there is no rule. Especially since [WikiProject Spiders] might attract quite a few spider-lovers. Maybe just an addon to: 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: #4 Instruction manuals'? Fjejsing 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A collection of caresheets

message: Perhpas I missed it, but there did not seem to be a clear rationale for many of the WWIN (what wiki is not) rules, like no memorials, no dicdefs, etc. 
Why ?
Indeed the entire deletion process seems anti wiki: it would be more wiki-ish to allow indiviual users to hide pages or classes of pages then to allow arbitrary deletions, which seem to reflect a "consensus" of a very small number of users. {{subst:Unsigned|
*Yes, but we're only a wiki second - we're an encyclopedia first. There have been a number of discussions about what is and is not appropriate material for an encyclopedia (and yet more discussions are still ongoing). One of the conclusions is that for a variety of reasons, "the average person" does not get an encyclopedia entry. And for dictionary-related material, we have our friendly neighborhood wiktionary. >Radiant< 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: why all these rules

message: "Wikipedia is not a directory
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed."
Any user quickly realizes wikipedia is a directory, it's just not a directory of everything.  I tend to go to wikipedia first (through answers.com) and google second, when looking for a company.  Wikipedia clearly functions well as a directory.  It is also an encyclopedia, but an encylopedia is a form of directory.  Mathiastck 17:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I'm saying an encyclopedia is a type of directory.  Mathiastck 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  But look at what the policy says.  Your point in no way nullifies the point being made in the section Wikipedia is not a directory. Your point is redundant, since the section contextualises what it means, by describing in what senses Wikipedia is not a directory.  Hiding Talk 17:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is a directory 

message: How do people feel about adding:
*Word lists - While is list of words may add to an article, an article should not be primarily a list of words.
Or something of similiar wording. I have seen alot of articles that are nothing but a huge list of words, it does not seem enclycodpedic. See Canadian English words for an example of what I am talking about. HighInBC 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support it since I think that those lists almost always belong in a Wiktionary Appendix or Concordance instead.  Rossami (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information 

message: In Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, in the subheading of Instruction manuals is wrongly states "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s."  It continues, "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes."   Before that is says "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things..." Well, descriptions of things often need to include how things are done.  One of the main reasons people read an encyclopedia is to find out what is done.  Without how-to, how the US congress works and what an car is would have to be deleted. There are plenty of editors to prevent articles about how to commit a crime. A different site likeWikihow ignores the fact that Wikipedia is what shows up on Google and that an encyclopedia is supposed to provide information, and it also ignores the fact that it is next to impossible to write about anything without including how things are done and what goes on.  It seems to me whoever wrote "should not include instruction. . ." was wrong. There's no way to write about any subject without describing some of what goes on. Furthermore, if someone wants to look up in an encyclopedia the basics of how something is done, it ought to be there. This can be done without addressing the reader directly.  Therefore, "Instruction manuals" statement needs to stress more the part that says,"Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things..."  -- Chuck Marean 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read any of the archived discussion about why the community chose to exclude instructional material from the encyclopedia?  If not, I strongly encourage you to do so.  Until you can make a proposal which addresses the concerns which were raised back then, your comments are largely going to fall on deaf ears.  Rossami (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruction manuals

message: *I've amended the wording to the suggested change, reading the debate I think the consensus supports the change. Hiding Talk 14:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.s.: Hiding - I've included your comment in the new heading as relevant to this "consensus" wrap-up - please feel free to move your comment above the heading if you disagree. TheronJ 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * Thanks for the comment.  Some thoughts: (1) As I read Wikipedia:Consensus, a consensus is normally achieved by trying to negotiate a result that's acceptable to everyone or nearly everyone.  In this case, "consensus-building" could have been moved forward by requesting a mediation, or by trying to bring in additional viewpoints by requesting input at the village pump or at a policy RFC.  In particular, if there was a possibility of finding some compromise that satisfied more of the editors, I'd hate to think that it got squashed by vote-counting.  (2) Although 66% of the editors does constitute a supermajority under most reasonable definitions, this is specifically addressed by Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority. Ultimately, I guess what I'm saying is that this is a policy, not a guideline, and I'd like to see something more than "66% of us say x, and 36% say not x, so there's a consensus for x."  (3) Lastly, you're a great editor who I respect a lot, but I hate to see one of the involved parties declare that there's a consensus and make the change.  Like I said, I won't revert, but I'm offering my advice for the future, which you can take for what it's worth.  Thanks, TheronJ 17:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summaries - was there consensus?

message: I softened the tone of the text about user pages; we're not actively trying to keep people from sharing information about themselves, their favorite WP topics, their editing habits, or their beliefs that will be useful to others.  More specifically, user pages were invented in order to promote useful social networking along Wikipedia lines; this should not be obscured.  This page shouldn't denounce social networks per se; only the use of WP for unrelated social networking.  Newbies shouldn't be scared of writing about themselves.  +sj + 23:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a massive problem with spam and other abuses of the userspace.  This does not seem to be the right time to be liberalizing the wording on that particular clause.  Rossami (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of what user pages are not changed 

message: There is a lot of debate about the inclusion of trivia sections within Wikipedia, with a lot of editors suggesting that the trivia sections are unencyclopedic and not relevant to Wikipedia (way beyond the guidelines of WP:AVTRIV). The template used for trivia sections  suggests that these sections are unencyclopedic regardless of size. There is also a debate on whether the trivia sections should be moved altogether to another project like Wikitrivia. Would it be fair to say that trivia in sections is not encyclopedic and should either be integrated into the article or removed?
Something like under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:
* Trivia. Wikipedia should not include isolated or unimportant facts about a subject. Facts should either be integrated into the article or not included. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for speculation, rumor, hearsay, invented "facts", or libel.
--tgheretford (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a Trivia Book

message: I think omitting mention of glossaries entirely is the best compromise. There's no clear consensus on glossaries, so it's inappropriate for a policy page to endorse keeping or deleting them. Instead, I think this page should simply state that dictionary definitions aren't appropriate, and leave the debate about the encyclopedic value of any given list to individual discussions on the articles' merits in merge/AFD discussions. Does anyone think that this isn't fair? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems acceptable to me and reminds me of the plot summaries discussion above. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Omission compromise

message: Encyclopedias and dictionaries have a long evolution in their paper forms.  Because there were physical and economic limitations to the size and of the projects, decisions were made that limited the content of these forms.  Essentially, they are both part of the same thing -- a compendium of human knowledge.  I don't see why this has to be an either/or discussion.  Wikimedia does not have the same limitations as paper media.  If we are to have two projects, a dictionary that focuses on words and an encyclopedia that focuses on topics, there will certainly be overlap.  I can see a value to having glossaries in both projects.  The same glossary may take on a different form in each location.  In the encyclopedia it can be organized to help the reader understand the topic and in the dictionary it can be organized to understand the words.  Why do we need to fight about this?  What is harmed by having them in both locations?  Why is duplication bad?  It seems impractical to define a clear boundary between the two projects.  Both projects have evolved with the inclusion of glossaries.  Discussions about removing or limiting them in either project are a waste of time. -- Samuel Wantman 06:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duplication is bad because we can easily inter-link with each other. It's painfully easy. Duplication makes maintenance harder, and can cause undesired article forking. -- Ned Scott 08:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you accept that writing a dictionary is not fun, placing it in Wikipedia will only make things worse; the dictionary part of Wikipedia would be just as badly checked as Wiktionary, and there will be two places for the data which is bad for maintenance.  ColourBurst 06:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Big picture?

message: Recently, a lot of articles have been showing up on AfD with the reason being that they are a game guide.  Unfortunately, there is no definition of what exactly is a game guide in this article, so I was wondering if anybody had thoughts about adding that?  It's obvious to me that there is a difference between information about a game and a game guide, but there's often quite a bit of argument on it.  Mister.Manticore 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pokémon_game_mechanics to see something that would not be a game guide (after cleaning up).  User:HighwayCello made this comment while cleaning up: I didn't say it wouldn't be of any interest to non fans, I said quite the opposite really, the article discusses concepts like Gym Leaders, Natures and Starter Pokémom (sic), things that are often mentioned in creature article, but are quite hard to explain in those article. This article allows them to described in the required detail for non-fans to understand them, and to keep the article on topic.  It also has reliable sources.  Note specifically that things like Power Points were taken out of the article for being of a detail that's useless to a person not playing the game.  Meanwhile in an overview context explaining what a Gym Leader is is quite useful.  ColourBurst 05:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that is a good example of an article to use.  Thanks.  Mister.Manticore 04:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes a game guide