Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 15

message: I know that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be censored or anything, but a few pages contain pictures and other content that may be, to put it lightly, inappropriate for younger viewers.  I'm not suggesting that the pictures be removed or anything, but can't we make some sort of "mature content warning" template, or something else of the sort, in order to prevent people from stumbling upon inappropriate content?  (In particular, erotic, sexual, and/or violent content would require some sort of warning.)  --Luigifan 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A warning is at Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Sancho 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think so. It's an inherently subjective and culturally biased distinction, and I don't think we should be introducing that into the encyclopedia deliberately. --Eyrian 17:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If the content is appropriate to the page, I don't see the point.  If you go to the page Breast and see a breast...  I mean, what were you expecting? -Chunky Rice 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See also WP:PEREN and WP:NDT. >Radiant< 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an important point. Thought Police are found often these days, especially in America, if a specific disclaimer isn't put rather BOLDLY front and center of a website, where people can't miss it without being blatantly stupid. --Chr.K. 12:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aagh! UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN! 

message: WP:NOT#STATS says 
*Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. (emphasis added)
However, as has been pointed out at some recent AfDs (eg here and here), Wikisource policy actually precludes lists of statistics or data.  . While I agree with the rest of the paragraph, it seems to me that the sentence about Wikisource should be removed - unless anyone can think of another place to send primarily statistical articles...? Iain99 22:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, nobody's objected yet, so I'm going to be bold and remove it. Iain99 11:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics and Wikisource 

message: I've recently been involved in cleaning up rugby league articles of the form Team Name 2007 where editors are adding a "Possible Run-On Team" - i.e. a prediction of which players may or may not take the field in an upcoming game. This seems fairly rife within rugby league articles, and may be or may become a wider issue if not dealt with. In most cases these line-ups are entirely unverified, sometimes there is a (often out of date) news report cited which, in turn, makes a prediction about the possible starting line-up. While we all appreciate the efforts of editors to keep Wikipedia current, making predictions about weekly future sporting line-ups contravenes Wikipedia:Original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOT and Wikipedia:News articles. In order to make this clearer, I have made the following addition to WP:NOT#CRYSTAL:
"Predicted line-ups of sporting teams or events on a week-by-week basis are inherently unverifiable, speculative and not individually notable. The line-up of a given team in a notable match may be reported after the match has taken place."
<FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 10:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think your addition is true, I think that it unnecessary to add to the list.  It's overly specific.  The general "crystal ballery" clause ought to be sufficient in this case.  When we allow this page to get too long, people stop reading it and it becomes less useful rather than more.  I recommend pulling the clause back out - but maybe tweaking the wording of an existing section.  Rossami (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about instruction creep, but its hard to find a balance between specific and general, if editors can too easily say "that doesn't apply to my edits.." then it defeats the purpose.. I looked at adding it to point #1, in retrospect that makes sense so I've given it a go. I also agree about the undesirability of policy pages getting long, although with :NOT editors are often directed to a specific section, hence the overall length of this particular page is perhaps not such a big issue. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 15:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Way too specific.  I think it should be removed. -Chunky Rice 17:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with both sides: While I think the specific phrasing of the addition (sports team lineups) is way too specific, it might be good to add a fourth numbered item addressing this general pattern.  I see this undesirable pattern in articles on TV shows, books, sports, companies, technologies, etc.  Maybe something along the lines of "Speculation on details of future happenings is considered original research unless multiple reliable sources are cited"?   —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really covered by point 1 already - the sporting team thing is a little different to TV shows, I guess because it's "real world", and there is no definitive way to accurately predict it in even the most authoritative source - a journalist can receive an advance copy of a movie, show, product etc. and be quite certain about its contents or functions. Also, notable newspapers and websites make predictions about sporting line-ups and events, but while WP should present encyclopedic information from solid sources, publication in a notable source does not make speculation encyclopedic. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 00:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do think there is similarity to point 1, the present wording in point 1 seems to imply it's about events as a whole, rather than specific details of an event.  Maybe we should adjust the wording to point 1, then?  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been streamlined into #1, seems to flow pretty well. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 03:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT#CRYSTAL]] addition 

message: I'd like to know if there's an official policy (or relevant discussion) about linking to thematic Flickr groups in the external links section of an article. I see many removals of links to flickr groups covering important events/topics per WP:NOT#SOCIAL. Whereas I understand the point of avoiding links to social networking sites in general or to individual photo streams with the sole aim of showing off, I don't see why links to selected flickr groups should be less worth than someone's website documenting an event/topic. Flickr groups are in many cases the richest source of images (often Common Content-licensed) available on the net on a given topic. Feedback appreciated --DarTar 11:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Flickr groups 

message: We need to add that wikipedia is not this as we've just had this occur:  and it seems we have to make sure its spelled out.--Crossmr 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to put every single possible "not" scenario here.  Just argue using the already existing "not an instruction manual" section. -Chunky Rice 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troubleshooting guide 

message: The page says sex with animals is illegal. I don't think thats true can anyone verify that? -Icewedge 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on where you live.  I'm confident that there are jurisdictions were it is and ones where it is not.-Chunky Rice 00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: alt.sex.beastiality supposedly has/had a compliation listing legality by state.  Don't subscribe, so can't verify.  One easily found website http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/beastlaw.html displays the compliation, but appears to be outdated (last revision 1997).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthastjames (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoosexuality ilegal? 

message: I've got an article where people are repeatedly violating WP:SOAP but have no idea who to complain to? It's just a never ending edit war with certain editors who, and I'm sorry for the personal attack, can not have any sense talked into them. Reply here or on my talk page, thanks -- 146.115.58.152 08:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the complaints department? 

message: So, I get what Wikipedia is NOT. How about a what it IS article since that's a bit like trying to describe an orange by saying "an orange is NOT a horse. an orange is NOT a pool cue. an orange is NOT a watermelon." etc..
65.28.7.101 05:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The caveats make more sense by highlighting what it is not. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 05:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A basic summary of what Wikipedia is can be found here.  Useight 02:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What it is is NOT 

message: There is currently a dispute (here) on whether footnotes are considered as "censorship". 
Generally I prefer that all externally linked sources should go as footnotes in the "Notes" section. Thus this is what I have done. 
However, other users respectfully disagree, suggesting that putting such sources in the   format amounts to censorship. The argument is that as footnotes in the Notes section, references are "less visible to our readers".
What do you guys think?Bless sins 04:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly? I think that's probably the worst argument I've ever heard. Have you tried showing them the MoS? --tjstrf talk 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. It is not the verses that are in question but the verse numbers. So it is things like "3:13" or "2:22" or "114:4". These provide the reader with no useful information. The only time the user will want to know this is when he/she is interested in considering the sources used. At that point the user can simply click on a ref and the reference will be there in the notes/references section.Bless sins 02:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so you admit the purpose is to hide the verses so that they no longer are part of the article content, and are thus treated as references, only of intrest to a person checking the sources. Sounds like censorship to remove the verses from the content.--SefringleTalk 02:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it censorship if the content is still in the article? Please read the applicable policy (WP:NOT#CENSOR). Are they being put into footnotes because they are somehow offensive? Mr.Z-man 20:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. They are put there to hide the verses. SefringleTalk 22:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet the verses are never actually "hidden". They are simply in a different section.Bless sins 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I rememember an article, Sefringle, where listing Dylan's former status as a Christian was likewise a part of some anti-Semitic conspiracy. ;) I see no problem with listing the surahs in the references. Everything else goes there. I can't see why a sacred book should be any sort've exception. Drumpler 06:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship and footnotes 

message: A discussion concerning the intepretation and application of WP:NOT#DIR subsection 5 (cross categorization) is occurring on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans.  All those interested are invited to join the discussion. Leuko 17:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion concerning [[WP:NOT]] occuring on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans]] 

message: I have archived all the threads completed by August 31, with the exception of the discussion on Not#Trivia. Although the early threads are no longer active, there is still debate about this and it seems useful to keep the whole discussion here for now. The whole discussion of this topic can be moved to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Trivia when it is complete. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: There seem to be some subjects that just lend themselves to including "how-to"-ish information. See, e.g., Dog#Dangerous_substances, which includes statements such as "cooked bones should never be given to dogs". Or cover letter, which is almost completely given over to advice/tips. Where do we draw the line as to what is OK and what is an unacceptable how-to that Wikipedia is not? Basically what I'm asking is, Is there a way that a Wikipedian can know the standard prior to investing time in writing an article, as opposed to just hoping that people will agree with him on the AfD page that it's OK to include? Because as far as I can tell, it's just a subjective call that seems to be unevenly enforced. Captain Zyrain 20:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is almost always with the wording rather than the content. Whenever there is an article that states, "You shouldn't do something", the best way to handle it is to ask, "Why shouldn't this be done?" The answer is usually what the "you shouldn't" should be replaced with. Maybe we should set up a template "Why?", like , to mark these sentences with - as in, "You should never let a dog lick antifreeze."[Why?] Chubbles 21:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Sometimes it's as simple as changing imperative (do this, do that) and eliminating "should" statements.  Other times you have to remove details that are only useful as a matter of giving how-to advice.  Sometimes things written from a "how to" perspective don't give all the possibilities or context, they just give step by step instructions.  So you have to generalize sometimes.  As an illustration, I've cleaned up both of those examples, cover letters and dangerous substances for dogs.  I can't pretend I did a great job, but at least it gets rid of that problem and (I hope) improves the article.  Often, when you start editing like this it's like shaving a cat.  You take more and more fluff off and when you're done you see there's almost nothing inside there.  The cover letter article is like that - I'm not sure there's enough there for an article.  Food articles are susceptible to this problem because they often read like recipes.  Eliminate the recipe and there may be no article left.  Out of respect I try not to delete any of the ingredients or steps, but I do try to write it as a factual description of how the food is cooked rather than an instruction on cooking.  Wikidemo 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that recasting "how-to" content is the proper way to handle this issue, and the clean-up is an improvement. But it still leaves NOR issues, because issues of what "should" be done are POV, and need to be attributed to a person or group qualified to give this advice. For example, who says cooked bones should not be given to dogs, and is there a counter POV?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 12:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on notable subjects that inevitably include some "how-to"-ish information 

message: Wikiversity is (or will be) some of the things Wikipedia is Not.  http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:What_is_Wikiversity%3F Discussions intended to educate or influence people could easily exist there and take a lot of pressure off of some of the more controversial talk page.  Accurately labeled POV and pro and con analysis too detailed for a general encyclopedia might add value there.  Is it appropriate to place a couple of links to Wikiversity within this policy to help Wikipedia participants take unwelcome activity off of Wikipedia and add value with it at Wikiversity or should these kind of links be on individual talk pages or within the template/boxes/placars that some Wikipedia users paste all over lengthy talk pages?  Lazyquasar 10:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiversity is GFDL-compatible and is a sister project under WikiMedia.  Seems like it would be fine to me.  Rossami (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diverting Misguided Participants to Wikiversity 

message: Hi.
I saw this:
"Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etcetera. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge."
But even things that are part of "rejected knowledge" may be fair game for Wikipedia.
For example, various discredited and outright false scientific theories like N-rays
may be fair game. Hoaxes may be too. None of those things are "accepted", they are
rejected.
If it means "the existence of the idea is well-known", this has less to do with original
research and more to do with notability, significance, or importance (see also
WP:FAME.). Original research does not have to do with attention, it has to do with the
origin of the "research" or information in question, namely that it must not come from
Wikipedia. If one publishes their crazy idea for a machine called a "Zarbler" on Wikipedia
that is original research and not permitted since the user who put it there is considered
part of the "entity" called "Wikipedia". If, on the other hand, one submits the idea to some
respected publisher or other third-party source and it gets published, then that is it's
source, not Wikipedia. However, whether or not it is game for inclusion then is then
indeed contingent upon attention drawn to the subject, but this is beyond the scope of the
no original research policy, and is instead an issue of notability.
In addition third-party attention may be required to generate independent points of view so
a neutral point of view article may be written that is also verifiable,
however once again we've tread beyond the scope of the no original research policy. Hence
this does not make sense in a section referring to original research concerns. mike4ty4 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missed it though: If a hoax or failed scientific theory is well documented, then we're still reporting on its existence, which is established by outside sources. The article on N-rays has references. If I were to insert "N-rays cause death by destroying the brain" that would be original research (I just made it up). But information about hoaxes or other falsities is still relevant and encyclopdic if it can be sourced. N-rays themselves are not accepted as being real, but they are an accepted part of scientific lore. --Cheeser1 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A problem? 

message: I'm sorry, but, I'm new here, and cen someone help me find an animal artist...--Jessie caa S 02:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm having trouble... Animal artists? 

message: *Note: pre-September "Not#Trivia" threads have been archived to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Trivia -- -- Flyguy649 talk 03:57. October 23, 2007 (UTC)
"Trivia collections. Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility." There needs to be a consensus on the definition of "trivia" or I'm going to remove this sentence. Saying "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" is very different than "Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided." Also, there needs to be a consensus on the definition of "indirectly-related" or I'm going to remove this sentence. And why is it in the WP:NOT#INFO section? Policy flows from consensus, not the other way around. If this section has been included in WP:NOT because Jimmy Wales made a declaration, it needs to be ascertained whether that statement was descriptive or prescriptive. And, there needs to be a consensus here on the definition of "trivia." I have also asked the following question on WP:TRIVIA if anyone is interested: What's the definition of "trivia"? --Pixelface 18:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed that from "Trivia collections" to "Trivia sections", since "Not a trivia collection" is being used in AfDs to justify the deletion of things that aren't trivia sections, and there is no consensus on Wikipedia for a position broader than "avoid trivia sections" at this time.--Father Goose 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and even so, its' "avoid" not "eliminate." DGG (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering the intense traffic at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_trivia_sections since at least several months, I would claim that not even "avoid trivia sections" is consensus. Mlewan 12:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any general encyclopedia is different things to different people.  It's as though a physical science encyclopedia has been merged with a philosophical encyclopedia has been merged with a historical encyclopedia etc.  It appears that Wikipedia merges an encyclopedia on serious subjects with an encyclopedia on non-serious subjects.  If the conflict over trivia arises because some cannot tolerate the non-serious intermixed with the serious then it will go on forever.  I suggest that readers can generally distinguish the less serious stuff from the more serious stuff and are aided in making this distinction if the less serious stuff appears under the heading "trivia."  That seems to work so leaving trivia in (and not trying to exclude it) passes the pragmatic test.  Wikipedia isn't like the EB.  One of the differences can be that Wikipedia has trivia sections that are recognizably non-serious.  Why not? --Minasbeede 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a question of seriousness, it's a question of organization.  Trivia sections are inherently disorganized.  They end up attracting facts that are already in the article, facts that ought to have been put in a more prominent place in the article, facts that ought to be in other articles, and facts that are pretty much useless ("so-and-so once visited Iceland"... and?).--Father Goose 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you seriously claim that it would be impossible to write a good easy to read well organised list of bullet points with facts that only indirectly touch the topic in the main text of an article? Mlewan 11:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, they attract all those things, but they also attract interesting, verifiable content that wouldn't fit into the article anywhere else.--P4k 04:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More often, they attract "I saw a corset in a video, so I'll put it in the Corset article" pervcruft. --Orange Mike 13:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is value in documenting prominent appearances of a subject.  Removing non-prominent mentions is a no-brainer; removing prominent mentions is an overreaction.--Father Goose 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT#TRIVIA 

message: :Note: let's call a spade a spade, shall we? This whole discussion is about the remove of the trivia section of this policy. Therefore, I have renamed this talk section. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it just needed a new heading when the subject changed.  I added that heading below.--Father Goose 22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: For one thing, I'm sure there was a consensus at some point, otherwise it wouldn't be in WP:NOT. For another, the text doesn't just say "no trivia collections", it explains what that means quite specifically. Anyone saying, in an AfD, nothing more than "this is trivia, get rid of it" should actually be referring back to the actual text of the point in WP:NOT and explaining how it's trivia in those terms, and even then that's not an automatic deal-breaker. SamBC(talk) 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If "trivia collections" is qualified as meaning "trivia sections", then "trivia sections" is all it should say.  If the text in WP:NOT is "[Wikipedia is not] trivia collections", that opens the door to saying "this is a trivia collection" towards things that aren't trivia sections.  Maybe a true trivia policy will emerge some day (perhaps Wikipedia:Relevance of content), but for now, there is a very limited consensus on Wikipedia against trivia sections only.--Father Goose 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, WP is not a trivia collection only means that WP as a whole is not predominantly or in large part devoted to trivia--and any extension beyond that is unjustified. "Trivia collection" has too many possible meanings--it could be used to eliminate any item of information--personally, I can and do regard all of pokemon as utter trivia; I can understand that someone might regard the early medieval popes similarly--but neither of us represents the consensus there. For a guideline to be accepted it has to have general agreement, not represent a POV. DGG (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DGG's point that "trivia" is a subjective term; there's simply no definition of what constitutes "trivial" information. To some extent, trivia is anything that isn't directly relevant to the subject's notability; however, by this standard, info about the childhood and family of a notable person would be regarded as "trivia", yet this info is standard (and rightly so) in encyclopedia articles. Certainly, we should avoid arbitrary "trivia sections"; any information that is sufficiently relevant to be in the article can be moved into the main body of the text, and we can break down this false distinction between "trivia" and "non-trivia". An example could be what I did today here on Chief Justice Murray Gleeson's article. Of the three facts in the "trivia" section, two were sufficiently relevant to be moved into the main text of the article (which I did), and the other was sufficiently unimportant that I removed it. WaltonOne 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections vs. collections 

message: When you say original thought, do you mean any new invention, a page on (the physics of)breaking a pencil, or anything that may seem too frivolous?--Swing, Baby, Swing! 14:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Im a little new around here 

message: So we're in an argument (okay, I'm in an argument) on Talk:Accurizing regarding whether this is a guide rather than a descriptive article. It's already transwikied to WikiBooks once; since then, it's grown and despite having gotten less blatantly prescriptive it still basically covers the same ground.
So two questions:
# Is this the best place to discuss whether this falls under WP:HOWTO, or is there a better place?
# Err, does it?
I feel pretty strongly that this isn't an appropriate subject for an article. It basically describes a process from a means-to-an-end perspective, where the end (accuracy) isn't in itself a particularly notable subject for an article (it's an attribute of a weapon, that's all). I think it's teaching subject matter, and it's only getting deeper and more involved with every iteration. There's a whole page on how the trigger affects accuracy right now, for instance.
Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 14:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking pretty encyclopedic to me, if a bit long-winded.  It could probably do with some cleanup, but it is very different from what it was when it was transwikied to WikiBooks. PS: No, this isn't the place to discuss whether an article fails to satisfy Wikipedia policies and guidelines; that's WP:AFD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Accurizing]] and textbooks 

message: WP:NOT#OR point #3 about personal essays more properly belongs under WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, because it is more of an NPOV-grounded issue than a NOR one, is barely different from an opinion piece, and to the extent some such essay would not be personal opinion but actual research it is already covered by NOT#OR point #1. And WP:NOT#OR point #4, about using WP as a chat forum, and its WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NOT#CHAT and WP:FORUM shortcuts more properly belong under WP:NOT#WEBSPACE because that entire section is about misusing WP as the wrong kind of service, and discussion forum kinds of behavior do not really relate to the subject of original thought in articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 16:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose moving two items 

message: Mac OS X Leopard will have a "Wikipedia Content Filter" which will "limit access to profanity in Wikipedia." (as part of parental controls) http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html —Nricardo 23:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mac OS X Leopard 

message: I'm not sure where this should go, but I feel like this is a good place to start with. It has occurred to me that certain editors are obstinately shoving massive and colorful genealogical templates into articles on royals, such as this one and particularly this one. A discussion was started here, and, as I am writing this, the only argument brought up in its favor was that "this is not a paper encyclopedia". To me, this sounds like "if I can write it, it stays", and a clear infringement of the "not a directory" guideline on this page. Furthermore, we already have articles on genealogical trees, and the relevant info (i.e.: about a quarter of each tree "planted" per article) can and should be turned into text. Views? Dahn 01:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no harm in the two genealogy templates to which you linked.  I think they should stay. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps they should, but the question is: on what grounds? If arguments are phrased negatively ("This is not a paper encyclopedia", "I see no harm in them"), this rather adds to one's doubt. Put more positively, can it be indicated what the added value of these templates is? If answers to this questions are convincing, the templates should deserve a place under the Wikipedia sun. Bessel Dekker 16:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't see how the information can be displayed any clearer than in the examples given. The plain text version would make your head spin. Royal lineages are very important and best shown graphically. And every paper book has them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A table like this is clearer and less busy.  The colors in the above examples are distractingly garish and four generations veers into information overload; three is sufficient.--Father Goose 21:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless genealogies and the sparkling templates they come with 

message: Here's a radical thought: What other encyclopaedia has lists? What is the point of lists in Wikipedia? Can't an agglomeration of items which have something significant in common be better explained in an encyclopaedic article on the subject? Such as State Parties of the International Criminal Court rather than List of State Parties to the International Criminal Court? If the items themselves are sufficiently notable it could be covered by a Category instead. List of groups referred to as cults could become Groups referred to as cults, which could perhaps have sections on the historic usage and context of the term, as befitting an encyclopaedia, as well as the actual list itself. Hence the focus would transfer away from the heated talk pages towards the actual article itself. Could this idea take hold? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some off the cuff thoughts:  1)  Lists are far more flexible than categories and one cannot really replace the other.  2)  Contents of a list are not required to be notable, any more than they are in any other article.  3)  Most lists are content forks from articles that got too long, so obviously, folding them back into those articles is not practical. -Chunky Rice 22:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As someone who has spent quite a bit of time working on categorization policy, I see many problems with this idea.  Categories exist without annotation or citation.  For that reason, they are unsuitable for any classification that requires an explanation.  Lists offer the ability to explain why a member is included, categories do not.  In addition, many categories have been removed with the understanding that the information is much better suited to being presented as a list.  An example of this is cast lists from films and television shows.  If these were category entries, some actors would have hundreds of category listings thereby making all of their categories much less usable.  See Wikipedia:Overcategorization for more examples.  I find it very frustrating that discussions at CFD will reach a consensus to "listify" a category, and then AFD discussions will want the lists deleted.  I'd like to see some broader discussions about what Wikipedia could be, rather than what it is not.  There are many pages that get deleted because we cannot agree on an appropriate home for them.  Rather than just delete them, I'd like to find the appropriate repository for them.  This might mean creating some name-spaces that don't yet exist.  I can imagine namespaces called "trivia", "back-files" (for less notable pages), "web" (for web directories), "wikilists" (for lists created in a wiki process that don't have good sources and verification is self-evident), "glossaries", etc...  Having these additional spaces would mean that articles could be moved to the appropriate space instead of deleting, and would still be available.  This might make most xFD discussions unnecessary, while enriching the content at Wikipedia.  Eventually, I'd like to see Wikinews and Wiktionary incorporated as well. They could be in name-spaces called "words", and "news'. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fully endorse Sam's namespace idea.  There's a lot of valuable information that is just getting dumped because it doesn't fall into the strict definition of an encyclopedia.  It is time to think of a solution beyond a trashcan.  IMO Namespaces are worth following up. Pgr94 13:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree also. Id rather see Wikipedia as a reference work, and not just a encyclopedia. It already is more than an encyclopedia, and includes almanac entries, and gazetteer entries. I'd like to see the dictionary incorporated directly. Too must time is wasted arguing for the nth time to delete a list, calling it "indiscriminate" or "listcruft". The terms have no meaning.  --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point. I'm thinking of putting an Essay together: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not just an Encyclopedia! AndrewRT(Talk) 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested to read it.  I have looked at various definitions of the term "encyclopaedia" and none puts restrictions on what it cannot contain.  It is a Wikipedia anomaly.  Pgr94 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Encyclopedia include long lists as parts of article, or in tables., or condensed into paragraphs. subjects which can best be handled in list format should be handled in list format. WP is an encyclopedia in the general meaning of the word, not a copy of any preexisting work. it is not just intended as a free version of Encarta or the Brittanica. DGG (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: WP is what it is: articles, lists, categories, etc, all usefully interconneced.  I do not see any structural change needed except in the minds of editors who keep trying to make WP into something else and to get rid of all those things (like lists) they do not like or understand.  Hmains 02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The use of lists is mostly an indexing organization and navigational system; it's a logical extension of the hyperlinked nature of Wikipedia.  Paper encyclopedias have all kinds of funny sections we don't have here owing to their particular format and medium.  We have different opportunities and constraints.  That's not such a big deal.  The core part about our being an encyclopedia is the way we look at subject matters, notability, verifiability, etc.  I would say Wikipedia is more of an "enclyclopedia plus" where the "plus" part are the extra goodies made possible by our electronic-only, free content, collaborative editing format.  Extra disk space is cheap, so we don't throw out features just because encyclopedias don't have them.  We throw them out if they're bad ideas, unsustainable, have nothing to do with our work, or would undermine our basic mission.  Wikidemo 02:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists