Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day/Archive 2

message: I do not think we need this essay/guideline/whatever. We don't need a document for each possible kind of thing that exists in the world that we don't want to list. Between WP:OR and notability and WP:V there are lots of reasons for people to get rid of this content through WP:PROD or WP:AFD.
Also, the kind of people who SHOULD read this kind of thing never WOULD so why bother crufting WP up with yet another rule page.
There is no community consensus for this so I am removing it from the list of notability criteria infobox. -- cmhTC 23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with removing it from said infobox. However, I do think this is a useful page to direct newbs to. Its an essay, and essays are a useful part of wikipedia. But its not a guideline, and should not be treated as such. Essays either explain someones opinion, or explain policy, or both. This one explains policy, but it isn't policy. Fresheneesz 07:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this worked great as an essay. The meaning of the official policies you've mentioned is all too often lost, this essay casts them accurately in a way that's easier to relate to. But as with other things lately, I'm not sure if this really works as well as policy. That's not what it was written to be used as. --W.marsh 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would work well, without references to notability, as a subsection at WP:NOT (if condensed first).  Or an essay, sure. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We don't need this 

message: I propose we keep this as an essay, put up the essay tag, and remove the proposed guideline tag. Takers? Fresheneesz 07:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep this as an essay

message: There seems to be some confusion among readers of this talk page as to what a guideline is and what an essay is. Please take a look at WP:POL, which states that a guideline is anything that is (1) actionable and (2) conensual. An essay, on the other hand, is (1) NOT actionable, and (2) consensus is irrelevant. Despite what some people seem to think there are no more formal qualifiers for either.
This page is actionable; I don't think anybody disputes that. What remains, then, is the question whether this is consensual. It is so, for two reasons. First, nobody has actually argued that Wikipedia is for things-made-up-in-school-one-day. And second, checking the Whatlinkshere, we see that NFD is heavily in use over AFD, and that articles related to things-made-up-in-school-one-day end up deleted for the reasoning explained on this page. This page accurately describes our present process, and that makes it a good guideline for future process.
I have seen several objections or allegations that simply aren't very convincing...
*It is somewhat redundant with existing guidelines. While true, that's not a problem; many guidelines and policy pages overlap, for instance the policies Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If people want to  this page to clear up redundancy, I would have no objection.
*It is alleged to be used maliciously. However, both Meegs and I have checked on recent AFDs and have seen no evidence of that. Regardless, on a Wiki, any page can be misquoted maliciously; the proper response is to tell the misquoting person to stop that.
*Some people don't like the title. Fine with me, this is about the content of the page, I would have no objection to a rename. For instance, Wikipedia is not for things you made up yourself.
*Some people say the content of the page reads unprofessionally. That is not an argument against "guideline" status because being written well is equally important to an essay. Thankfully, this is a Wiki so you can edit the page and improve the wording you object to.
*It is alleged to be used for biting newcomers. In fact it is not; to state so is pointing out symptoms rather than causes. What 'bites' some newcomers is the deletion of the article(s) they wrote. The problem is that newcomers frequently write inappropriate articles. I find telling someone that he made it up not insulting, and can think of worse pages such as WP:PN and WP:DICK.
Any other comments? >Radiant< 09:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page isn't really "actionable" as I see it - but I'm not quite familiar with the specific meaning of that term. The main problem I see, is that this 1. reads like an essay (unprofessionally) 2. is opinionated 3. relies fully on other guidelines and policy (not simply overlaping - completely redundant). Of couse, point 1 and 2 are fixable, but to fix it so that this reads like a guideline, you would need to destroy the essay-style. The essay was good, and I wouldn't want its style destroyed. Fresheneesz 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the content of this page as it purports to judge exclusion of information already excluded by other policies by a notability criterion.  We have WP:NOR and WP:NOT to prohibit these types of contributions, neither of which bases inclusion or deletion on notability.  In other words, it seems to be adding an additional criterion, notability, to preexisting policy that does not require "notability" per se.  Certainly, a contribution covered by this guideline would be a good example of what Wikipedia is not.  Perhaps it should be merged there with references to notability removed. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The entire concept of notability is largely subsumed under NOR and V (and WP:VAIN and WP:AD). NFT is a clearer version of some of the notaility criteria and I think it's reasonable to include it as an explanation.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **I'm not too happy with merging. True, it's pretty redundant; but WP:NOT is huge, and some parts of it apply often enough that we need to troutwhack people with them (e.g. WP:WINAD and WP:ENC). >Radiant< 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I wasn't suggesting merging, only saying why this essay is useful. NFT is a nice healthy trout on its own.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: I remember this one time when I made up the term "MS-DOS CE" for the MS-DOS emulator from Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 Server/Vista. It lasted quite a bit of time, but when I got back to being a more involved Wikipedian, it was gone. --Blah2 00:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm. 

message: Making this a guideline is instruction creep. This essay is entirely covered by NOR, NOT, and V. It is not written in the serious manner that other guidelines and policy are. This shouldn't be a guideline - its an essay. Fresheneesz 00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What exactly about "something made up in school one day" passes the NOR requirement? Fresheneesz 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something made up in school one day is not research, and in most cases isn't particularly original either. (Radiant) 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anything that was made up by someone that isn't sourced is original research. Sorry, but you're just wrong here. WP:NOR says it in its first sentence.  Fresheneesz 02:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're missing my point. If a new user makes an article that is "Original Research" by wikidefinition, but is neither "original" nor "research" in the way most people actually use those words, then pointing that user to WP:NOR will only serve to confuse that person. >Radiant< 13:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe you underestimate the power of reading the first sentence of a link. Fresheneesz 04:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is instruction creep 

message: well, if we follow this guideline, then shouldn't almost all of the joke religion articles be deleted (Example: Pastafarianism)? Maddox 01:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well...... 

message: In what way does OR have anything to do with notability? Obviously things made up in school won't be verifiable (which is why this page is entirely redundant as guideline), but .. notability doesn't enter into this. Stuff made up in school does not need to pass any notability criteria - its just not accepted. Fresheneesz 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this "notability" criteria?  

message: While I feel that this is an important guideline, I think the title might anger some new users if we give it as a reason why their article was deleted. Maybe we should change it to "Wikipedia is not for  "cool ideas" or something? GhostPirate 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Condescending title

message: Might want to mention Wikia (rather than Uncyclopedia) as there's quite a lot there that's made up in school one day. —Ashley Y 08:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikia 

message: This is more appropriately an Essay which could be referenced from a brief sentence at WP:N.  In an ongoing effort to defeat instrcution creep, I propose re-tagging this as an essay and amending WP:N to include this concept. --Kevin Murray 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a guideline

message: Though I like Wikipedia, I am against the policy described in this article. The more factual articles on Wikipedia, the better. Randomfrenchie 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy revision

message: Hi.
This does not seem to be written as "formally" as the other guidelines on notability/inclusion are. Also, it seems less of a "notability" guideline and more related to attribution and perhaps neutrality. I'd suggest a more formalized page, including the title -- perhaps "New ideas" would be better. Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.32.195 (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formalization? 

message: I object to the merge. This is a common phenomenon and it won't help to bury that in the long list that is WP:NOT. >Radiant< 09:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT merge 

message: Hey, just thought I'd suggest an addition to this paragraph: 
:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Many articles of this nature describe new words or terms coined by a small group of friends. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Meanings of words and phrases go in a dictionary, such as Wiktionary; however, adding your own new words and phrases to Wiktionary is also unacceptable. Wiktionary requires evidence that a word or phrase has been attested before it will accept it.  A new word that one person or a small group of people have made up and are trying to make catch on is a neologism, and isn't acceptable at Wiktionary. Take a look at Urban Dictionary instead.
I suggest that Wiktionary's List of Protologisms could be mentioned, where Wiktionary does allow contributors to record terms made up in one school day. Perhaps place it at the end: ‘Take a look at Urban Dictionary instead, or add it to Wiktionary:List of Protologisms.’ — leaving the stern disapproval earlier in the paragraph will discourage editors from going out of their way just to add lots of bogus terms, but mentioning the list will allow contributors whose articles are facing deletion a place to put their terms. Cheers! — Beobach972 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not for terms made up in one school day - but LOP is