Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 11

message: The pornography "project" that has enpowered editors to remove all but six porn video titles from filmographies is censorship. There is no other logical explanation for it. "Notability" isn't relevant because "notability" applies to the subjects of articles, not article content. "Undue weight," and the idea that porn filmographies represent the "indiscriminate collection" of information don't apply, because filmographies of non-porn actors routinely go beyond 100 films. 
Editors here are routinely misrepresenting purported Wikipedia "pillars" and "principles" in this area, and they are repeatedly and deliberately lying about the notability issue. They are lying about censorship, puking out the tautology that censoring porn filmographies isn't censorship because "Wikipedia doesn't censor."
Maybe all of this is to be expected, given that Wikipedia is headquartered in Florida, the craziest state in America. Who knows, maybe it's been taken over by a bunch of evangelical Christian Republicans. It sure seems like it when it comes to anything involving porn. In any case, the idea that Wikipedia isn't censored is an absolutely preposterous lie. Pwok 08:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is double-censored 

message: Hi, I had a lovely personal message on my talk page from someone who assumes I know nothing about Wikipedia policy. What would you like to discuss about my edits? 172.159.93.208 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking it to talk 

message: I just looked at Song Sparrow and while it doesn't fit any of the categories specifically, I think the references section that is far longer than the article (especially the list of dissertations) is not very encyclopedic. Or am I way off base? Pdbailey 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy over-ref... I suggest you move that "further reading" section to a talk subpage. --tjstrf talk 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed with the above. The further reading section's definitely worth keeping for reference when editing, but not on the article, there it does violate Wikipedia is not a directory. The references section should stay as it is, although it does need inline citations rather than just a list. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this what wikipedia is not? 

message: This is not an over-simplification of any sort. It's what WP:BLP says: "In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". In which case, why this edit? Our aim is to do no harm. It's in the policy. Moreschi  Talk 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So link to the policy.  Done deal.  "Do no harm" has proven to be absurdly subjective, and is being expanded to unnecessary and disruptive lengths.  Linking to the policy is a better idea, since the policy governs what our aim is beter than simply trusting people we can't trust to "do no harm."  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not a good (or necessary) wording regardless of the policy behind the wikilink. The whole point of the section is that Wikipedia includes content that can be harmful to some people. Prolog 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say leave it as Biographies of living persons.  Whilst "Do no harm" is an important part of the policy, it isn't the whole of the policy, so it's necessary but not sufficient.  The entirety of the policy applies here. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Do no harm", our aim to 

message: List of free first-person shooters contains many links to download locations, within the sections and labeled like "Get the game here". I'm coming here before unilaterally taking those links out, because I need someone to hold my hand for a second. Or are links like that not a violation of WP:NOT? —AldeBaer 10:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm not sure. My immediate reaction was that it violates WP:NOT#MIRROR, but I've just had a look at the external link criteria, which (under what to link), states "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply". I guess it falls under that. I don't like the sentence "get the game here" though, sounds like advertising speak. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 10:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My sentiment exactly. I had also read WP:NPA#MIRROR and didn't find an immediate answer whether or such links are ok. Well, I guess I'm removing the "get the game heres" and leave the links for now. Thanks for the input. —AldeBaer 10:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get the game here 

message: A number of Singaporean church articles     include information about timing and content of services.  This, IMHO, violates WP:NOT#DIR.  Second opinions? Jpatokal 05:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Listing a guide to current events violates WP:NOT#DIR. It's very similar to the example of "...an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable."  Major events in the history of a particular church can be discussed, but specific day-to-day and week-to-week schedules should not. Dugwiki 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now a church-affiliated editor has attempted to compromise by deleting times, but keeping dates .  I still think it's unencyclopedic. Jpatokal 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a key question is will the information you're talking about be deleted and replaced a few weeks after the event occurs?  If so then there's probably no reason to include it in the article in the first place.  For example, day-to-day schedules are not likely to be something that will be permanently kept in the article.  So attempting to do that just means all that much extra maintainence and a lack of stability in the article.  Truly significant events are ones that will likely be still mentioned the article long after the event occurs. So if the dates your talking about are not something that will be kept in the article in the long haul, they should be removed. Dugwiki 16:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a schedule of weekly church services: on Sunday at 10 AM is the English service, on Monday at 6 PM is the Mandarin service, etc.  IMHO this kind of stuff is totally irrelevant for somebody wants to know about the church itself, and is better maintained on the church's website. Jpatokal 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scheduled church services 

message: There is an ongoing debate in the article cups and balls in which a section once existed (and has been forcably removed by certain editors) that explained the principles behind performing the trick. The claim is that "wikipedia is not an instruction manual" and no how-to or instructions should ever be placed in articles. I would like to suggest that this policy is not realistic within wikipeda to be strictly defined as such.
It is normal practice in wikipedia articles to explain how things work, and not just described what they actually do or how they appear. As such, the internal combustion engine article explains the chemical reaction inside an engine, and describes many different kinds of engines and how they work. (to me this is either a how-to guide for engines, or a how-to guide on how to achieve internal combustion). Articles on musical instruments like violin don't just tell you the shape and materials the instrument is made from, it tells you how the instrument is played, and explains techniques related the instrument. This would be a how-to manual to me.
Games like Chess have lots of space dedicated to technique - there is even a whole article about it - Chess strategy.  There are articles dedicated to other secret "instructions" such as recepes (which are just cooking instructions) for the Coca-Cola formula and MacDonald's Special Sauce. I don't see any good reason for details on the performance of the Cups and balls to be any more unacceptable than those articles just because it instructs on a physical action, and not just instructs on a mechanical, mental or culnary action. I would say that the top reason someone would goto an article on Cups and Balls, or any magic trick would be first to read about how the trick "appears to be performed" (the intended effect), if they don't know the trick, or to learn about the techniques that create the illusion if they have seen the trick. I'm not saying that the section ought to be written in the style of "take the ball in your hand- place your hand in your pocket - slip the ball under the cup...." but an outright deletion of the section and a ban on any information relating to how the trick is performed seems outright un-wikipedish to me. TheHYPO 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the section just describes the basics of the technique and is not a step by step guide to performing the trick, I don't think it falls under WP:NOT.  The point of that clause is not to prevent any description of a procedure.  -Chunky Rice 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT#IINFO]] - doesn't cut it. 

message: N has added a new disclaimer to the myspace clause .  it reads:
: If you are considering nominating a user page or personal image for deletion because it appears to be used as a personal web page or a blog, please be aware that many editors will consider this a personal attack on themselves, because they may believe they own "my userpage". Be very careful not to scare a newbie away from Wikipedia, and try to assume good faith that they are merely trying to share information about themselves. Try to resolve the issue on the user's talk page first. Also note that a limited amount of personal information (perhaps a short biography) and a freely licensed (never fair use) tasteful personal photograph or two may be allowed on a user's page in order to show the user's human side are usually allowed, but only if the page complies with other Wikipedia policies. Users with most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits. And always remember that a user's user page being used as a personal web page is not in itself a speedy deletion criteria.
However much I agree with this (and I do, very much), I think it probably belongs somewhere else.  Wikipedia:User page most likely. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I also think it would be better suited for Wikipedia:User page as well. --132 16:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup, doesn't belong on the WP:NOT page. WP:USER is a better spot for it. (Requestion 16:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving it per consensus. Thanks for the affirmation. -N 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:User:Nard the Bard|N]]'s user page disclaimer

message: There's a wikipedia page -- Le Bureau with links to amazon and fnac (a french retailer) to buy DVDs of the TV show covered in the wiki. This is clearly not appropriate but I didn't read anything on "what wikipedia is not" that explicitly states links like these are not allowed. Tehw1k1 12:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you're looking for is better covered by the external links guideline (WP:EL).  If you really want a WP:NOT section, I'd say that the advertising section of WP:SOAP certainly implies by omission that such links are inapprorpiate. -Chunky Rice 18:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  links to commercial sites 

message: Seems to me that there's consensus here on the principle - but some justified concern that this shouldn't be a general rule used to quash discussion, but merely advisory. Can we find some extra words that will satisfy the legitimate concerns? What about:
:"Editors should consider whether, in a particular article, the names of private individuals could be redacted without the loss of significant information."
That's certainly not prescriptive. And it allows for the conclusion "no, there would be a significant loss" to be reached in any particular case.--Docg 15:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay for me, though I think the current version is fine, too. --Tony Sidaway 15:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, but I'm trying to accommodate some concerns.--Docg 15:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this version. Let's include that wherever it is appropriate (either here or the page about information about living people). WhisperToMe 15:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I like this phrasing better, and think BLP seems a more appropriate place for it. Brighterorange 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: SchmuckyTheCat has changed the word "private" to "non-notable".  I don't like that myself because it's a Wikipedia jargon word and I'm not sure I know what it means.  The term private individual here seems more straightforward in this context. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * My only concern is that there are other reasons to keep names in an article aside from losing information.  The primary that I can think of is clarity.  Having multiple unidentified parties (even if their identities aren't important to the article) could be very confusing to read. -Chunky Rice 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that's probably a valid concern. I'll change it to "information or necessary clarity". Dugwiki 17:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of private individuals break 1

message: Early this year a couple of AFDs of articles about a murder victim Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce and a man who got lost and died of exposure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kim led to discussion at a proposed guideline (now essay) WP:NOTNEWS that we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, and that a TV news show editor or a newspaper editor seeking to build audience have different basic standards from an encyclopedia editor, so that alarming stories about crime and sympathy-evoking stories about loss, and even watercooler stories about cute animals in distress can give rise to substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, but still not have the makings of a good encyclopedia article, even if they more than satisfy the letter of WP:N and WP:A.  The new standard is apparently to delete stories if they cause or might cause distress to the subject, or his friends or family, in the judgment of some administrator, without the process of an AFD. This leaves us with what are basically memorial stories such as the Kim and Pryce death, where sympathy says keep the article rather than compassion saying delete it as in the case of youthful crime victims. If there are lots of sources like for the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, then does this policy not apply, or do we contact each victim (the deletion review says "The Shawn Hornbeck Foundation was contacted for input") and ask if they want the article deleted, as is being done in the deletion review for the kidnapped Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby? These are all cases of what NewYorkBrad in that deletion review called "crime victims and others who achieve notoriety or notability, fleeting or otherwise, as the result of events wholly beyond their control."  This would include Lina Medina who gave birth at age 5 and is now 73, and 17 year old conjoined twins Abigail and Brittany Hensel besides the crime victims. WP:COI seems to contraindicate the subject of the article determining its content or even its appearance in Wikipedia. Edison 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about crime, death, medical curiosities and watercooler stories?

message: Recently, we've had a number of articles deleted due to claims of BLP concerns or related issues although everyone has agreed that the information was reliably sourced. Is this contradicting the claim that Wikipedia is not censored or not? JoshuaZ 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say not. I would describe this as editorial discretion, not censorship. Most of this, for me, falls under Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and the undue weight provision of the so-called neutral point of view policy (I prefer to call it the "keep the article balanced and unbiased" policy). Even if material can be reliably sourced, it is not always necessary or desirable to include it. This can be on the grounds of style, taste, format, and various other reasons. For BLPs it is generally due to the material being non-notable or frivolous. People are too quick to say "but it is sourced". The correct order of the questions is: (a) Is this relevant or needed? and only then say (b) a source is needed for this material. Not, "I've found a source, so it must be OK to put it in the article". That is completely the wrong way round. Write or edit an article with a eye for due balance and weight, and add sources as needed. Don't try and shoehorn in everything the sources report. Reflect the sources, don't replicate them. It's difficult, but no-one said writing an encyclopedia was easy. Carcharoth 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I came here to see if anyone had made the observation that JoshuaZ has made above.  The deletion of well-sourced BLPs -- those sourced from major media outlets, as opposed to, say, JayHenryshappyplace.blogspot.com -- is most definitely censorship.  The article on Allison Stokke was most definitely censored.  Is that a bad thing?  I'm not really sure.  Is it censorship?  Absolutely.  And it's getting increasingly Orwellian to pretend otherwise.  Media outlets have censored things throughout history.  That's okay, necessary even.  But if community consensus develops that WP:BLP should contain a broad censorship clause, this needs to be addressed here. --JayHenry 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But censorship comes in many different forms. Censorship (which may not be that reliable of course) says: "The term "censorship" is often used as a pejorative term to signify a belief that a group controlling certain information is using this control improperly or for its own benefit, or preventing others from accessing information that should be made readily accessible" - in this case, the information being excluded from Wikipedia is available elsewhere. Anyone reading Wikipedia can go and read the missing information somewhere else. It is an editorial decision to not include the information here. To take a trivial example, a list of telephone numbers is not something that has a place in Wikipedia, but removing that information is not censorship, it is just putting reasonable limits on what Wikipedia should contain. Wikipedia is not meant to cover everything, and deciding where the limits are placed is not censorship. Carcharoth 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Under this argument, removing the image of a penis on the penis article is not censorship nor is removing  a picture of the Bahá'u'lláh. This argument seems to be a bit too broad. JoshuaZ 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing said pictures in an encyclopedia that allows them would be censorship. Removing said pictures in an encylopedia that doesn't allow then would simply be conforming to the policy of that encyclopedia (say, one aimed at a specific market that would be offended by such images). Wikipedia aims at a broad readership, and so doesn't remove such images. Carcharoth 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's funny. Have you found a link to the original insertion of that clause of the policy? :-) And the irresponsible argument should be used with care. Some would say (though I'm not one of them) that putting pictures such as those in articles is irresponsible. Guidelines and policies are sometimes meant to reduce reliance on editorial discretion (which often ends up as edit wars among editors who can't agree), but sometimes you have to leave things to be decided on a case-by-case basis without generalisation. Carcharoth 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is where SPUI added the gist of it, and over the next few days I batted it back and forth with Dr Zen.  It became an established part of policy.  It has mutated a bit and now carries a more general "no censorship" message (which is fine, policy changes like that).  I think it's useful, but if someone tells me it means we have to have crap in the Encyclopedia I laugh. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Having a policy which acknowledges the rights of living people to fair treatment is not censorship. Furthermore, JoshauZ's claims that "everyone has agreed that the information was reliably sourced" is a very partial presentation. Often what happens is that editors believe information is well sourced because they do not properly understand (or don't want to acknowledge) what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't.  FNMF 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that this has any relationship to fair treatment is probably faulty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  FNMF, At least in  this case everyone agreed that the information was in reliable sources and in at least two other cases no one was claiming otherwise. There wouldn't be much of an issue if these recent deletions were of poorly sourced or questionably sourced information. But almost uniformily they are well sourced. JoshuaZ 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not my reading of the Stokke case. FNMF 02:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you claiming that the Washington Post and the New York Times are not reliable sources? JoshuaZ 02:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not about to re-debate the Stokke entry here. Sources are necessary not just to reference an article, but to establish the notability of the subject. A mention of a name in a newspaper does not necessarily establish encyclopaedic notability. If there are no reliable sources establishing encyclopaedic notability, then an article should be deleted. FNMF 02:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know, I'm not going to re-debate entries either, so I'll simply note that everyone else seemed to agree that these were reliable sources and if you really want I'll a small footnote above that FNMF has somehow gotten into his head that WP:N or maybe something else somehow requires not only us to have reliable sources but the reliable sources to explicitly say that the topic in question is encyclopedic (and I'm not even going to bother going into a long digression about how much we would need to delete all over the project if anything like that were remotely policy or guideline). Now, to get us back on track. Given that such deletions have occured and given that the vast majority of editors agreed that we had reliable sources, does this conflict with the item in WP:NOT? JoshuaZ 02:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say we need "reliable sources to explicitly say that the topic in question is encyclopaedic." I said the reliable sources must not merely mention somebody's name but must serve to establish the encyclopaedic notability of the subject (in contrast, for example, to the notability sufficient for a newspaper to mention their name in the daily news). Notability justifying a mention in a newspaper is not the same thing as notability justifying an entry in an encyclopaedia, even if one of the ways that encyclopaedic notability may be established is through newspaper coverage. FNMF 05:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FNMF, please read WP:N and then explain to me a) whether what you are asserting has anything to do with what is written there and b) how we tell whether reliable sources establish encyclopedic notability other than FNMF's personal say so? JoshuaZ 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you decide (not 'tell') whether reliable sources establish encyclopedic notability is to discuss it with others on the talk pages in borderline cases. There is no way you can run your finger down a neat list of tickpoints to get the answer you want. At some point you will have to discuss borderline cases. Carcharoth 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JoshuaZ, there is a difference between notability sufficient to warrant a biographical entry for a living person in an encyclopaedia, and notability sufficient to garner a mention in a daily newspaper. Grasping that difference is fairly basic for anybody who wishes to write BLP entries in an encyclopaedia. If the notion that there is such a difference is totally foreign to you, I'm not sure what to suggest, except perhaps that you should consider staying away from editing BLP entries. FNMF 15:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That would depend on context. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Frankly it's hard to think of a reason in an article about a crime not to mention the name of the criminal convicted of it, assuming the information is properly referenced.  On the other hand, I would probably be a little more cautious when someone is simply suspected of having committed a crime but it hasn't been proven in court.  Suspicion can start getting into the realm of rumor and speculation, and we obviously don't want an article to imply someone is guilty of a crime they didn't commit. Just my opinion. Dugwiki 21:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely - if they are in the encyclopaedia for no reason other than their alleged crime, we might as well be saying they're guilty.  81.104.175.145 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not censored v. deletion of well sourced BLPs? 

message: This may be slightly off the point but is the mentioning of the name of a convicted criminal in the context of the crime they committed acceptable and what is the policy on reporting someone who is dead?--Lucy-marie 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would depend on context. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Frankly it's hard to think of a reason in an article about a crime not to mention the name of the criminal convicted of it, assuming the information is properly referenced.  On the other hand, I would probably be a little more cautious when someone is simply suspected of having committed a crime but it hasn't been proven in court.  Suspicion can start getting into the realm of rumor and speculation, and we obviously don't want an article to imply someone is guilty of a crime they didn't commit. Just my opinion. Dugwiki 21:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely - if they are in the encyclopaedia for no reason other than their alleged crime, we might as well be saying they're guilty.  81.104.175.145 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Using the death of a child for political purposes

message: Is it fascism, then?
: No, didn't you know?  Wikipedia is communism! --Tony Sidaway 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Communism on wheels! JoshuaZ 16:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  More seriously ... ahem ;-) ... "Wikipedia is not a democracy" means that decisions are not made through plurality or majority voting. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a democracy

message: I have a lot of questions as to some regulations on Pro Wrestling on Wikipedia.
1. Why can't matches announced on tv, for ppv or tv, be added to wrestlers articles?
2. Why are pages like John Cena and recently Vince McMahon always locked for some reason?
3. Why are all additions to pages removed by the likes of The Hybrid or BMG? They are not the bosses of Wikipedia. I thought that wikipedia was avalible for anyone to edit.
4. Trivia that is very important to articles is always removed but useless information is added in by the bucket load. ie. John Cena's crowd reactions at WM 22 and 23, ONS 2 and during his feuds with Y2J Angle Edge HHH HBK and many others, yet the color of his shoes is added on a regular basis. Cena's audience backlash and the 5-6 moves of doom are allways deleted but they are both very important and are mentioned on tv nonstop whenever he is on tv.
Something needs to be done about these problems or information seeking people are gonna be left in the dark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.121 (talk • contribs) 
:These questions belong on the Wikipedia:WikiProject professional wrestling.  Tayquan hollaMy work 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro Wrestling on Wikipedia 

message: I would like to re-word a sentence in the above named title , Number seven, “Plot Summaries”. I would suggest removing the word “Fiction” and inserting the word “published”. The sentence would read as follows:  
Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). 
The reason I would suggest this change, is that this section is linked to the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books) Section titled Criteria  Number one. The fact that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) has its own link, this would make including it in the first line redundant. In the intrest of editors, I am using this criteria in a discussion on Notability (books) Regards --Domer48 17:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information 

message: I have an idea for new WP:NOT guidelines:
===Wikipedia is not America-centric===
Just because something is not notable in the United States does not mean it is not notable elsewhere in the English-speaking world.
As long as it is notable in a nation where the English language is spoken
(U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, The Bahamas,
Belize, Guyana, or others),
it belongs on the English-language Wikipedia.
--> Since english widely used by non-native speakers all over the planet, anyting is suitable for the english language Wikipedia, regardless of the countries in which something may be "notable." -666- 212.182.158.110 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see the wrong page was edited on this one...seriously, though, you cannot saying taht 'anything' is suitable for the English Wikipedia.  However, we could say that 'notability does not have a national or linguistic boundary'.  That would make a lot more sense. CaveatLector  Talk Contrib 20:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: RE: American-centric, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. --sony-youthpléigh 01:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't just write about things that are important to English speaking countries, we write about things that are important anywhere, and do so in English. --bainer (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong agreement with Bainer on the first one, there's nothing in WP:N that states a topic has to be notable in an english speaking country. The second one sounds more like it should be at Be Bold than here; these guidelines are all meant to make it clear what contributors are not meant to do, rather than what they should. - Zeibura(talk) 05:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with Bainer on all points. An object, person, or event that is notable is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, irrespective of where it is located or took place. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Anglophone countries' Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this dead? I still think a WP:NOT for Anglo-American bias is important. --sony-youthpléigh 23:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New guidelines 

message: Just because something is not notable in the United States does not mean it is not notable elsewhere in the English-speaking world.
As long as it is notable in a nation where the English language is spoken
(U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, The Bahamas,
Belize, Guyana, or others),
it belongs on the English-language Wikipedia.
--> Since english widely used by non-native speakers all over the planet, anyting is suitable for the english language Wikipedia, regardless of the countries in which something may be "notable." -666- 212.182.158.110 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see the wrong page was edited on this one...seriously, though, you cannot saying taht 'anything' is suitable for the English Wikipedia.  However, we could say that 'notability does not have a national or linguistic boundary'.  That would make a lot more sense. CaveatLector  Talk Contrib 20:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not America-centric

message: As Wikipedia expands, articles will appear that initially are not perfectly encyclopedia-standard.
If you find one that is notable but not encyclopedia-standard, help us out!
Add to it, or if you are not knowledgeable in the subject, flag it with the proper template so someone
who knows about the subject can!
These are, of course, introductory ideas.  Thoughts? --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RE: American-centric, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. --sony-youthpléigh 01:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't just write about things that are important to English speaking countries, we write about things that are important anywhere, and do so in English. --bainer (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong agreement with Bainer on the first one, there's nothing in WP:N that states a topic has to be notable in an english speaking country. The second one sounds more like it should be at Be Bold than here; these guidelines are all meant to make it clear what contributors are not meant to do, rather than what they should. - Zeibura(talk) 05:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with Bainer on all points. An object, person, or event that is notable is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, irrespective of where it is located or took place. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Anglophone countries' Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this dead? I still think a WP:NOT for Anglo-American bias is important. --sony-youthpléigh 23:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not perfect

message: I'm no expert in this field, but Westgate Resorts looks like a huge advertisement to me. Am I right? I tried to remove some of it, but I don't know how to do it properly. I think it might be a notable company, but I don't think all of those resort links need to be there. --blm07 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westgate Resorts, it wasn't considered an advertisement as of 23 September 2006 ... OTOH, Some Other Editor has been adding a lot of promotional material in the past few weeks ... you may wish to post your concerns at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, because this talk page is definitely not the correct forum. —72.75.70.147 07:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westgate / advertising 

message: I've been stumbling across a lot of "Fathers of X", "Heroes of Y", "Masters of Z" articles lately: Template:Legends_of_Horror_Cinema, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian national heroes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother of the Nation.  Is it time to create a subsection specifically to articles that group together people this way?  I.E.  "WP:NOT A bestower of awards".  Thanks! - Richfife 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  IT would not be OR if an other published source referred to that person as "an Armenian national heroe". SO long as it is sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  Per my logic here: , the phrase "Hero of X" is too strong to allow a journalist using it in passing as minimum criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Having Wikipedia declare someone a hero because one or two journalists did is going too far. - Richfife 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would not make it "Armenian heroes" but "Armenians referred to has heroes at least once in the press". Sounds clunky, no? >Radiant< 08:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that "Hero of X" is too subjective to be encyclopedic, we do recognize "hall of fame" members who have been formally inducted into a recognized hall of fame by a vote of a broad membership group. This is an important case of notability, and should be retained. In this case, WP is not bestowing an award, just recognizing one published by a RS. Dhaluza 08:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: WP:NOT Bestower of Awards 

message: I find often in AFDs people are misusing "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The problem seems to be with the word "indiscriminate", which people either don't understand or find vague. It seems some people think this term can be applied to any list, and many other articles. Not to mention, the title of the section doesn't have all the much to do with the section itself. My suggestion is to retitle the section something like "Wikipedia is not a guidebook or instruction manual". And to put a separate section under notability or lists which is something like "Article subjects should not be indiscriminately thrown together" (example: Not indiscriminate - List of United States Senators from Ohio, indiscriminate - List of United States Senators with three or more 'E's in their name). Any thoughts? CitiCat 23:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not clear (or at least one section isn't) 

message: Isn't this rule a direct contradiction of Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball: "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause." How can judge in the present, "long-term historical notability" unless you are a crystal ball? Its a direct contradiction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crystal Ball vs Long-term historical notability

message: I'm confused about some wording in WP:NOT#DIR. What is a street price and what differentiates it from a "price"? Drumpler 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the "ephemeral" wording, I'm assuming that "street price" indicates the price normally paid for a product, as opposed to "manufacturer's suggest retail price" (MSRP). For example, the MSRP for a DVD might be $24.99 -- but in reality the street price will never be that amount, and might vary from place to place or store to store. So Wikipedia shouldn't be reporting information like "Britney Spears's newest CD is $7.99 at Best Buy this week". -- MisterHand 19:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Street Price?

message: I'm having difficulty seeing how #10 News reports fits under "indiscriminate collection of information." If an article is compiled from news reports that span only over a brief period of time, the Wikipedia article itself probably is not a set of facts disconnected from each other. Since the news reports span only over a brief period of time, the informtion within the new articles probably haven't withstood the test of time and those news reports may be a collection of indiscriminate information. Indiscriminate has a variety of meanings and I don't seem to be able to come up with one that covers all 10 items listed under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some clarity on this would help. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion thread a few topics up about the somewhat ambiguous word "indiscriminate".  That section of policy is simply a catch-all for various types of information and articles which Wikipedia reserves the right to discriminate against.  We were talking about possibly changing the title of the section to something like "Wikipedia is also not...:" to get rid of the slightly confusing word "indiscriminate". Dugwiki 20:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Indiscriminate can mean a lack of clear inclusion criteria, but does not mean that if you provide inclusion criteria you are OK. You can still provide overly broad inclusion criteria (eg. "allow telephone numbers") that would themselves fall foul of inclusion criteria. Indiscriminate can also mean excessive detail. In both cases, the answer is editorial discretion. Make an editorial decision in a particular article not to include telephone numbers, and not to give a minute-by-minute account of (say) a sporting event, or a disaster. The exact level of detail (discrimination) varies depending on (a) the sources and (b) the particular article. Carcharoth 10:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If this may help: Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't imply the articles listed themselves are indiscriminate collections of information. –Pomte 13:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indiscriminate(?) collection of information

message: What if, nudity was fully in context? What if Barney got naked on tv? Or what if a famous child pornographer had pictures, would we be able to see such pictures, or should it be censored? Would this picture of naked Barney or naked children be showed on the article? Or would everyone agree it should be censored? First, I ask you to be consistant. Second, don't act on emotions because Encyclopedias are for facts, not feelings or point of view, leaving you consistant only to your current state. --69.67.230.93 03:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's in context, notable, relevant, and not illegal in Florida, add it. That's what we do all the time on numerous pages. For a sample, I suppose you could check Wikipedians against censorship, but be prepared for an eyeful of not-so-pleasant images if you follow many of the links. --tjstrf talk 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The music of 2 Live Crew and the cartoons of Mike Diana have, at some point, been declared illegal in Florida... and if crusading attorney Jack Thompson has his way, some popular video games will join them.  Florida's a weird place, and I live there.  (Redundant, I guess.) *Dan T.* 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, assuming those rulings are still in place, we presumably cannot host audio samples (possibly lyrics as well) from As Nasty As They Wanna Be or pages of Boiled Angel on our servers. However, that's a case of externally imposed censorship by a legal authority, not Wikipedia censoring itself. --tjstrf talk 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Not Censored"

message: Is this being enforced? There seem to be many accounts with mainspace contribs ranging in the tens, but featuring four-figure user and usertalk edits. I wonder how this could be handled as civilly as possible, avoiding any "jackbooting" - or whether the community tends to tolerate this. —AldeBaer (c) 14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they make a large proportion of edits to their own user pages, those can get listed at WP:MfD. You can always take it up directly with them, encourage more encyclopedic contributions, and see how they respond. –Pomte 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what if someone doesn't rspond? —AldeBaer (c) 12:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having had similar experiences with listings on MfD, is there some way to enforce the policy directly without resorting to a five-day process wherein "keep it because it doesn't hurt anyone" is a valid keep response for a user with an excessive ration of userspace to article edits? MSJapan 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this kind of thing our problem? Editing extensively in user space does nothing to harm the quality of the encyclopedia. If the developers feel that a userspace article is consuming excessive server space, let them initiate action. 128.42.7.192 18:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT#SOCIALNET 

message: A rewrite of WP:FICT is being proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Rewrite proposed. Needs polishing, clarification, and so on, but it's a start. — Deckiller 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:FICT rewrite

message: WP:NOT#SOAPBOX is used pretty frequently as an argument against:
::a) organizing or expressing support for off-Wiki political causes
::b) organizing or supporting on-wiki causes, e.g. the reform of various processes 
This seems to turn up most commonly on MfD, but probably occurs elsewhere as well...  However, as written this clause refers solely to Wikipedia articles.  Should it be expanded to cover activity in project and user space?
I personally think that use a) is basically appropriate (since such activity is basically inimical to improving the encyclopedia), but use b) is not (since such activity is frequently necessary to improving the encyclopedia).  I'd like to consider changing the soapbox clause to reflect this.  Thoughts? -- Visviva 09:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and made these changes to address this. Dhaluza 08:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, thanks.  -- Visviva 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of the soapbox clause 

message: See a few section above, and also see this edit, for ideas on how to introduce the idea of what Wikipedia is not. The idea is to start off with "not an indiscriminate collection of information", rather than "not paper". There is tension between these two statements, but that needs to be addressed up front to avoid people being confused later on. Also, the current WP:IINFO section will need tidying up, with the shortcuts and anchor tags moved to the right locations, and the remaining sections given a new subheading or moved to fit in existing sections. Carcharoth 11:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem I have with that is it does not flow into the next paragraph, "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." That section deals with a different concept, and the tension is not addressed. The two just stand in stark contrast with no context. Dhaluza 08:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the tension, and noted that in my initial comment. I'm not entirely sure how to address the tension, except to suggest that "not a paper encyclopedia" be put in a new main section, as it is not technically a content issue, but a technical and format/layout issue. ie. it is not saying what the content should be, but what size limits there are and aren't. I'll try a change and see how it goes. Carcharoth 08:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I just removed the heavy "restrictions" from the section titles, and added a sentence to tie the first to the second. Dhaluza 09:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks even better now. :-) Let's see what happens from here. I find the content section very heavy going, with 10 different subsections. Maybe someone could try and streamline that somehow? Carcharoth 10:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section for WP:NOT 

message: Please see the following:
::"User pages which move beyond broad expressions of sexual preference are unacceptable."
Please will someone explain to me why a broad reference to sexual preference is "acceptable", or rather why it is relevant to an editor's wiki-editing.  A barnstar to anyone who can give one effective example of why sexual preference might have any bearing on what you say in what is supposed to be a reference resource.  I personally have no objection to editors putting whatever they want to on their user pages.  It's the woolly-thinking hypocrisy that I object to: ie "we better not offend [social group x] by not letting them say that they are in said group but we don't actually want the detail".
:We allow people to show the groups they self-identify with on their user pages, and since sexual preference is a major facet of one's personality, it is relevant in that context. However you do raise a good point that user pages should not move past broad expressions of membership in any group or following any ideology, whether sexual, religious, political, or otherwise. Dhaluza 08:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means we don't want TMI. <-- Note to disambiguation link repairers, the link to the DAB is intentional. DO NOT REMOVE IT. --> -N 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Its nice to know what you do; but not who, when, where, what with, and how many times. --sony-youthpléigh 12:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual preference