Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project/Archive 1

message: ALERT! According to the Silly-o-meter, this page is currently at an overwhelming level of silliness! I recommend immediate action be taken! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the objective is to explain things to certain people with slightly larger letters that they can actually read. I have heard rumors to that effect. :-) Kim Bruning 09:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Good job to whoever created this. I'll file it away in my brain somewhere just in case I ever encounter a crufanatic. Johnleemk | Talk 18:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. So will I! Now please define "cruft" - Ta bu shi da yu 09:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After this puppy, I sincerely look forward to other insanely obvious guidelines and policies such as Wikipedia:The Pope Is Catholic or Wikipedia:One Plus One Equals Two. karmafist 19:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only a few months after this post was made, one of those red links became blue.  I don't have anything valid to say, but I'm ammused. i kan reed 06:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIKIPEDIA SILLY-O-METER ALERT 

message: ...even though it is fast turning into it. Nor is it a hot dog, Karmafist. -Splashtalk 18:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, maybe you should put some things up there that don't have the word "Not" in them, eh? I assumed that this was basically a way to insult policy violator users or Newbies, by putting actual policies into terms so simple, that their little minds could understand it. Hey, if I can't cut the red tape, I might as well tie it in a pretty little bow. karmafist 18:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia is not What Wikipedia is Not

message: I'm going to try and think where to merge the data for this, I think it's pretty obvious that it makes no sense to have an entire page to mocking peoples' ignorance of Wiki-policy, especially since it just says what Wikipedia is not. Sound familiar anyone? karmafist 18:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree.  I really was starting to believe that Wikipedia is a hot dog before this page set me straight.  Friday (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to put it back up there, if you'd like. It's very hard to discern this fact sometimes, what with all the mustard everywhere...karmafist 18:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Merge with what? And what will the result look like? I'm opposed on general principles until I know what the result will look like. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NOT(Since all it says is Wikipedia is "Not"...insert here), and WP:ABOUT (since this page is basically about Wikipedia. karmafist 17:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't answer my second, and more important, question: What will the results look like? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I would not like to see this merged.  That Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia is our most important principle, and one that is forgotten constantly in day-to-day editing.  It deserves its own page. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Alert

message: But in the meantime, we might as well have some fun with this. Let's just put anything making fun of this on here, from now on. karmafist 18:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Put Future BJAODNs Here

message: We can practically agree (well, except for User:Brian0918) that this is humor.  However, is this a policy or guideline?  Sometimes I see , other times  appears.  Which one is more correct? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy or guideline? 

message: Why do I think this page should be marked as both humor and policy?
*Policy because there's (or at least there should be) nothing here that isn't already official policy, and because this is a mission statement.
:Please point to the actual policy statement that says that anything that is a restatement of policy is also policy. Please point me to an endorsement by the Wikimedia Foundation that this is the official mission statement. Lastly, please point out a reference that says that any mission statement should be marked with the policy template? Stevage 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with humour. Stevage 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not official policy. Read the other items in the official policies category. This would be an embarrassment in the category and undermine the *actual* official policies. Stevage 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please note that I added the categories "Wikipedia basic information" and "Wikipedia proportion and emphasis", saying it restates policy; I did not add it to "WP policy" for this very reason. I'm fine with this being a little bit tongue-in-cheek. The point is, I want to be able to show this to misbehaving editors. It would be pointless to do this if the first thing on the page was a big smiley saying "we're just kidding you". dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  It would undermine the actual official policies? Excellent. Then we can fall back on mere guidelines. (such as consensus, and don't disrupt) :-) Kim Bruning 09:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: everybody seems to be forgetting that the page may be edited to fit its scope better. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" certainly qualifies as policy. Maybe not even policy but an axiom. (:Category:Wikipedia axioms, anyone?); there is no reason why policy should not be spelled out in allcaps for once. The "humour" thing can be adapted. "Wikipedia is not a Hot Dog" is gone (that triggered the "humour" categorization in the first place). I would like this page to be about what Wikipedia is, but right now, it emphasizes on WP:NOTs again after the first statement. dab (ᛏ) 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Why restate when you can use existing policies. In addition, this page is not simply restating official policies, it distorts them when it says "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION" (not to be found in an official policy to my knowledge?). If we go about "restating" bits and pieces of official policies right left and center, it will be more confusing for all, and it will be easier for people to make subtle distortions to low-traffic "policies" and then use those subtle distortions to justify their own causes. -- Paxomen 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In defense of being marked both policy and humor 

message: In my opinion, this page looks too much like What Wikipedia is not. Hence, here's my suggestion for new text for the yellow parts. ≈ Ekevu (♥ • ★) 15:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Important stuff", as written by Grue does suit it better. But that's besides the point: isn't dumbing down the basic stuff the current objective of the page anyway? Otherwise, it wouldn't be in big letters. ≈ Ekevu (♥ • ★) 15:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed text change 

message: Everything this page says is said better there. Clearer, more explicit, better argued, less ugly. Any objections to replacing this whole page with a redirect? Stevage 21:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would revert such a measure. This is supposed to be something of a joke (a Ha Ha Only Serious, if you know what that means), so of course it's ugly. As for explicit, what's more explicit than "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia"? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 22:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, there is a merger in the works on that page.  With the Five pillars.  Which this is an alternative to.  I also oppose this and suggest keeping this page in existence. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This page is a Good Thing as it is.  Let's not tinker with it for no reason, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest redirect to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words]]

message: Oh look! As a guideline, perhaps wikipedia could be an encyclopedia. But that is certainly not policy. Feel free to treat it as a sandpit, or perhaps as a flower garden ;-)
(Who? me? desillusioned and sarcastic? Whatever gave you that idea? ;-) ) 
Kim Bruning 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who said anything about metaphor? ;-) Perhaps we could get consensus that wikipedia is a, um um, elephant? You just know that this encyclopedia thing is never gonna fly as policy. What was jimbo thinking? :-P Kim Bruning 12:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fully on-board with the elephant proposal. I'm also fully on-board with some of the other suggestions a few sections up from here. But I'm glad we do all agree that WP:ISNOT an encyclopedia. I shall be mentioning that in a few AfDs later today. -Splashtalk 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell? "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is one of the core tenets of the project, and like NPOV, is one thing Jimbo has said is not negotiable. Nice try, but no cigar. Ambi 04:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for omitting to enclose my attempt at cigar obtainment within <irony></irony> tags. -Splashtalk 01:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Wikipedia is an Elephant because it has four pillars and a trunk. Also, it has a long memory, is slow-moving, is visible from a long distance, makes a lot of noise, tramples smaller creatures, and people want to kill it for the ivory. Radiant_>|< 15:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline 

message: The large fonts and lack of details on each point stated in this page is not helpful and seems to communicate a tone of anger and frustration which in my opinion is unencyclopedic. I suggest that we change this to a more dignified format.--CltFn 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would give us what, WP:NOT? Joking aside I see your point... but now it's tagged as humor (or an attempt at it).  Restating the basics of WP:NOT in a non-frustrated/sarcastic/whatever way would be useful though... I wonder how many new users (who would actually benefit from this page) ever see it though... it seems like it's mostly wikipedia veterans here. --W.marsh 23:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Calling it humor is a nice spin , but still when I first look at this page , I get the idea that someone is mad and frustrated at the editors and is yelling at them with a megaphone. But that is just me.--CltFn 00:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *You do have a point, but the reason is that some people apparently need being yelled at with a megaphone. For instance, we get policy proposals to censor Wikipedia on a regular basis. Radiant_>|< 12:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *that's the idea. This is the page you show people when they are in need of being shouted at. I.e. after about five tries of clenching your teeth and not biting. It says "WP is an encyclopedia" right on the Main page, anyone willing to read policy, or (gasp) encyclopedia does not need to be shown this page. Therefore, this page IS NOT INTENDED AS HUMOUR :oP  It is intended for shouting at people who deserve it. If you do not deserve being shouted at, you will not be offended by this page, since you know what it is saying, anyway. If we need a smiley at the top of the page, make it a rollseyes one. Warning: All these warning boxes are slowly taking over. Why does every page need to be headed  by boxes saying "This page", "This user", "This article", to the point of drowning out the page's actual content? I can see the need for some of these, but "This page uses Unicode", or "This page may be too complicated and advanced for you", and "This page is humour"?? Please. dab (ᛏ) 13:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that ever gets created (at ?), it will be speedily BJAODNed ASAP.  This is Just Too Strange™ to even be serious. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presentation of this page 

message: I've struck this.  While it's true that nothing is always fair, saying WP isn't always fair DOES NOT help promote NPOV.  NPOV is a kind of fairness, and the kind of fairness that IS ESSENTIAL to Wikipedia. Xoloz 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: depends on what you mean by "fair". If NPOV is fairness, "WP is fair" is certainly policy. If "fair" means, all Wikipedians are treated fairly at all times, "WP is fair" is certainly not policy. If fair as in "pretty" is intended, it depends on what css you are using :) dab (ᛏ) 15:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not always fair?

message: Even the whether or not something is policy boxes are NPOV. ;-) Kim Bruning 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On wikipedia, EVERYTHING is NPOV 

message: To me, this quote looks hideous in black. I think it's easily readable in blue, and it looks much better and more integrated. Comments? TheJabberwock 06:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mayhaps a better solution would be to put something below it, so that it's not just sitting there. Maybe something like the old "This page is intended as humor" box? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just bold-ized the text, and now believe that it is rather legible. It might be improved by darkening a bit... any lighter would be very difficult for us color-blind people to read. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Thanks Matt. TheJabberwock 04:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, any excuse to be bold.  Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Thank you for your time" 

message: How about "Wikipedia is not free advertising space"?  This is a problem I've seen several times. --Icarus 08:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly added. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 18:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition 

message: This isn't 100% related to this page (more like 75% or so?), but this is likely the best place for this.  So, I'm wondering here: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is, with capital I in is, redirects here.  Yet Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is, with a lowercase i, goes to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not instead.  Should one of these redirects be pointed to where the other one goes?  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the newest creation (jan 2006), the capitalised variant should follow (or better, be merged into?) the older one. However it's not a very accurate title/link either way, as both options essentially point to "What WP Is Not" type lists. Needs to be completely rethought, i think. -Quiddity 19:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've pointed them both to the same place (here). Still needs rethinking, but neither of them have many incoming links, so no urgency. --Quiddity·(talk) 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is]] 

message: Is this page getting more heat than usual? I'm wondering if this is due to its inclusion in . Should it be taken out of that template? If so, what should replace it, or should we leave it at 4 overviews in the template? Thanks. --Quiddity 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now that User:Kappa already has removed it from that template. Hmmm. Thoughts? --Quiddity 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is getting more heat then usual, but I consider that a good thing: The wording of certain parts always needed a touch of polish. As long as people aren't trying to change the fundimentals of the page (which, to me, consists of "WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA", the definition, and a few supporting points (particularly one about Notability)), I don't see anything wrong with the editing heating up a bit. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia principles 

message: I have a couple of problems with these statements. If wikipedia was not censored then people would not go around deleting the material of others. That in and of itself is censorship of material. Also, if this is not a democracy then why are there democratic voting processes for some parts of the site? If it is not a democracy then why can people come here and post articles and then if they feel they have been wronged by the actions of an admin take those complaints before others to have a course of action voted upon and decided upon by the majority? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saatana (talk • contribs) 12:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is based on consensus, not on votes. Voting is usually discouraged, as well (see Wikipedia:Voting is evil, for example). Censorship is with regards to potentially offensive material that may be rated PG or such in terms of social acceptability, which means that if article material is verifiable, notable, and relevant, then it should be included in an article. An example of Wikipedia not being censored would be the graphic images in articles relating to human sexual organs and such. Cowman109Talk 00:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Saatana]] 

message: Wikipedia is a reference work not an encyclopedia. It has elements of an almanac: It covers current events in timelines, it contains lists of things. It has elements of a gazetteer: every population center has an entry. It doesn't resemble Britannica at all, it has evolved into an encyclopedic reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia vs Reference Work 

message: Comments like "thank you for your time" and "we're not in your fact most of this time" on this page seem somewhat childish to me. I can understand the "don't take offense", but come on: let's act like a professional site here and tweak this. — Deckiller 12:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is unprofessional 

message: Who ever sorted the entries to display like an hour glass, well done. I like the attention to detail. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 01:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hour-glass display 

message: Does anyone object if I add <noinclude> tags here so this can be safely transcluded? I'd like to use this at the top of my userpage. :-) - ∅ (∅), 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just put  on your user page (sans nowikis), and edit your userpage to suit your needs. No need to put <noinclude> here. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, other editors might want to do the same. And if I subst it I'll have to update it manually when this page changes, and I'm a lazy old skunk. ;-) I don't see how adding noincludes could harm anyone. :-) - ∅ (∅), 02:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I don't see any good reason to include WP:ENC on a User page. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 02:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  &lt;noinclude&gt;