Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May - July 2007) Topic: "Unencyclopedic" (2003) Topic: Trivia (July 2007 - ongoing; partially archived)

Commenting on list examples (arbitrary break)

(commenting on the examples) Here's how I'd assess each:

• List of people born at sea - The general subject of being born at sea has some historical importance; a quick Google Books turns up 770 references to it. Looking at several of the individuals on the list turns up the interesting phenomenon that many of them were born to immigrant parents (in the act of immigration). In the long term, the list should explain why being born at sea is some kind of notable phenomenon. I won't presume that it isn't, and won't delete it on the basis of that presumption. There is no deadline.
• List of people from Danzig - There's an ongoing debate on Wikipedia on when something should be handled by a category and when by a list. Wikipedia's implementation of categories is still very rudimentary -- there's no way to browse entries from all the subcategories of a parent category, there's no way to provide any contextual information along with the link to the article, and few if any options for sorting and searching. You can't even choose to view more than 200 entries at a time. So even though there is a Category:People from Gdańsk, it's a worse navigation tool at this time than a list can be. Same for List of Mountain Men. The existence of a category doesn't invalidate having a list crafted by a human editor, and vice-versa.
• List of maritime explorers - That's a list that needs sorting, expanding, prettifying. To accomplish that, you need to do the work, not write some legislation somewhere. And if you do mandate that people write better lists, how will you enforce it? By deleting lists that need fixing? Wrong approach. List of explorers is a good example of what the maritime list could look like.
  The edits you made to list of maritime explorers didn't fix it up at all; it's now five sections worth of self references, WP:BEANS ("the use of force is not considered a reason for exclusion"), unsourced assertions ("A maritime explorer is the noted leader of the expedition"), followed by a list that still needs someone to wade in and improve the thing.

(Oh, wait, you did start sorting the list as well -- that's a definite improvement.)--Father Goose (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Category:Playboy Lists - These are each completely appropriate for something that would appear in, say, an Encyclopedia of Playboy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of Playboy. And an encyclopedia of physics. And of the state of Alabama. And steam railroads. And video games. And that's a good thing. If the Playboy articles bother you so much, you don't have to read them. And let's face it, nobody reads Playboy for the articles.
• List of children of clergy - The opening sentence does provide a reasonable declaration of scope, but the individual entries could do more to explain how the connection influenced the lives of the listed individuals. There's work to be done on that list. Legislation is not some magic bullet. People have to roll up their sleeves and do that work.--Father Goose (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well, I can only repeat that I did not initially advocate deletion as a solution. The entries I made in the list of maritime explorers are not self-referenced. Since individuals and not expeditions are name in the list, by definition the individuals are the leaders of the expeditions, which is their source of notability. I would agree that list can be improved in the same way other articles are, but how? There are no guidelines for improving lists!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣♥♦ 03:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LIST or WP:MOSLIST. As I've said before, you might get a better response if you were proposing these changes for those list-specific guidelines, not for WP:NOT. You are probably getting a lot of "deletion is not the answer" responses here because NOT's purpose is to specify types of content that should always be deleted, regardless of how it is formatted.--Father Goose (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for comments. I will take the proposal to those two and see what reaction I get. I would rather see the articles evolved into something more reference-like then left as is or deleted.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣♥♦ 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Use them as a Table of Contents

Why not just change the title. Instead of "List," call it "Wikipedia References"? And don't allow Red Links, which by their very nature are Not Notable. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is only one specialized type of list. Take a look at Wikipedia's featured lists and see how few of them fit that role. Further, redlinks are not "by their nature" non-notable; see WP:REDLINK.--Father Goose (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

FORUM-only accounts?

I don't want to name names, but I have occasionally come upon user accounts that could rightly be called "forum-only" in that the only edits they make are forum-style comments on Talk pages. A warning and pointer to WP:FORUM occasionally crops up, but nothing is really done. This is not the kind of thing people get blocked for. But it kinda annoys the crap out of me ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Or write whole articles of OR on their talk pages, possibly as a place to store and then publicise them.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Length of a plot summary

Is there a Wikipedia policy on how long a plot summary should be? Recently I had a discussion about the length of the plot summary in Blood Meridian, see Talk:Blood_Meridian#Length_of_the_plot. I maintained that the rules for the length of a plot summary are the same as those for any other section; and Cuchullain maintained instead that plot summaries must be very short. Strangely we both claimed that WP:PLOT supported our position. Can somebody clarify this point? And could the policy be amended to make it clear? Eubulide (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at that, I think the plot section is clearly too long. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. So Cuchullain is largely correct. The plot should only be as long as required to provide a reader with the necessary context for the real-world significance that should be the focus of the article. Currently, the plot description exceeds that purpose. Eusebeus (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no bright-line rule. For films, you're looking at 10 words per minute, for TV, the rule is around 500 for up to 45 minutes, and 10 for each minute after. For books, 20-25 words a chapter should suffice, I think. Will ^(talk) 15:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As average Wikipedia articles go, the ratio of commentary to plot in Blood Meridian is pretty high, actually. My feeling is that anything beyond a very general description of plot (one or two paragraphs) should be accompanied by commentary specifically relating to the additional details provided. That's clearly not the approach we're taking now, but I do hope we adopt something like it eventually.--Father Goose (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Blood Meridian looks about two paragraphs too long to me. — Deckiller 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

suggested wording tweak change brief to concise There can be reasonable argument about how brief a summary should be, but I think everyone would agree that it ought to be "concise". As a policy page, this should not be over-specific. I'm trying to find a minimal change that would be generally acceptable and would meet at least some of the problems raised.DGG (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. "Brief" is one of those words with many different interpretations (just ask a lawyer), but concise covers the point. 23skidoo (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be bold and make the change. — Deckiller 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Good Heavens! I actually agree with DGG. There must be a rift in the time space continuum. Eusebeus (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection, these are loafers

"A concise plot summary may be appropriate as part of a larger topic."

What exactly does that mean? Surely we could phrase that better.--Father Goose (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• A concise plot summary is appropriate in coverage of a work of fiction and elements within that work.? --MASEM 23:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely. I think the section needs a complete rewrite; it just reads funny IMO. Ideally, I'd like it to read something like "In articles on works of fiction, a plot summary should be concise and balanced with real-world details, such as the work's development and impact. This applies to both stand-alone works and series." — Deckiller 23:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Masem's shorter wording. Once you get into details it becomes more for the guidelines. His wording, in particular, allows for the existence of subarticles which contain the plot primarily. I'll vote for his over mine, as I usually do. I think its certainly an improvement over the present. Policies should be concise. :).DGG (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my version would be the entire rewritten bullet. Masem's wording just covers that sentence. — Deckiller 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is appropriate to provide a concise plot summary as part of the larger coverage of fictional works.

Thank you everybody for your clarifications. However, I find the formulation still unclear: saying that an article should be "not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot" doesn't exclude that it could be a detailed summary with lots of real world content as well (the adverb "solely" allows a weak interpretation of the statement. Similarly, "may" in the next sentence doesn't enforce that the summary must be concise. Apart from that, how does one judge when something is concise? Setting a fixed chapter/words limit seems too procrustean: different books have chapters of different size and some don't have chapters at all. We should stress that the summary must also give a good outline of the plot: there may be articles with long summaries, because they contain irrelevant details, but still missing some key plot elements. I think this is the case with Blood Meridian and this is my main issue with that article: some parts of the summary give minimal details while others, chiefly about the last part of the book, completely skip entire chapters. Shouldn't we stress the quality of the summary rather than simply its shortness? And if it is deemed too long, shouldn't a more selective policy be in place, rather than deleting any new addition because the article is already too long? Eubulide (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, you are missing the point. The main focus of Wikipedia's content should be on the real-world impact and significance of the work in question and that applies to Hamlet, Don Quixote or For Whom the Bell Tolls as much as more obscure works. That a single narrow formulation cannot cover all potentialities is obvious. But general language advising concision is clear enough. The real place for this in specific application then is at the talk page of the work or works in question where a consensus can be derived that satisfies the best practices advised by the guideline. Per our standards, the Blood Meridian plot outline is currently too long and detracts from the encyclopedic nature of the article. Eusebeus (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to call your attention to the fact that there are featured articles with plot summaries longer than the one in Blood Meridian. Especially articles about video games tend to have detailed descriptions of the storyline. Take for example Final Fantasy VIII. It has a plot summary that is longer than Blood Meridian (and it is made even longer by using the References section to quote verbatim several dialog fragments. Am I wrong in saying that either both Blood Meridian and Final Fantasy VIII violate policy or they both respect it? Eubulide (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Deal. You asked a question and every editor who has weighed in on the question has suggested the plot summary of Blood Meridian is too long. It seems like rather than accept this response, you are fishing around until you get an answer that is more amenable to your personal preference, which is unlikely to happen. I don't think continuing the discussion here is fruitful. It needs to be worked out on the article talk page. If it helps, I'll weigh in there in favour of reducing the plot summary based on your query here. Eusebeus (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about articles for deletion. We are not talking about that here. And my "what about article x" argument cited an FA, not a just created article: so I am justified in assuming that it respects policy. OK, my query about Blood Meridian has been answered clearly. Now I am asking a new question: is the plot summary of Final Fantasy VIII too long? The discussion above clearly suggest yes. Eubulide (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Final Fantasy VIII is a 40+ hour RPG with over a dozen hours of cutscenes and hundreds of thousands of words of dialogue, as well as a complex story involving time travel and whatnot; it has a 800-word plot summary as a result. I wrote most of the FF8 plot summary as an example of an appropriate plot summary. It's a case by case basis, hence my wording above. — Deckiller 04:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I wasn't criticizing FF8, on the contrary, I was citing it as an example of a good article with a long plot summary. By the way, I find your formulation of the policy clearer than the present one, it should be adopted. I accept the fact that these things have to be decided case by case and that the policy can give only a vague indication, so I will not bother you anymore with my questions. Eubulide (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'd suggest that the proposed It is appropriate to provide a concise plot summary as part of the larger coverage of fictional works. is a solid replacement. Does anyone object? Hobit (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, obviously ;) Eusebeus (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, okay. Sorry if I came across as hostile; I wrote a couple responses here after a 12-hour Sunday work shift. 150+ dollars is nice, but not when you have to blow it the next day on a new brake system :) — Deckiller 17:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd gladly accept that wording of Hobit's also. DGG (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about concert tour pages

I noticed that Wikipedia does not have any pages for past concert tour information. It seems that a page like this wouldn't break any of the guidelines, if it included an explanation of the tour, events that occurred on tour, a list of tour stops, setlists, additional touring band members, etc. Can anyone think of a reason why a page like this would go against the wikipedia guidelines?Brain seltzer (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What you describe sounds like directory information to me. Depending on the tone and timing, it could also come across as advertising rather than proper encyclopedic content.
Since you're not talking about the music or the artist but are talking about the narrow economic activity of delivering the product to a particular audience, I think any article about the tour would best be governed by WP:CORP. The kinds of detail you describe would definitely not meet those guidelines. Only the most exceptional tour would normally survive as a stand-alone article. The rest should be discussed in the article about the artist who is touring. Rossami (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep it short

I agree with Rosami's latest edit. What do you read, my lord? Words, words, words. In gratitude to the wisdom of William Shakespeare, your friend and fellow editor, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding [1], Rossami, I think my edit did explain why these policies are there. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As I tried to say in the edit summary (and probably did not say well enough), I don't disagree with anything that you added. The content is all true. But I also didn't think that it added any explanation or meaning to the page that wasn't already there. This page is already longer than ideal. When we get too wordy, our new editors simply stop reading the page. Not only do they fail to get the benefit of the subtle nuances of the discussion, they miss out on the core content that is central to the page. We need to keep this and all our policy pages as short and concise as possible. Instruction creep is a real and continuing problem for us.
If you really think that your changes were a material improvement to the page and would help reader understanding more than the added bulk would inhibit them, please explain it here so the rest of us can also understand. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments: removing information for medical reasons

(this is a discussion started at Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles#Request for comments, but moved here for lack of replies)

I am wondering if some editors who are interested in the topic of WP:NOTCENSORED could comment on a discussion which has happenend several times already, without apparent consensus. I don't think this has been mentioned here before, sorry if I missed it.

Suppose that a medical procedure requires that a patient does not know some particular detail (in this case, an image) for the procedure to work. Should we take steps to hide the image on Wikipedia (or remove the information altogether), so as not to spoil the procedure for a patient who may see this information without wanting to know about it ?

If you want the details of the discussion, they are on this talk page. Policy and guidelines have been cited countless times in the discussion, so I thought posting here could potentially bring either some new contributors to the discussion, or some clarifications to the guidelines, helping to solve the problem in one way or another. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What header would that be under on this talk page.? Puzzled, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would be tempted to say "the whole page", since this is a discussion that has dragged for a long time and involved many headings, but this section is the one that seems most involved with discussion on policy. This one may also be of interest; both sections are quite long though. Schutz (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC

None of those links helped. So many words. There seems to be a "hidden image" somewhere, perhaps an ink blot on a page dealing with the Rorschach test, but how can an image be "hidden"? What's the gist of the argument? Why can't we have a link to this "hidden image"? Sorry I can't help; maybe somebody else wants to take it on. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Having read through most of the discussion dealing with this one particular example, I think it would actually be a very bad idea to try to make a policy decision just because of this one case. As several lawyers have told me at different times, cases at the margins invariably make bad precedent. Laws passed because of a single incident, no matter how notorious, are almost always bad laws (though we pass a lot of them because it's so easy to play to the notoriety of the one case). I think you have a very similar situation here.
There are too many issues which are very specific to this one inkblot example to try to make a general rule about all spoilers. Only once there are several different cases all attempting to address the same issue will the community have a decent chance of identifying the core issue(s) and finding the right long-term policy answer. In the meantime, I think this is a good forum to advertise the Talk page discussion and to gain more comments and opinions which can focus on the very specific issues of the one case. Rossami (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot

In response to Pixelface's removal of the plot section with edit summary "this contradicts WP:PSTS": Allowing primary sources doesn't contradict disallowance of certain material from them or with specifying some rules for how they should be presented. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:07, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my thought when I reverted. There's no logical connection between allowing primary sources (now and then), and permitting articles to be wholly plot summaries with no real-world context! Moreschi (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources like books and films are acceptable sources per WP:PSTS. Articles sourced from those works often will be nothing but a detailed summary of that work's plot early after the article is created — and even much later after the article is created. However, such articles do not make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. Any recommendations on what else the article needs can be explained in WP:WAF. Articles like Pierre Bezukhov are not against Wikipedia policy. --Pixelface (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, it's been held that large plot summaries are derivative works. We have short, if not no plot summary at all, to comply with fair use restrictions (talking about it scholarly, e.g. Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (which is B-class), and continues to talk about how that episode was made and what people thought about it.) Will ^(talk) 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC), modified 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAIR says "Copyright law only governs creative expressions that are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," not the ideas or information behind the works. It is legal to reformulate ideas based on written texts, or create images or recordings inspired by others, as long as there is no copying (see plagiarism for how much reformulation is necessary)." And WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't mention derivative works at all so I doubt that's why it's included under WP:NOT#INFO. --Pixelface (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And last month Father Goose contacted Mike Godwin who said "plot summaries, in general, are not taken to be copyright infringement so long as they do not include any great degree of the original creative expression."[2] --Pixelface (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So the issue can't be argued on a legal basis (at least, at this time). Nonetheless, giving a lengthy plot summary without any form of additional commentary doesn't make for a particularly good encyclopedia article.--Father Goose (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I think there's a difference between an article that's not good and an article that violates policy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A bad article is (or at least, ought to be) against some policy or another. The whole point of our policy is to help us write better encyclopedia articles. Like an article that is mere plot summary, a page that is nothing more than a mere dictionary definition is also an example of "an article that's not good" but might be repairable and a policy violation. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Being a policy violation just means we have to fix it. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has over 2.2 million articles and many of them are bad. An article being bad isn't against policy, because Wikipedia is not finished. Being a policy violation is more often than not used as an excuse for deletion. Bad articles just need to be cleaned up. How do articles like Pierre Bezukhov, that are simply plot summaries, make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information? --Pixelface (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fair; Pixelface raises a valid question as to whether or not WP:PLOT belongs in WP:NOT or if it should be a subsection of WP:WAF. This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy. I wouldn't be surprised if WAF didn't exist back when WP:PLOT was added to this page, so maybe it's time to rethink where we should be offering this guidance.

Alternatively, I would welcome a guideline dealing with issues of plot only. Our approach to (excessively long) plot summaries in general is in bad need of reevaluation, and WP:PLOT isn't doing the trick.--Father Goose (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As for plots, all we ever needed was common sense in doing good ones, but we got caught between those who didnt like them at all, and those who couldnt think of anything to do but write down everything they saw. (The Pierre B. article even as it is is a little more than plot & much less than a full plot summary of a very complicated novel--it needs major enlargement using the immense critical literature). More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there. Even more generally, I think that page needs to be split up between the things describing content , and the ones describing nature of WP, and the details moved elsewhere. It's absurd to have ourt most used policies expressed in a negative way. DGG (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT is the result of community consensus. It is not here because of copyright reasons or sourcing reasons (which may or may not play a part, depending on the situation), but because that's what was decided. If anyone wants to remove or change the section then they need to show a change in consensus. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Decided among a handful of people on this talk page or in article space? If it said Wikipedia is not a plot database, I could maybe see how WP:PLOT belongs in WP:NOT — but that would pretty much mean the removal of all plot material. Plot summary-only articles don't make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:PLOT simply doesn't belong in WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely the point is the word "summary" in the heading. It should give the rough gist of the narrative, not more than that. Also editors who can think of nothing to contribute other than Plot should think carefully before contributing. This is an "Encyclopedia" for goodness sake. Real world material should predominate. Having said that I do agree with "summaries" being included, but in balance with the rest of the article. The WP:PSTS issue should mean that the summarization is just that, summary: no comment, no analysis, no review, nothing negative, nothing positive - just précis. Anything else can go in other sourced sections.  :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors who contribute plot summary information make valid contributions. Articles are usually not written by one person alone. How can you turn "real world material should predominate" into something that Wikipedia is not? Wikipedia is not a recap service? --Pixelface (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content. There are works that fully justify a chapter-by-chapter synopsis and there are works that can be covered in a short paragraph. But having it under WP:NOT gives editors license to violate WP:NPOV and make their own judgement call as to what is appropriate. MoS would be able to be a bit more specific. 23skidoo (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the (many) reasons for this guidance is that it is difficult to do an in-depth plot summary without it becoming analysis or synthetic—ascribing reasons to character actions or author decisions, for example, that are not "patently obvious" from the original text; this would then be OR unless it's sourced, in which case you should be talking about the coverage, not just referencing it (more or less). Detailed plot summaries are a minefield so caution against them is a very good idea. It doesn't belong in MoS because it isn't a matter of style&mdashit's a matter of content. SamBC(talk) 13:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced analysis and synthesis is already covered by WP:NOT#OR. --Pixelface (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are four aspects of what WP:PLOT states presently:

• An article that is solely a plot summary (of whatever length) is not appropriate for WP
• An article that is a plot summary (of a certain length) with real-world aspects is appropriate for WP
• The "certain length" of the plot summary in case two is defined elsewhere.
• "Real world aspects" include several possible sources.

The first two points fit with the rest of WP:NOT - they describe what is and is not appropriate for a page's content with WP. The third and fourth point is a MOS (WP:WAF) issue and should not be spelled out in NOT in depth, just like we don't spell out what reliable sources are in Verifiability policy, though giving a hint of what both proper length and appropriate real-world aspects helps to "preview" the underlying MOS for this. I think implying that more details can be found in the MOS on length and real-world aspects is fine, but the language pertaining to the first two statements needs to remain given that it reflects consensus and matches with other statement on WP:NOT.

To the case in point, in that does PLOT contradict WP:PSTS, again, breaking it apart like this shows that there's still no contradiction. Primary and some secondary sources can be used to source a plot summary, but even if secondary sources are used, if it still remains just a plot summary, it's not acceptable. Real-world content is going to come from secondary, and at times, primary sources. There's no apparent conflict in these. --MASEM 13:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP. The first two points raised by Masem say that: An article should not consist exclusively of information of type A, but should have also information of type B. Why is there a restrictive policy only when A is plot details? For example, articles about planets should not consists solely of physical characteristics, like mass or distance from the sun, but should also have information about human discovery and exploration. An article about an historical figure should not consist uniquely of a chronology of her life, but give also a description of her work and its influence. Nevertheless nobody ever deleted the mass of a planet or the date of birth of an historical figure on the ground that there were not enough information of a different kind. This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest. Eubulide (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the treatment of plot information in this way, it's simply the case that the community has reached a consensus that this is the case. Consensus can change, but a small number of people raising an objection does not mean that it has.

Regarding the "fix it rather than delete it" concern, that is a general point on wikipedia; it's always better to fix something rather than delete it, and this page does not suggest that any offending material should be deleted. All it says is that articles (or sections thereof) that have certain characteristics shouldn't be on wikipedia; this can be rememedied equally be removing the article, or by adding and/or removing material from the article, depending on the precise case. This page does not give an preference to any of those methods, as far as I can see. SamBC(talk) 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT is not being treated any differently than WP:NOT#DICT, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:NOT#STATS or WP:NOT#NEWS. All of those clauses say that An article should not consist exclusively of information of type A, but should have also information of type B. Topics make the list here not because they are unique circumstances but because they are demonstrated problems - areas where lots of new users have confusion and need clarification. Nothing on this page has ever said that pages which violate WP:NOT must be deleted rather than fixed. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT is often referred to in AFD nominations (because it's mentioned at WP:DEL#REASON) and WP:PLOT's inclusion in WP:NOT turns a cleanup issue into an inclusion issue. People don't say, "Hey this how-to guide would be really great if it contained some sourced analysis." No, how-to guides are something Wikipedia articles are not. People don't say, "Hey, this personal resume would be great if it contained some sourced analysis." No, resumes are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Many articles contain plot summaries, many featured articles contain plot summaries, and many stubs contain plot summaries. A stub with just a plot summary is not against policy because Wikipedia is not paper. When new users write plot summaries they need to make sure not to insert their own personal interpretations, but that's already covered by WP:NOT#OR. --Pixelface (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

An article like Cosette (which is just a plot summary) is not against policy. Articles such as those don't turn Wikipedia into an "indiscriminate collection of information." The book Les Miserables is an acceptable source to use when writing an article about the character Cosette. Any additional info the article may need is an issue for WP:WAF, not WP:NOT. The article needs cleanup tags, not deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT doesn't say that it should be deleted. SamBC(talk) 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet WP:PLOT is frequently cited in AFD nominations. --Pixelface (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The mere presence of a statement at WP:NOT seems to enable it to be used as a deletion criterion. While I would be inclined to delete an article that is solely a plot summary, I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So is WP:WINAD. Neither policy section requires deletion unless there is consensus that the page can't be fixed or that the fix would require such a complete rewrite that the discussion participants feel that none of the current contents would be useful. (Note that lack of repair after a substantial period of time is often considered de facto evidence that the page can't/won't be fixed but that's a case-by-case decision made by the discussion participants. I'm still not convinced that WP:PLOT is being used any more adversely than any of the other clauses on this page. Rossami (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We should remove the plot section of what Wikipedia is not. A brief plot summary is perfectly in line with encyclopedic standards as passed down through the centuries. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is arguing against the inclusion of a plot summary in part of a larger article discussing other parts of the work. The issue is that plot only articles do not convey the importance or notability of the work to anyone unfamilar with the work to begin with. --MASEM 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's really a big deal or problem if we have sub-articles that provide plot elements. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go a step further, and claim it would be a good thing. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As has been the consensus for a long time WP:NOT#PLOT absolutely needs to stay here. We have a horrendously bad proportion of articles that are nothing but plot summaries and one of our most important content policies needs this further bit of explanation that coordinates with WP:WAF. WP:NOT#PLOT is the perfect example of what "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" means and that is why it is here and needs to stay here. - Taxman ^Talk 12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How do plot-only stubs make Wikipedia an "indiscriminate collection of information?" --Pixelface (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I'll chime in by saying I don't think issues of plot summary should be here. Further, I think per WP:PAPER this is something we should have here. Fiction is an important part of our society, and to cut plot out of wikipedia is foolish IMO. Hobit (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I reverted the revert of the revert by Masem. Not sure if that was the right thing to do, but I think at the least WP:PLOT lacks consensus and shouldn't be here.... I plan on not touching it again for quite a while (no revision war here). Hobit (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia not (in principle) be censored if it has to comply with the law of the U.S. state of Florida?

Count Iblis (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe we have a winner in "largest number of words without indicating what the heck you're talking about" award in the "section head" category. -

• The plainest answer is to think of this in terms of the usual meaning of "censorship". Censorship generally refers to some central authority pre-inspecting speech/writing before it can be published/aired/sent. An example would be a military censor going through all of a soldier's mail before it can be sent home, lest it contain any government secrets. Another example would be reviewing the script of a TV show to screen out profanity not allowed on broadcast television. Wikipedia does not have that sort of centralized control. Therefore, readers are on notice that they may find things here that have not be censored.

This does not mean, however, that Wikipedia can do/print whatever it wants. Wikipedia must abide by applicable laws in Florida and other applicable jurisdictions (possibly California now that there are employees in that state? certainly US federal law, and their are mirrors elsewhere as well).

Nor does it even mean that Wikipedia should do everything it legally might do. There are other valid editorial concerns besides simple what the law allows us to do. 06:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

File Storage ←→ File System

In "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site" (short and precise, right?) "File Storage" links to "File System". I think that is not a good idea: the term here refers to "storage" as in "hosting", not as in... File System. Therefore, remove it. --89.61.67.70 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Meant "remove the link". --89.61.67.70 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)