Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

 Sections of this policy are currently under dispute: Crystal Ball, Wikipedia is not instructive

Archives

• Archive 1
• Unencyclopedic (formerly at wikipedia:encyclopedic)
• Archive 2
• Archive 3 (September 2004 to July 2005)
• Archive 4 (Aug 2005 to tbd)

Crystal Ball

I reverted a June change to the section that was not discussed here. Minor tweaks may have been lost in the revert. Superm401 | Talk 20:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I added the paragraph below to the article before I noticed this section.

The above prohibitions are not intended to suppress discussion of current trends and tendencies and how they may affect future events. In particular the Wikipedia allows discussion about the arguments for and against whether developments and proposals will be successful provided that they are well grounded and sourced.

--Carl Hewitt 14:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Carl, as the box at the top of the page says, you must have consensus before making significant changes to a policy page. It is not enough to remove them when controversy arises. You have to have general agreement beforehand. Please leave this talk page section around for at least five or six days to see what people have to say. If there is general agreement or still no responses after that time, then it is more reasonable to add a paragraph. Those general statements apply for any change, and are not my take (except for the specific recommended times) but Wikipedia policy. Therefore, because policy requires consensus, I have removed the addition. My personal opinion on this specific change is below. Superm401 | Talk 23:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I would rather it be rephrased as, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the success and future developments of proposals and protects, provided that discussion is properly cited. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis, because of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research." What do you think about that? Superm401 | Talk 23:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that the above be ammended as follows:

"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success or failure of future developments, proposals and projects, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis, because of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research."

Also I suggest that the top of the page be ammended to state that suggested changes must remain on the talk page for a specified time before editing the policy page. Otherwise it is just your say so that my suggestion must remain on the talk page for five or six days before editing the policy page.--Carl Hewitt 23:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Carl, I like your version--I can't think of any improvements, and if nobody else chimes in during the next few days, I think it's close enough to Superm401's version that it could be added to the page as having consensus. It certainly reflects current practice fairly well, I think. As far as the 5-6 day limit, I think Super's comments (if you re-read them) simply suggest 5-6 days as a reasonable standard--he says "please" after all, not "you must". Perhaps a note should be added to this page. The rationale for his comment, which I hope you can understand, is that this policy page is often used in settling disputes. The most minor changes to the document may seriously influence people, since they come here and read the document, and assume what they read is policy. As a result, it's just standard wikipractice that, any time you want to edit or alter a page that is officially policy, the proposal goes to the talk page until you can get a few folks agreeing to it, and nobody disagreeing (in other words, consensus). Maybe that should be made more clear here. Honestly, it's a good habit to get into for editing any established page--usually, if I want to make a significant change to an article that is very stable (say a featured article), I do the same thing...posting the change to the talk page and inviting comment. It can be frustratingly slow, but it ensures that consensus prevails, and it avoids edit wars and hurt feelings pretty effectively. Thanks for the suggestion here--I really think you and Super have refined your idea into a solid addition to the page. Jwrosenzweig 00:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.--Carl Hewitt 20:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with you're proposed changes, Carl. However, on second thought(I should have said this before; sorry), doesn't it sound a bit awkward to speak of a development succeeding? I normally would say "something devloped", or "a development occured", but not "a devlopment succeeded". Does anyone understand what I'm saying? It's a minor detail, but I'd like to work out a better phrasing. Can someone suggest a fix? Superm401 | Talk 01:25, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of the following ammendment:

"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis, because of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research."

--Carl Hewitt 02:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Great. Superm401 | Talk 03:00, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

An addition like the following has been proposed by Dpbsmith at the end of this article:

It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis, because of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research. Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising."

--Carl Hewitt 01:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. Sorry to have jumped in independently. You seem to be coordinating this, so... The most important thing to me is to have a special mention of a category of articles which present special problems, which you've done above. Can you think of some concise wording that expresses two of my concerns: first, all statements about the future are necessarily opinions and need to be handled as such (hence subject to NPOV, citing sources, etc.); second, forward-looking articles about unreleased products have a special danger, in that promoters have an obvious interest in publicizing such information; therefore much of the information publicly available about such products is likely to have originated from promoters and to reflect the promoters' POV. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Coordinating is probably too strong ;-) I share your concerns about categories of contributions that present special problems. However, there is only so much that the Wikipedia can do in policy statements. Fans and promoters is not banned from contributing to the Wikipedia. However they have to cite public sources. Also detractors and critics can chime in with other points of view.--Carl Hewitt 17:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have no problem with your wording above—"It is appropriate... no advertising"— and would rather have it in the article than not. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If you mean the most recent version proposed in this talk section, with the advertising sentence at the end, I'm fine with it as well. We should leave it up here for a while before putting it in the main article to give others a chance to look. Superm401 | Talk 03:46, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm now adding it in. Superm401 | Talk 07:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Crystal ball"

• Information on unreleased products, software, games, or movies may be appropriate when the plans for the product are so notable that they are affecting many people in the present. However, promised characteristics or planned features should never be reported as if they were facts. For example, in 2004 it would have been inappropriate to state that "WinFS is the new storage system in Longhorn" or that "Wind turbines will provide 20% of the Freedom Tower's energy needs," despite official statements to that effect. Nor is it enough to quality such statements with words like "claimed" or "planned" or "expected." Instead, descriptions should be provided only when they can be backed up by citations from independent sources who have had an opportunity to examine the work in progress and can report accurately on what has or has not actually been achieved.

Thoughts? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't like it. It's valid to report the claim of what will be done. However, you can also include other sources' opinions that it will not be done. The kind of independent verification you specify is very difficult in practice. Superm401 | Talk 00:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

• • • OK, how about:

Information on unreleased products, software, games, or movies may be appropriate when the plans for the product are so notable that they are affecting many people in the present. However promised characteristics or planned features should never be presented as if they were simple facts. For example, in 2004 it would have been inappropriate to write that "WinFS is the new storage system in Longhorn" or that "Wind turbines will provide 20% of the Freedom Tower's energy needs," despite official statements to that effect. It is necessary, but not sufficient to qualify such statements with words like "claimed" or "promised" or "expected." A positive effort must be made to insure that the presentation is neutral and not promotional.

I like it. Now, what you have at the end is basically a summary of the WP:NPOV policy. Superm401 | Talk 14:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In it goes. I expect putting it in will generate some more discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've taken it back out. The second proposed version was only on the talk page for one day. Give it about a week. Then, you can put it in and no one will have any grounds to complain. Superm401 | Talk 18:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

OK. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is going too far and is unnecessary. The difference between "The tower's designers say that 20% of the Freedom Tower will be powered by wind turbines" and "Wind turbines will provide 20% of the Freedom Tower's energy needs" is not sufficiently important for this page. By all means offer such detailed advice on a particular page advising how to talk about expected future events, but on this a policy rather than advisory page it is a unnecessary addition to an already too long page. Pcb21| Pete 21:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Surely anything which is affecting many people right now is worthy of inclusion? How does that help to distinguish more difficult cases where some people might be affected now, or many people might be affected in the future? Or many people might be interested in something which has a better than 50/50 chance of happening, but unless it does no one will be affected? What about possible earthquakes in major cities? Very uncertain when they will happen. Certainly not on schedule. Might be considered important nonethelessSandpiper 02:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No Instruction / merge?

While generally I agree that Wikipedia articles should not be HowTo's, I do not agree that the instructional parts of Condom and Wart are inappropriate. Condoms serve a very specific purpose which requires specific usage. The only problem with Wart is that the article "recommends" a procedure instead of merely informing of its existence as a home remedy. ¦ Reisio 08:15, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Disagree with merge and with the object itself. — Xiong熊talk* 07:24, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

The 'no instructions' policy should be ratified as official policy before any merger takes place. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:49, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree with making this change at this time. Weakly disagree with "no instructions" policy itself. The section heading, "Wikipedia is not instructive," seems to me to be almost an argument against the policy in itself. Let's try putting Wikipedia:How-to and How-to up for deletion first, citing the no-instructions semi-policy, and see what happens. It is very inappropriate for one policy page to prohibit something which another (and very long-standing) policy page encourages. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• I oppose the merge, on the grounds that some how-to content can sometimes be very useful even necessary for a complete discussion of a subject or procedure, beyond what No Instructions encourages. --Mysidia (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Certainly there are instructions that seem important or relevant see Babcock test -- a description of the procedure for the test is certainly a reasonable part of an article on the subject, but it can also readily be viewed as instructive or howto material. --Mysidia (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Crystal ball section

This was aggressively worded to favour deletion. In my experience, proponents of deletion who rely on this section in debates on an article very often lose. It did not reflect the balance of opinion revealed by votes. If we can have an example of one that (probably) would be deleted, we can have a more realistic illustration of what it likely to be kept. CalJW 23:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not add proposed changes so quickly. For a major policy page like WP:WWIN you should give several days for people from around the community to comment. Four hours doesn't suffice. Also, propose changes in specific terms, so that people know what they're discussing. Superm401 | Talk 03:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Here it is the proposed amended part. It describes the actual state of play. On the other hand the existing section describes what deletionists would like to happen, but does not reflect the facts about the articles that exist or what happens when future events are put to the vote. There at least several hundred articles about future events in Wikipedia, but the existing section would make you thing there would only be a handful.

Future events are sometimes unencyclopedic, especially if they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred. In particular:

Individual scheduled or expected future events, should only be included if planning or preparation for the event is already in progress; or speculation is well documented, such as with the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Some events may be notable well in advance: 2020 Summer Olympics survived a deletion vote in 2005. The schedule as a whole may also be appropriate.

CalJW 22:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd keep the first part, but for the second just put:

Individual scheduled or expected future events, should only be included if the event is notable. If planning or preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election and the 2020 Summer Olympics. A schedule of future events itself may be appropriate.

--Superm401 | Talk 21:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

What you put in the article is neither what you first proposed nor the modified version I suggested. You have to specify exactly what you're going to put in before you do so. I'm reverting the changes you made. Place further comments or exact proposals about the crystal ball section in the talk section above. This section will be removed in four days to simplify this page. Superm401 | Talk 03:41, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

It was somewhat more softly worded. Today, as so many days, a debate in which the crystal ball argument has been used is going overwhelmingly in favour of retention (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald W Reagan Doral High School. It just isn't on to have a policy favours a hard line that fails to meet with approval over and over and over again. I'm restoring the section:

Future events are sometimes unencyclopedic, especially if they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred. In particular:

Individual scheduled or expected future events, should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.

As things are hardly ever deleted on this basis of this section, it isn't really a threat to Wikipedia's coverage of events of current interest. Conversely, as it fails to achieve the desired effect from the deletionist point of view, what is the point of insisting on maintaining a misleading version? CalJW 15:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Some future events, especially natural ones, like eclipses or the return of Haley's Comet, are highly predictable and should be listed even if no "planning" for the event has yet occurred. StuRat 17:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a video game strategy guide

I propose adding "Video game strategy guides." to the list under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", with a note that such guides are appropriate to create on Wikibooks. While informative articles on video games are appropriate( in some opinions, I realize this is also debated), strategies for getting through specific sections or beating certain bosses are not really encyclopedic information. What do other editors think? Specifically, does anyone have reasoned disagreement? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I think it should be more general than that. No tutorials, video game or otherwise, belong on Wikipedia. →Raul654 05:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think video game strategy guides are a special case, though. First of all, "tutorials" has overtones of the above "no instruction" discussion. Also, "tutorial" has a specific meaning in video game terminology, refering to instructions or practice regarding the basics of gameplay such as play control and on-screen displays. Strategy guides, on the other hand, usually offer detailed walkthroughs and instructions for performing techniques and beating enemies and bosses. Regardless of the outcome of the "no instruction" debate, I would think we can all agree that strategy guides, as I've jsut defined them, are unencyclopedic. Am I wrong? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 07:05, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

For a few, out of the many, examples of how Wikipedia and Wikibooks are already being used successfully in combination for games:

Wikipedia	Wikibooks
EverQuest	EverQuest
Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas	Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Super Mario 64	Super Mario 64
Super Mario World	Super Mario World
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker	The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
Medal of Honor: Frontline	Medal of Honor: Frontline
America's Army: Special Forces	America's Army: Special Forces

Uncle G 10:38:07, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

• I agree. It would be possible to write an encyclopedic article about, say, a specific boss, but a strategy guide isn't encyclopedic. I'm not sure if I'm wording this well, so here's an example of each (with a character I'm making up off the top of my head; any resemblance to a real video game or character is purely coincidental).

Encyclopedic: "Colonel Affeschlüssel is a character in Attack of the Werkzeugkasten. Little about him is revealed in the course of the game, beyond his hatred for Schraubenzieher, the main character in the game, and his strange affinity for using bananas as projectile weapons. In the novelizations, however, much more about his past is revealed..." et cetera

Non-encyclopedic: "Colonel Affeschlüssel is the third boss in Attack of the Werkzeugkasten. His main attacks are a flying kick that hits high, banana projectiles that hit mid-section, and the leftover banana peels that come to life and bite Schraubenzieher's feet. The best way to get past him is to first disable his banana gun by clogging it with the peanut butter you found on submarine in level one." et cetera

--Icarus 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Truisms

This was recently added to "not an indiscriminate collection of information." I'm moving it here because I don't think it's been discussed here yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Truisms. Wikipedia is not a place for stating the self-evident. Wikipedia is not a Brochure, Personal Improvement Book, Motivation Seminar, Examples Book, Infant's Encyclopedia, Collection of Philosophical Axioms, or List of Half-Baked Ideas. While it might be perfectly true that "setting realistic deadlines improves an employee's performance", statements of this type are unencyclopedic.

First of all, let me apologize for being so brash and not discussing this entry first! My motivation for including "Truisms" were a number of articles that were voted for deletion simply for being "unencyclopedic", but without further explanation.

A good example is the deleted article Moon Time. It went something like this:

Moon Time refers to the time experienced by a visitor to the Moon. Relativistic gravitational effects cause time to pass slower on the moon. Austronauts must adjust their equipment to adapt to moon time

After browsing through "What Wikipedia is not" I couldn't find any points that would have objected to this article, so I added "Truisms".

It may seem trivial to include this, but I feel the deletion process could be speeded up if users could simply quote the official policy "truism" in the AfD page. Apart from that, it's not always immediatly clear that an article contains truisms, for example when they are obscured by verbose mumbo-jumbo. I remember an article called "Communication Strategies" that contained a lot of elaborate truisms hidden behind business jargon. -- Klafubra 22:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

My own comment: true enough, and a valid category of "true yet not encyclopedic," but I'm not aware of it's being a common problem. I don't think it needs to be in WP:WIN. I don't like the particular example, either ("setting realistic deadlines improves an employee's performance") because at least one academic study found that programmer productivity was twice as high when no deadlines were set as when deadlines were set. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I would agree to including this entry. It would cover many of the things seen in speedy deletions as well as some non-encyclopedic entries on VfD. No harm in telling users what is not a good article. - Tεxτurε 21:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I oppose it. The page is becoming too long. This section, while intentioned, is as general as much the articles it criticizes. We're better off with the specific sections we have now. If something more precise needs to be added, suggest it. This is unnecessary. Also, sometimes Wikipedia is the place for stating the self-evident, like on Windows 95, which states that Windows 95 was released in 95. Superm401 | Talk 04:29, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

"like on Windows 95, which states that Windows 95 was released in 95". That's not self-evident in my opinion. The reader has many valid reasons to assume why Windows 95 might not have been released in 1995 - perhaps is was developed in 95? perhaps it was only intended to be released in 95? perhaps Microsoft chose some future date for marketing resons? etc. -- Klafubra 22:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, you know, 1.7, even though broken into 7 subsections, is still pretty explicit: Wikipedia Is Not An Indiscriminate Collection of Information. Yeah, there's seven specific examples, but there's still the 1.7.* to cover everything that's unencyclopedic or unnoteworthy. It's the catch-all. The Literate Engineer 01:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Wording issue (Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia)

I had to read these sentences three times before I understood what they meant: This also means you don't have to redirect one topic to a not fully equivalent topic that is of more common usage. A "See also" section that states further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be preferable. My suggestion would be: The availability of space in Wikipedia means that it is not necessary for a somewhat obscure topic to be redirected to another topic which, though of more common usage, is not truly equivalent. It may be preferable to supply a "See also" section on both pages stating that further information on a closely related topic is available. Chick Bowen 18:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not instructive

This is a rather unfortunate way of putting it. "Instructive" means "serving to instruct or enlighten; conveying information" — something that I thought we were meant to be doing... Perhaps "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual", or "Wikipedia is not a practical guide"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• I propose the section be taken out -- it seems apppropriate that some Wikipedia articles do give what can easily be construed as advise or how-to information, that describe a process. Strong objection to the addition of this section. --Mysidia (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia should be instructive, whenever possible. StuRat 17:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggested addition

Wikipedia is not a repository of failed plans and might-have-beens. This could be an ancillary point to "not a crystal ball."

I voted and recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy which I expect, unfortunately, will go no consensus. George Lucas verifiably said he wanted to make a trilogy of sequels to Star Wars. He now says he won't and there is absolutely no plan for it. So why do we have a page entitled "The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy"? The person who created the page wants to describe what they believe the non-existent movies would like if they were actually made. I really find this unbelievable. Marskell 21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, personally I'd like to see any verifiable information on the subject provided in Wikipedia. The editor's summary of the purpose of the article is atrocious and invalid under the "no original research" rule, among others, and the existing title breaks naming conventions ("Star Wars sequel trilogy" would be better, but we could probably do even better than that). Phenomenons such as "the virtual sequels project," which last I checked appeared to have aborted, could be included as well. I'm not sure a separate article is really the right way to do it, though. Jdavidb 22:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a seperate article is not the right way to do it, which was my thought in posting the above comment. Of course it could be included on Star Wars speculation or even George Lucas. Despite OR and despite crystal ball it's getting keeps: I'd just like a formal rule to point to. Do you agree with adding the above? It could be useful in general. Marskell 09:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Failed plans which are verifiable and of interest to readers should be included. Kappa 13:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

But where and/or under what title? The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy does not exist anymore than the Al Gore Presidency exists. I'm not saying don't mention, I'm saying don't give it a page. Marskell 13:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Another proposed addition

Expanding on some thoughts in the talk page for Wikipedia:Importance, how about this?

-- begin proposed text --

Wikipedia is not an arbiter of importance or taste

Wikipedia is not an arbiter of importance or taste. We are not in the business of determining the worth or merit of a topic to society. We are not a Social Register. We do not exclude topics based on the belief that they may be considered controversial, offensive, politically incorrect, low-brow, pseudoscientific, or apocryphal (although when we do cover such topics, we will note controversy where it exists, as required by NPOV). Nor does Wikipedia exhibit a preference for high art over pop culture, Beethoven over Britney Spears, or museums over monster trucks. We are concerned with compiling the knowledge and experience of all mankind, regardless of social status.

While we do occasionally reject articles due to lack of importance, this is done to exclude such things as vanity and self-promotion. Any real-world topic which is encyclopedic, verifiable, and which is (or was at one point) of demonstrable interest to some segment of humanity, is appropriate for Wikipedia.

-- end proposed text --

Comments? --EngineerScotty 18:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "Wikipedia is not an arbiter of taste," and the specific examples you give in the first paragraph are true and well-chosen.

I have a problem with saying that Wikipedia is not an arbiter of importance.

By your own showing, Wikipedia must be an arbiter of what is "encyclopedic." Whatever that means.

And you say a topic must have "demonstrable interest to some segment of humanity." Well, that means we must indeed be arbiters of whether a topic is of some interest to "some segment of humanity." If that's not "importance," I don't know what is.

Now, what do we mean by "some segment of humanity?" You dodge this. The topic of a vanity biography is of enormous interest to "some" segment of humanity, namely one person, and in most cases of "some" interest to that person's couple of hundred personal acquaintances.

If we are going to exclude vanity biographies, and verifiable descriptions of the five fire hydrants located on East Brewster Street, Harvey, North Dakota, and individual articles on the astronomical events expected to take place in the years 2619, 2620, and 2621—and I happen to think we do—then, by golly, we have to be "arbiters of importance."

So, while I endorse the first paragraph and think it might do some good, I think the second is yet another failed attempt to cut the Gordian knot of "notability/importance" and is better omitted. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree; add the first paragraph, and not the second. As a preference, I'd prefer removing "Wikipedia is not a Social Register". First of all, it detacts from the style to have a "Wikipedia is not" within another. More importantly, the statement is mere repetition, and seems to implicitly condemn Social Registers. It's not that important, though. Superm401 | Talk 21:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to "cutting the Gordian knot of importance/notability", guilty as charged. :) I have no objection to keeping vanity articles out, and such. Regarding articles on North Dakota fire hydrants and astronomical events six centuries hence (and other such trivia), the biggest factor excluding those is likely to be a lack of editors willing to write such articles, except possibly as violations of WP:POINT. At any rate, when such things occur, I have no problem with excluding them. However, it seems that the level of notability which is required in order to filter out vanity, useless trivia, etc. is often used to filter out subjects which are arguably notable (not vanity, not trivia) but only of importance to a particular region or subculture. (WP:MUSIC is a good example; it practically demands that a band be nationally noticed before being deemed "notable"; I can think of many well-established, well-known regional acts that wouldn't qualify for inclusion under WP:MUSIC. Maybe I should go take it up there). I'd like to find ways of lowering the bar, to include more regional/alternative material, while still finding ways to keep out the true rubbish. And my bias is to err on the side of inclusion. --EngineerScotty 22:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the bar is, if anything too low on many topics. In any case, whereever we set the bar, i think some level of notability is essential to an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia:Notability proposal is an attempt to make this explicit. It would amend WP:NOT to say that wikipedia is not for articles about non-notable subjects. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense - notability just means 'what I like' - verifiability will deal with all the strawman fire hydrant articles we've never had a problem with. Trollderella 18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You continue to make that assertion that "notability just means 'what I like'" ignoring the fact that many of us (and based on my own analysis of the way the term is used, the vast majority of us) do not use it that way. Please stop putting words in other people's mouths. Rossami (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If you have an objective definition of notable, please, don't hold it back from us. patsw 23:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Notability proposal

Wikipedia:Notability proposal is a proposal to explicitly make "notability" a requirement for Wikipedia articles, and to explicitly include "lack of notability" as a reason for deleting articles. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability proposal and express your view on the proposal. DES ^(talk) 23:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Page of images serving as a visual index?

I would like to get input from some more Wikipedians on this topic which may have wider implications. There is a discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Images of castles which refers to the page Images of castles. The Images of castles page is a collection of castle images sorted by country with links to the appropriate pages for each castle. The page was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is a collection of images. I and a few others feel that such a page actually serves as a visual index which provides value added information in terms of improving the ability of a user to find the appropriate page they desire. In this case, a castle can be found if you know what it looks like but have no other information (e.g. name or location) to allow a search string-based search. It is possible that other such indices scattered throughout Wikipedia would be extremely useful.

Does anyone know if there have been any discussions about the use of such pages? Do others feel a visual index is a useful thing to have? Hilmar 11:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not on a deadline

I added this section because it comes up from time to time; I didn't seriously think anyone thought Wikipedia was on a deadline; but it was reverted. I'm putting this here for discussion so the dissenting voices can name a date. Demi ^T/_C 14:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think everyone already knows this, why does it need to be on the page? As someone said, that's needless "instruction creep". When I reverted, I wasn't disputing whether it was true, but rather whether it should be enumerated. Wikipedia isn't a pizza, but we're not going to say that because it's obvious. Superm401 | Talk 17:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• People do argue from a sense of urgency, however, from time to time. I can't quite tell what your point is: that we shouldn't include this section because while you agree with it, it's obvious? Or we shouldn't include it because you don't agree with it? Demi ^T/_C 19:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with it, but it's too obvious to include. Superm401 | Talk 23:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not on a deadline. But remember what wikiwiki means. And remember that the first impressions we give to new users matter, so don't suppose that saying "we're not on a deadline" is carte-blanche to allow rotten articles to fester. -Splash^talk 19:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Right, I wasn't thinking that at all. Demi ^T/_C 21:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of "not paper"

Earlier on this page, someone points out that part of the "Wikipedia is not paper" section is confusing. And it is. I've tried to clarify by pointing out that Wikipedia content is always encyclopedic, but not necessarily exactly what would appear in Britannica or World Book. Right now, the explanation of this section really only has to do with article length and depth, not with subject matter. The second paragraph deals with subject matter is opaque. I tried to make it less so by adding:

Another way of stating this precept is that Wikipedia is not (only) a general encyclopedia; it can also be a set of specialized encyclopedias.

Demi ^T/_C 20:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful with the language. Wikipedia is foremost a general encyclopedia, but it is also a specialist encyclopedia in so far as it doesn't conflict. This is usually possible because wiki is not paper, but it should be considered when we decide how to seperate up articles, how we write intros, etc. Kat and I have discussed this a number of times.. I'll come back and propose some more language after my flight, and perhaps after talking to her some more about it. --Gmaxwell 21:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Who says that it is foremost a general encyclopedia? Trollderella 03:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The word "encyclopedia" is a real problem for wikipedia. It plays into the hands of deletionists who want to restrict the scope of the project, but wikipedia has burst all bounds of previous encyclopedias and that is a thoroughly good thing. It should encompass reference books on every subject about which reference books can be written in prose, and is increasingly doing so. Please don't try to cramp it again now. You will only be wasting your time in any case. CalJW 23:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't even begin to describe how strongly I disagree with that sentiment. Have you studied any of the other wiki-efforts and why they have failed? Have you done any academic readings on why Wikipedia is one of the very few successes? Again and again, the researchers attribute our survival to our community commitment to one goal - the creation of an encyclopedia. Yes, we are in some important ways different from prior encyclopedias but we still retain the self-image that we are creating an encyclopedia and deliberately choose to limit ourselves to that. History has repeatedly shown that when groups drift away from their unifying vision, the project inevitably fails. I strongly urge you to read (or perhaps re-read) Wikipedia:replies and to look up Social Software and the Politics of Groups by Clay Shirky, first published March 9, 2003 on the "Networks, Economics, and Culture" mailing list [1]. Rossami (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The word "encyclopedia" is a real problem for Wikipedia because there are those who really do not want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia... but try to obfuscate the issue by trying, like Humpty-Dumpty, to redefine the word to mean "that which I want Wikipedia to be." As evidence, I present this exchange from a current AfD: Dpbsmith (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep The mere fact of something's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion. --a Wikipedian

Does this mean that you think Wikipedia should be an indiscriminate collection of information so long as the information is verifiable and not a copyright violation? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what an encyclopedia is, yes. --that same Wikipedian.

What is Wikipedia??

Question and proposed answer:
Well sure it's an online encyclopedia. But why? What is it's purpose? Well the best use I've seen of it was David Morgan-Mar[2]. In his Irregular Webcomic[3]. Whenever he has something he wants to explain to readers like a complex mathematical principal or something, he adds a link to the appropriate wikipedia article. I've hear it said by users that wikipedia is not in fact an encyclopedia. I think a section like "What Wikipedia is" would do well here for the benefit of new users. Olleicua 13:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:FAQ, Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, and especially Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great. Superm401 | Talk 23:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I added those links to the see also section Olleicua 21:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It's time for "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" to be renamed

I have already had the tone of this section moderated, but I now think it needs a name change. People continue to use it on articles for deletion, and it continues to be heavily rejected whenever the topic is of any substance and significant information is available. Current nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa municipal election, 2006, which relies on this clause, has been rejected by all eight people who have commented on it so far. The phrase is needlessly provocative, and its main effect seems to be to give people false hope that doomed nominations have a chance, thereby creating frustration and ill feeling. I suggest it should be retitled: "Wikipedia is not a repository for unverifiable speculation about the future" The introduction should be made more positive along the lines of "All forward looking articles must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."

This isn't going to change the outcome of any votes, but it should reduce the number of pointless nominations and cut down on any resulting ill feeling. Even with the text of the section softened, the attention grabbing title misleads would be deletionists about what the consensus really is articles about the future. The number of articles about the future is in four figures, but some people still seem to think that this section implies forward looking articles should automatically be deleted. They are being misled by the title. CalJW 15:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm okay with a rename, but your suggestion is too long and excessively formal. Shorten it and put in laymen's terms. Then, we'll talk.  :)Superm401 | Talk 20:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It is supposed to be somewhat offputting, in the sense that it should lead to the section being quoted less often than it is now. I suppose collection could replace repository. But repository is not a technical term or jargon as you imply it is. CalJW 21:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

All right, I can deal with it. Superm401 | Talk 14:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No objections, so I'm implementing this, but I will omit the redundant clause "about the future". CalJW 13:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Trivia

i think there should be a mention of Wikipedia:Trivia especially in the indiscriminate collection of information sectio -- Zondor 10:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that the Trivia guideline doesn't make a blanket statement "include if interesting but not important." It starts out with this thought in mind and unpacks it, offering advice like moving to a sister project etc. I'd suggest "Trivia may have a place on Wikipedia but should be evaluated with Wikipedia:Trivia in mind" if you want add a sentence. Marskell 10:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What is a directory?

I read back in the archives to see when this section was added (originally "wikipedia is not a general knowledge base") and it seems while there were people agreeing on the draft, no one actually discussed what the bullet points MEANT. There are tons of lists and categories on wikipedia on everything (like all the "list of all software of this type" lists), but no criteria on what would qualify them as "directories." There's also the whole host of rambot and school articles which would be a "directory" as well, but those are included anyway.

I think this either needs to be clarified or removed, because clearly there are "directories" on Wikipedia that are widely accepted.

Nathan J. Yoder 23:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Turn it back

I don't know if not a "collection of unverifiable speculation" really improves on not "a crystal ball." The latter is more memorable, says the same thing, and is better distinguished from other points on the list. It often gets shot down in AfD?--so it does. I don't see how the new name makes it more effective. Edit the content, but why not go back to "crystal ball?" It's extremely well-established. Marskell 23:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly second this. It seems to have been renamed after startlingly short discussion for such a well-known and often-quoted section of policy. Although it is often misunderstood and could use some clarification, it's important to keep the snappy old version so it can be easily quoted in the places where it does indeed apply. --Aquillion 03:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It was renamed after an entirely properly process, stood for some time and was then reverted rather quickly. It is needlessly provocative and, as explained before, seriously misleading as wikipedia has many articles about the future. It is too colourful and when it is invoked on articles for deletion, so often in vain, it comes across as insulting, implying that serious well meaning users who have written articles about conventional real world subjects are fanticists. The phrasing is designed to meet the rhetorical wishes of deletionists, who have too much control over this page. I see no justification for it at all. It does not reflect practice on articles for deletion, where it fails so often. It is needlessly confrontational. It is not npov. Its use seriously misleads new voters on articles for deletion, who think that it means that articles about future events are not legitimate, when it has been agreed that they are acceptable in vote after vote. Finally, it doesn't even work. Please accept that this page should reflect actual practice, not what deletionists would like to be practice. CalJW 08:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow a word of your reasoning. A crystal ball is something in which you magically divine the future. Wikipedia is not a place for people to attempt to magically divine the future. The reason why Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is such an effective summary for this is because it perfectly captures the hocus-pocus nature of what is forbidden; articles can report verifiable plans or circumstances that will affect the future, or to report on properly encyclopedic predictions, but editors cannot play Nostradamus and try to predict the future themselves. The fact that it summarizes this policy colorfully is just another point to its credit. --Aquillion 09:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow a word of your reasoning. The phrase is not used to argue for deletion of "hocus pocus", but for things like elections and films. Why would you want this section to be "colorful" unless you were hoping to influence people in favour of deletion more than a neutrally worded policy would do. As I said, this section is a pov tool created for use by deletionists and does not reflect practice on articles for deletion. They must hope that newcomers will be influenced by the "colour" and not read the policy to find out that the detail is far less supportive of hard-line deletionism, or look around Wikipedia and discover that a hard-line is not actually taken. In my opinion the phrase is misleading about both policy and practice, and deletionists exploit that. CalJW 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Here are all the references to "crystal ball" I could find on AfD in the past few days. Note that this includes every one in the period I examined; I didn't omit any, and just went back from today until I thought I'd collected enough to serve as a representitive sample. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Out of these, all but one are either near-solid deletes, or near-solid redirect/merges to a general page for a series (e.g. the speculative Mad Max 4: Fury Road to Mad Max); unanimous deletes are in the clear majority. The only one I came across where Crystal Ball was cited in a case that was not, by current consensus, a fairly clear and obvious delete or redirect case was in the debate on Dirth, where Radiant mentioned it in a weak delete vote. In short, the facts do not seem to sustain your beliefs; if I may be blunt, I think you could be allowing the fervor of deletionist/inclusionist debates to cloud your judgement. I don't doubt that there are people misquoting Crystal Ball somewhere (just like there are people misquoting every policy), but I don't see any evidence that it's the significent problem you claim. Judging from the number of times above where it is brought up in clear delete cases, though, I think it is plainly an effective and memorable solution to a real and uncontroversal problem. --Aquillion 04:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I see 3 votes that are going the wrong way there. Mad Max 4 has verifiable "speculation," including interviews with Mel Gibson. Fisker is a real company that has produced actual cars, the fact that it's not notable yet is an issue of notability, not crystal balling. Ditto for realm fighter, real product, there is no crystal balling, it's just not notable. Nathan J. Yoder 06:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does not imply that you cannot write about the future only that your own speculation doesn't belong. I really think you're over-stating it being "confrontational" or somehow offensive. Marskell 13:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• How does it do that? It is used to demean articles, and frequently deletionists who use it misrepresent the actual state of play, eg by implying that articles about future films are illegitimate when there are many of them. The phrasing is an attempt to bias the policy towards deletionism. CalJW 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That may be true, but the lack of it would mean that users could create articles on stuff that is not even close to happening yet with little factual information in them. It should be made clear in Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not the place for speculation and rumor. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

helpful warnings

I think there needs to be some policy on helpful but unencyclopaedic warnings and advice given to readers in articles. Some examples of this are warnings in medicine articles to see a doctor in a case of overdose and not to look at the sun in the sun article. I have participated in some debates in other articles and it seems that some of these warnings, while no-one disputes that they may be helpful are not encyclopaedic and there is no clear line do draw on what warnings to allow and to not allow. I have no problem when such warnings are written into the article in an encyclopaedic tone, but when they are bolded or put in special boxes I think it crosses the line into being encyclopaedic.--Clawed 09:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

When these have gotten turned into templates, they've always been deleted at TFD. (See, for example, the deletion discussions for {{warning}} and {{medical}}, and Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates and Wikipedia talk:Risk disclaimer for the general case.) It doesn't make sense to have individual versions for specific articles if there's always consensus to delete general versions. —Cryptic (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a song lyrics database

Hi, I want to add this to the guideline. Does everyone agree?

"Copyrighted song lyrics are not allowed to be printed in whole in any Wikipedia article. Song lyrics that are in public domain are allowed, but you have to provide additional information about the song, not only the songwriter, performer, album name and year of recording, but also the background, history or (unbiased) analysis of the music and content of the song."

My reasoning is, articles that only include the song lyrics and have no additional info are not encyclopedic. --84.188.177.89 12:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No need, since we already have guidelines on source material and on copyright. Trollderella 15:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but this isn't just about copyrights. The main point is about the encyclopedic value of articles. This issue was handled in Wikipedia:What's in, what's out but since that page is obsolete, we need a similar guideline.

It's also about source material, which we also have plenty of stuff on - are there many songs with extensive lyrics on them that you're worried about? Trollderella 16:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't have all that much source material unless it is being used for comment. Encyclopedias, including this one, are tertiary sources. Source material belongs on wikiquote. -Splash^talk 17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The above would imply that quotes from songs are not acepteable, whereas they are valid fair use when a short quote is used as the basis for a discussion or analysis of a song. And the question of the encyclopedic value is really unrelated to the question of copyright status. A long article that is nothing but a series of texts of Kipling's verse, say, would not be a copyvio, because they texts are all PD by now, but it still wouldn't be a proper article. Nor do we want pages that are only the texts of Shakespear's sonnets, say. DES ^(talk) 17:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

How about the following:

• "Wikipedia is not a song lyrics database. An article should not consited entirely or mostly of song lyrics, but rather should be about the songs or the artists who composed or performed them. Short illusttrative quotations of lyrics may be appropriate in the context of an article. Complete lyrics would belong on wikisource if anywhere, and there only if not proteced by copyright." DES ^(talk) 17:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

But we already have guidelines on source material - no one is advocating that we should put large amount of source material here, it goes in WikiSource. Is there a problem that this is supposed to address, or just more instruction creep? Trollderella 17:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please see "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files", point three. Please edit that point if you think it's not clear enough and can make it clearer. And also, see Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, and of course most song lyrics are copyvio. Radiant_>|< 18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, it would be useful to mention that the palce of public domain lyrics is wikisource. mikka (t) 19:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Notable means something other than important or significant or of interest

Please help me out with this word, notable, that keeps showing up in the Wiki namespace. Why is this word used and not common words like important, significant, or of interest

For example what is notable, and at the same time not important, significant, nor of interest?

What is important, significant, and of interest and at the same time not notable?

A related question to people who think the word has a clear meaning, is why do people argue about it so much in talk pages? patsw 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The debate isn't really over which word is used, but over divergent visions of what Wikipedia should be. An attempt was made to recast notability in terms of importance, but it didn't really help. If the word "important" were used, we would simply have the same debates; people would just say, "Delete, unimportant," "Keep, important," and argue about whether "importance" is a valid organizing principle for an encyclopedia.

If you are seriously asking why the particular word "notable" happened to be used, I'd guess it's because this is a word frequently used in encyclopedias and almanacs as the title of lists whose content is based on the judgement of the editor rather than something that can be objectively measured. Thus, in the 2005 Time Almanac I see "World's Tallest Buildings," but "Notable Modern Bridges. I also see Famous structures, World's Largest dams, and Notable tunnels.

Listing something, including something as an item, is "making note of it" or "noting it," hence "notable" is a natural word to use. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The appeal to the dictionary (i.e. Noah Webster, the ur-Wikipedian) does not work because notable there focuses on the odd, the unusual and the uncommon -- and we don't make a note of what's normal, usual, and common -- but somehow the Wikipedia includes a lot of stuff that's not notable according to that definition. In many cases, it's every U.S. President, every professional (American) football team, etc. because every U.S. president is important, every professional (American) football team, etc. is important.

My New York Times Almanac lists the Tallest buildings by the way. I guess the editors there were tired of the disputes among themselves about what was notable about a building except for height. Now we'll just have to wait for Time Warner and the New York Times Company to merge to find out. patsw

It's an appaling word, that means 'what I am interested in'. Trollderella 19:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Trend of companies trying to use Wikipedia for marketing

I'm seeing a lot of new entries where it appears that a company representative cut-and-pastes the company's history and mission statement, with a link. The mission statement has a lot of POV/marketing language. For now, I've been using the following blurb on the poster's talk page:

Creating an entry for notable countriescompanies is fine, as long as they are written in an objective style. It is not acceptable to cut-and-paste directly from the company's website (unless the copyright issues are handled properly). Even if copyright issues are resolved, a company's own materials are usually not written in an objective fashion.

References:

• Wikipedia is not for advertisements
• Copyright info

Thanks,

Does anyone think this topic merits the addition of a new template for handling these entries? Jasmol 01:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you've got a good idea there, but it'd probably help if you started talking about companies, not "countries" :-) --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I detest this kind of article as much as you do, but personally I don't think it is actually company representatives that are doing this. I think it is a kind of "fan" activity, rather like wearing a T-shirt advertising a beer one identifies with, or a theme park, or a sports team.

A very common response to such articles is for people to vote them for deletion (properly) as "advertising," and for the article creator insist that they are not advertising because they are not connected with the company and do not make any money from publicizing it. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You might want to add a note that "The entry does not appear to meet the recommended inclusion guidelines." Rossami (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the great suggestions. I'll definitely include the 'inclusion guidelines' next time as well. I'll work on the wording a bit and come up with a template proposal. Jasmol 21:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

...what it used to be.

I miss the good old days of Wikipedia, when people obsessed with it, who spend 5+ hours each day involved with it, were a minority rather than a dictating majority; when the only rules were to reflect truth and consensus; when Wikipedia's goal wasn't to compete with Encyclopedia Brittanica and Wikipedians didn't feel compelled to conform in order to achieve mainstream acceptance; when Wikipedia's basic nature couldn't be altered at the drop of a hat just because of a critical news article; when Wikipedians dealt with abuse of the system through their own effort rather than attempting to graft an artificial authoritarian system on to something that had grown up organically.

I don't really see what the point of Wikipedia is anymore. When it was open and free (speech, not beer), and the contributors dynamically determined what was appropriate rather than a small committee of overinterested zealots, it felt good to contribute. Now, with the ever-increasing, ponderous body of rules and restrictions -- enforced with manic efficiency by monitors who devote an abnormal amount of time to this police activity -- the average contributor is likely to just feel that they are being exploited. And since so-called official sources are now the only kosher source of information, contributors have been reduced to mere relayers of information, plagiarists and pirates.

And yet, despite these frantic efforts, Wikipedia has not transcended its stigma, and the quality of content has not increased. However, a lot of former Wikipedians have departed.

Have fun with your Council of Nicea. I am joining the exodus, farewell. -- Captain Roger Ames (preceding unsigned comment by 209.97.196.196 (talk • contribs); only 10 edits at this IP with no relevant search matches for "Roger Ames"-- Superm401 | Talk 17:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC))

Reverted to wishy-washy

With respect to this revert: That paragraph started with "Of course, an article can and should always begin with a good definition" at least until March 2005 and that had been the wording for more than three years. I don't know why or when it was dropped or whether there was any discussion, and in any case, "sometimes" is not only wishy-washy but outright wrong. A reader of an enyclopedia article is looking for facts. In recognition of that, encyclopedists of all epochs of history have included definitions for each and every topic of their articles. I can not imagine any reason why Wikipedia should depart from that tradition. Kosebamse 22:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the version you changed it to. However, others might, and they deserve a chance to weigh in. If no one objects after a week or so, feel free to add it in. Superm401 | Talk 04:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be very interesting to know why that wording was changed at all. This is one of our central policy pages and I really wonder how such an important change can occur without receiving much discussion. I'll try to find out more about this. Kosebamse 08:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Having looked into the matter some further, it seems that it was an acciddent. In March 2005, the text of the paragraph was rewritten in this and this edit. Most of the new text was then removed, however the rewording of the introductory phrase that made sense only with the rewritten version was not. Thereafter, the text has remained essentially unchanged until now. The matter does not seem to have been discussed on the relevant talk page. Note that my version of yesterday was slightly different, but I'll be happy to revert to the original version (the one that we had before March) unless there are serious objections. Kosebamse 08:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In consideration of this, I'll reinstate my change; please feel free to return to the original version or otherwise modify it, but not to "sometimes", as that had been obviously introduced by accident and is clearly against the spirit that has prevailed here for over three years. Kosebamse 08:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Wikiproject:External links

One major annoyance I have with Wikipedia is linkspam, as well as long lists of mediocre-quality external links at the end of articles. I believe the length of external link lists should be limited and include only a small number of the highest-quality, reputable, and informative websites. Preferably the linked websites would also be ad-free or minimize use of ads. I have come across articles with 50+ external links (e.g. Hybrid vehicle), sorted through them (a tedious process) to only find 6 links that were truly informative and worthy. How do we expect readers to discern those 6 informative references out of such a lengthy list?

I propose a WikiProject where we nominate and work on such articles that need their external links weeded through to get rid of linkspam and be quality-checked. I have also put forth guidelines and philosophy regarding external links — primarily drawn upon "official" Wikipedia policies set forth here and on Wikipedia:External links. I expanded on "What should not be included in external links" and welcome discussion on these ideas. Maybe we could use these to improve the "official" Wikipedia external link policy.

If interested in helping out, please indicate your interest on the List of proposed projects. --Kmf164 23:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that external links should go only to NPOV sites, as oftentimes articles express disputes, and the best way to reference these disputes is to offer POV articles from all the sides of the dispute. Also note that if you have an article about a political party, their official website would necessarily be POV, so you would exclude that? While I understand the thrust of what you're trying to do, and agree that NPOV links should be regarded more highly than POV links, I also think that excluding POV links by rote could be very damaging to the Wikipedia. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right about NPOV/POV links. I think they're okay, as you say for articles about political parties or other topics that in themselves are POV. Also, they're okay if POV links try to balance each other by including links from across the spectrum of an issues (e.g. democratic-leaning and republican-leaning). NPOV is more a guideline or preference when selecting external links, but is a case-by-case judgment. --Kmf164 05:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I trust you removed the useless links from Hybrid vehicle? No. Why not? I don't think we need a Wikiproject for this. Most of the spammish links are hit-and-run. If I see a new link in an article I'm watching, I check it, and if I don't think it adds significantly to the article I just remove it. The people that put them in usually aren't serious Wikipedians, they just want to promote a site, and they don't usually come back to check. Or if they do, they don't revert-war. If they do, they can be engaged in Talk.

If I'm being particularly responsible, I check the "contributions" because frequently they will have added their link to every page they can think of.

For semi-useful links, you can add a one-sentence description if one isn't provided. A description can be neutral and yet give guidance as to which links the reader will want to follow.

99% of this is just normal editing. No need to set up a special Wikiproject. Links don't seem to me to be very different from regular article content. If anything, they are easier to deal with because spammers are not (usually) as noxious or persistent as POV-warriors. They are usually interested in promoting a site, not conducting a breaching experiment and will go look for other ways to promote their site once they get the idea that Wikipedia isn't going to be as easy as it looks. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the links. Though, it was a tedious process. I couldn't do in one go at it, and had to come back later and finish. Maybe there could be a place to list articles with very long lists of links that need help to sort through? The process I used for deleting the links was to copy all the links to the talk page and add my comments (delete, keep, maybe, ... and why). I left that on talk for more than enough time for others to weigh in with their opinions. No one did, though. A couple weeks later, I got around to finishing off this task.

For other articles, like New York City editors (I and others) are always keeping on top of it, as you suggest. When someone adds linkspam, I also check their edit history and take care of linkspam they put elsewhere. That's ideal to deal with external links as they are added.

But, should I come across other articles for the first time and see a long list of links... (1) it ain't useful to me (2) it's tedious to go through and weed out the bad ones. — if more people helped out, it could be done quicker. --Kmf164 22:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

A place for free speech.

Hatespeech moved to User talk:209.97.196.196. Kosebamse 08:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Are slang guides always a bad thing?

Body parts slang (an article I originally created by separating content from Sexual slang) was recently deleted by a second near-consecutive AFD vote that was arguably not even a consensus but rather a slight majority of delete's to keep's.

I see no problem with comparative slang guides, as they seek to inform by the comparison and by the grouping. Understanding the full range of slang in a particular category (e.g., body parts or sex) is indeed useful and encyclopedic (isn't understanding the meaning of others' speech useful?). Now, one could easily argue that in the case of the vast majority of slang entries in such a comparative article, they would not merit individual articles, and I agree with that argument.

However, a comparative guide to a wide range of slang in use is what should be regarded as a structured list, which is indeed approved for inclusion in the Wikipedia.

I would like to see the reference to "A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide." revised to allow comparative/grouping articles of slang, but continue to disapprove (generally) of individual articles for such things. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I find "list of" articles to be frequently not useful. There are exceptions, but I don't see that a list of slang is one of them. Friday (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think if you could see how extensive Body parts slang was and List of sexual slang is, it might change your mind. They are highly informative, even if you don't personally like this particular kind of information (i.e., you find it vulgar). — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw it. I recommended deleting it. It was a magnet for people who wanted to legitimize their own neologisms. Vulgarity bothers me not at all, but non-verifiability is another story. Friday (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If it was a magnet for neologisms, I don't see that as a reason for deletion of an entire informative article, but rather a reason for challenging the neologisms that were added. It's like saying we should delete the George W. Bush article because it attracts vast amounts of vandalism. Just because contributors cannot keep up with verifying newly added content does not constitute an argument for "throwing out the baby with the bath water." — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

How does a list of slang terms begin to qualify as an encyclopedia article? Examples are not description. The Literate Engineer 22:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The article in question included category descriptions, and the groupings within said categories are descriptive (i.e., the groupings explain how many terms are used to mean the same thing, and that should be informative to many). Further, many terms included info on their origins. There's no dispute that neologisms and cruft found their way into this article, but that's not an argument for wholesale deletion of the article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that information makes it a proper encyclopedia entry. Rule of thumb, if it can't be expressed in prose, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I don't think that the issue of cruft/neologisms slipping in is what was the problem. I think the problem is that the only thing Wikipedia should do is describe what (in this case) the type of slang is, why it's used, and who uses it, which isn't what the entry was, but not to compile a list of examples - which is what the entry was. The Literate Engineer 22:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT 1.5.2 supports structured lists that assist in the organisation of articles. Body parts slang and List of sexual slang do just that. I believe 1.5.2 already provides the "legal language" to back up my position, but I am seeking to extend the "slang guide" language to ensure that as long as 1.5.2 is satisified, then 1.2.3 is obviated. Further, these are guidelines to be used in making a decision--you think an article must be entirely prose, and I think it's not always necessary or appropriate--that's what the AFD vote is for. And regarding the vote on Body parts slang, that's almost outside my request here, as that "consensus" was decided with a slight majority vote, which almost nobody would reasonably see as a true consensus. I believe there is full legal standing to undelete Body parts slang and to avoid List of sexual slang getting the boot. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Read it in full. It gives "structured lists that assist in the organization of articles" an exception to the rule regarding a page that's nothing but internal links. It's also questionable; I feel it should be cut off after the phrase "disambiguation pages" and the structured list portion, which you aren't the first person I've seen misapply it this way, removed altogether. While we're on the subject of lists, though, I think it's past time for a section explicitly stating that making a list of items unacceptable individually does not make them collectively become acceptable because they've been compiled as a list. The Literate Engineer 04:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think that such lists are far more lexical than encyclopedic. They fit only poorly in Wikipedia but tend to fit very well in Wiktionary. I would argue that they should generally be transwiki'd to Wiktionary and a cross-link provided in the appropriate Wikipedia article. There are of course some exceptions but the vast majority of such lists that I've reviewed really would fit better in Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

PPOV

Seeing the Propaganda injunction can I suggest the acronym PPOV , for propaganda point of view . People could sling it at me, quicker than soapbox , and it could avoid the counter charge of ad hominem ; being all official , like . EffK 20:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource wants to delete all source and data

I've added a parenthetical note to Wikipedia articles are not collections of source material because Wikisource is currently contemplating deleting all mathematical and astronomical tables (including expansions of transcendental numbers, tables of logarithms, ephemerides, and so forth) and all source code. See Wikisource talk:What Wikisource includes for the discussion of this. Uncle G 10:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery

Occasionally Image Galleries come up for on AfD. They are usually deleted on the grounds that WP:NOT, an image gallery. I think that this is a wrong-headed position, and should be changed, at least in some cases, especially topics related to art and artists.

I hold it self evident that images are crucial for understanding works of art, and the for complex art-related topics, many images are necessary. One cannot fully understand the work of an artist, or a school of artists, or an artistic movement without seeing many images of the relevant art. I therefore believe that in order for Wikipedia to provide the best possible coverage of art topics, image galleries must be incorporated in some way into the project. Other types of topics may also need a large number of images.

There seem to be three choices available to a Wikipedia editor for presenting an image gallery, none of which seem to me to be viable.

• Incorporate them into the article on the subject, which at first glance would seem to be the best option, but with which there are severe problems discussed below.
• Have the images collected into a single article page or category on Commons, a method which I see as unworkable for the reasons discussed below.
• Collect the images into a separate article as gallery which can then be annotated and arranged in a logical manner. This option, however, will, sooner or later, result in the article being subjected to AfD.

Before I discuss the problems I see with the first two options above, let me discuss another argument often brought against image galleries. It has been argued before that galleries are not encyclopedic because other encyclopedias don't have them. This is not actually true, as many encyclopedias will have galleries of some topics like flags or historical costumes. However I will admit that most encyclopedias don't have image galleries as a major feature. I think that this falls under the rubric of "Wikipedia is not paper". The number of images in other encyclopedias has been limited because historically producing images was expensive. We don't have that problem.

Incorporating the images into an article may seem to be the best solution, however it has problems. If an article is long, like the Book of Kells, then a significant number of images can be incorporated. It is important to note however that even in that article there were several images that could not be incorporated into the article and had to be linked to like this: (folio 8r). If an article is short or the number of images far outstrips the amount of text, then the article ends up with a large image gallery tacked onto the end, as in the article, Codex Aureus of Lorsch. I find this to be not aesthetically pleasing. It should also be mentioned that having a large number of images in an article significantly increases the download for an article. If a reader knows that they are clicking on an image gallery, then they will expect this, something they won't expect when clicking most article links.

It is often argued that Commons is the place for image galleries. I disagree. In the first place, it is my understanding that Commons was created primarily so that all Wikimedia projects could have access to images without the redundancy of uploading them to each separate project. Nowhere on Commons have I been able to find a statement to the effect that part of their mission is to host image galleries for the various Wikipedias. In addition I think that putting image galleries on Commons provides poor service for readers. We cannot assume that readers will be familiar with all of the Wikimedia projects. The most common means of informing a reader of the existence of Commons material, use of the {{Commons|article name}} template, is not particularly useful for a casual reader, they won't know what that little box in the corner means. It is true that a link to a gallery on Commons can be constructed which looks like a regular wiki link, but as this would take a hypothetical casual reader out of Wikipedia without warning, which, at the least, would cause confusion.

In addition to hiding information from readers or confusing them, another serious drawback of Commons as the host for image galleries is that it is a multi-lingual project. Any Commons editor can add a description in any language to any article on Commons. The result is articles like Commons:Louvre. This works well for the mission of Commons, but is not so good for an English language encyclopedia. This problem will increase as Commons matures. It is also relevant that descriptions on Commons are expected to be kept short, so heavily annotated image galleries might not be welcome there.

In short I believe that putting image galleries on Commons is the worst possible solution and that forcing image galleries into articles is a poor solution. I therefore propose that the relevant section of WP:NOT be amended so as to allow image galleries on topics that require a large number of images in order to be understand. Please understand that I am not proposing that every image gallery be allowed, only galleries for topics which need a large number of images in order to be understood. A gallery of images of single famous person, for example, does not lead to an increased understanding of that person, and should not be allowed. Dsmdgold 05:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You have my whole-hearted support. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and most encyclopedias have entire folds with nothing but images+captions. You make an excellent point that the guideline should be updated to exclude subject areas where images are necessary to understand the topic. Commons is not an alternative, and it would make it would make republishing of the encyclopedia more complicated, as well as fragment the identity of the English Wikipedia. — David Remahl 15:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Most encyclopedias have entire folds with nothing but images+captions for the simple reason that printing a color page costs about ten times as much as printing a black-and-white page. The images are separated out to minimize the number of color pages needed. --Carnildo 19:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not paper. Print encyclopedias have limited the number of image galleries because of the cost you mention. We don't have that problem. Dsmdgold 21:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Additional drawbacks of having galleries on commons is that it would force editors interested in the topic to monitor two projects. Also, since it seems to be the norm for on Commons for multiple copies of the same image to be retained, and image gallery on Commons can have a great deal of redundancy. (I had meant to make these points initially, but forgot to include them) Dsmdgold 16:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Commons has undeniable problems, but I don't think the solution is to create a fork of Commons on :en. The proper procedure is to work to improve Commons, to address its shortcomings so that it is more useful. Commons is still quite a young project, and it is understandable that not everything is working perfectly from the get go. - SimonP 16:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

But Commons isn't an encyclopedia and never should be. It's a repository of media geared towards facilitating locating a particular item in the library. The Commons gallery covering a particular artist would contain every item relating to that artist. A Wikipedia gallery would include the ones considered most representative, a wide range of periods, no duplicates, etc. — David Remahl 17:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think Commons is working fairly well for what it is intended to be - a common repository of images. It does not work well as source of image galleries for an encyclopedia. The needs of the primary purpose of Commons, work at cross purposes with the needs of single language encyclopedia. Dsmdgold 17:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed rewording

Currently the relevant part of the article states (as to what WP articles are not):

1. Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.

I propose we change this to:

1. Unencyclopediac collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. Annotated collections of images or media files illustrating a topic may be encyclopediac if they provide valuable support to an encyclopediac article or group of articles. Otherwise, consider providing an encyclopediac context, or moving it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.

Comments? A possible issue is that this makes some pages dependant on other articles for their encyclopediac worth, although we have this already with lists. --- Charles Stewart 22:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Support Say it with images ;) Honestly, I do think it's a good idea to loosen up a bit on the current anti-gallery policy. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Support --Ancheta Wis 10:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There's been no sustained objection to the idea of a change, and only support for my proposed rewording. I won't be around WP in the next couple of days: if on Monday no cogent objections to either have appeared, then I'll apply the change. --- Charles Stewart 23:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Support - DavidP 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The internet IS a visual medium, the preoccupation with text as the primary vehicle of fact, is perhaps due to the reality that most people are schooled for professions that use the written word as currency - yet we are all inherently sophisticated evaluators of images. It is arguable that a single well placed image IS worth a thousand words (thus saving bandwidth), an annotation is often essential to provide the contextual bridge. As a side note purely visual encyclopedias exist and are numerous.

OK, thanks for the support. Change applied. --- Charles Stewart 20:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

reference to the Five pillars

Yesterday, Zondor added a sentence about the Five pillars in the introductory paragraph of this page. Aquillion just reverted the edit with the comment that "five pillars, while old, is essentially an essay, not a policy page. It's not approprate to cite it authoritatively in a policy page's first paragraph.

I'd like to discuss that decision some more. I understand Aquillion's point that the Five Pillars page does not have an official "policy" tag on it but I think the page does accurately reflect Wikipedia's vision, sustaining values and guiding philosophy. I think it does illuminate the core topic of "What Wikipedia is not" by directing the reader to very well written discussion of what Wikipedia is. For new users who discover WP:NOT first, it's a way to tell that that we are not overwhelmingly negative - that we do have a positive approach. I'm inclined to ask to put the reference back in. Other thoughts? Rossami (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't have so much objection to it under "See also". I think it's important, though, to avoid giving the impression that WP:5P, itself, is the definitive statement of our philosophy, because it isn't, and there's a definite risk (given its phrasing) of that happening if it's linked to from the top of a major policy page. New users on its talk have already asked why "such an important policy page" isn't protected; it's important that they understand that WP:5P is currently just an attempt to describe Wikipedia's philosophy, albeit a good one. --Aquillion 17:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a chat room?

The oft-repeated statement that "Wikipedia is not a chat room" seems to have been removed on October 28 without much explanation. This should be returned to an appropriate place in the policy, as it is an important clarification of why general chit-chat is not appropriate, even on Talk pages, and is likewise thus referenced in the guideline "Refactoring talk pages": "When refactoring a talk page, remember that Wikipedia is not a chat room." — LeFlyman 17:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The section was probably removed because of its triviality in its past form. the real problem is not that two wikipedians exchange opinions, but lengthy political rants and discussions of irrelevant things at talk pages. You are welcome to formulate the "not chat" section based on the Wikipedia:Talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. mikka (t) 23:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

bold fixing

I'm being a bold newbie and changing the structured list link in Wikipedia:NOT to point to Wikipedia:Lists, since it's a redlink, and the Lists guideline page is ostensibly where the link is meant to point. SchrödingersRoot 14:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Notability

Why is notability a touchy subject? My personal belief is that Wikipedia is not the place for random information. I also feel that a consensus needs to be reached on what is and what is not notable. A lot of people seem to not get why creating an article on Joe Blo just because he won the high school spelling bee is a bad idea. This subject is too important to stay an unwritten rule or just meekly addressed. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get why the case of your example is a bad idea. — David Remahl 13:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• His example was to illustrate the levels of WP:Notability required to qualify for inclusion. An article on a local spelling bee winner would not appropriate, as the winner is not notable-- even the winner of the Scripps National Spelling Bee is mentioned in that article only by name. As noted in the policy, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Eric is right, a statement about "Notability" is appropriate to this policy. — LeFlyman 19:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Notability is inherently POV and thus should not be part of Wikipedia policy. As you must be aware, this issue has been discussed ad nauseum in deletion debates and other places. I don't think it is possible to come to a consensus about it. — David Remahl 20:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel that strict guidlines for notability need to be set in stone, via a consensus. Some of the stuff I see around Wikipedia and on the deletion pages (where they should be) is just plain ridiculous. I've seen local science teachers with no claim to fame even in their hometowns. The list is endless. Local heroes, unknowns, bands with 2 fans, random people, useless trivia, pointless subpages... Something has to happen, the question is what? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The subject of a "Notability policy" is discussed earlier on this page (see above); however the issue Eric raises was actually decided by vote in July of this year: "Deletion of Vanity Articles." In particular, Jimbo Wales wrote this, "Articles are to be deleted if there is no assertion of notability, but it's pretty easy to simply *assert* notability, so this isn't much of a barrier." —LeFlyman 06:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Notability is an excercise in POVmongering. Verifiability will deal with nearly all the articles you are worried about. Trollderella 19:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Claiming (and sourcing) that someone won a spelling bee is asserting notability under the speedy deletion guideline that you quoted. — David Remahl 19:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

How does a claiming (and even sourcing) that someone did something unnoteworthy count as an assertion of notability? The Literate Engineer 19:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently someone noted it, so it cannot be "unnoteworthy". — David Remahl 20:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Realize that you will have to come to an agreement with me and people who have similar views in order to reach consensus on "notability". It simply isn't possible. — David Remahl 20:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's silly semantic wordplay to say that if "someone noted it", it's notable. The two aren't equivalent. Verifiability by itself doesn't fulfill the requisite needs of an encyclopedia: the organization of knowledge (not mere trivia) in an easy-to-use and understand way. This is the conclusion of the "Verifiability" policy itself: "[J]ust because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it." It's specifically differentiated in the criteria guideline "Wikipedia:Trivia", and discussed in the proposal "Wikipedia:Importance." —LeFlyman 05:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are my predictions. You're free to prove them wrong: There will never be consensus on notability. Wikipedia will never primarily be a repository of knowledge, merely of information. And one man's (or culture's) trivia is another man's (culture's) information. Any definition of notability is non-NPOV. — David Remahl 12:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't require everyone to agree. So long as there is a minority who believe everything and anything can be included in Wikipedia, then there will be those who claim that "notability is non-NPOV". There's a vast difference between "subjective" and "non-neutral": the gathering of worthwhile information and editing of articles is a subjective process, because language itself is subjective. Yet, this does not equate to the claim that deciding whether a subject is notable is a non-neutral task, just because it is a subjective one-- and repeating the same proof by assertion is the reason this issue has become argumentum ad nauseam. Your prediction is likewise circular reasoning: "we can have no consensus because I do not agree with others who believe in notability, therefore we shall never have consensus on notability." —LeFlyman

Of course I realize it's a circular argument. And consensus doesn't require _everyone_ to agree, but almost. There is nowhere near consensus on notability, as a trip to AfD will show. There may almost be a consensus that _some_ notability measure should be applied, but that's useless since noone agrees on what that measure should be. Eventually you'll find that every discussion on notability will deteriorate to this point, and that's the only WP:POINT I wanted to make. — David Remahl 18:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• While this may not be the place, I'd like to float the proposition that the word "notable" is at fault. We get tied up in the semantic construct of what it means to be "of note." It's a difficulty with strict definitionalism, whereas the meaning is what we're trying to eke out. The problem with "notable" is in it being a protean word, which neither "side" of the debate can define satisfactorily. Perhaps we need a different word altogether, that doesn't fall into the subjective morass of whether something is (or isn't) notable. I'd propose "significant" as an alternative term, as it has both a quantitative and qualitative value (e.g. a significant issue, a significant number.) One can more easily say that "X is more significant than Y", whereas one can have difficulty with the claim that "Y is more notable than Z." While it's still a subjective term— as all qualitative comparatives are— in my view, it's less restrictive and less definitionally loaded a term than the "Wikipedia:Importance" proposal. It's an established term outside Wikipedia used by educational, government, business and literary sources. See, for examples of usage:

• USGS Significant Floods in the United States and FEMA Significant Flood Events
• Science Fiction Book Club Most Significant SF & Fantasy Books of the Last 50 Years
• Naval Postgraduate School Chronology of Significant Terrorist Incidents

—LeFlyman 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed addition: "Wikipedia is not a fan site."

As one of the editors involved in the constant battle to clean up articles about fan-favorite Lost (TV series), I've found that many new users are confused about the level of detail appropriate to encyclopedic content, versus fan content. I've used the refrain "Wikipedia is not a fan site" repeatedly, and think it's appropriate to state explicitly. Last year, another editor floated a similar suggestion, regarding sports fans.

Under such "not fan site" category would be the rubric of other fannish activities, such as: inclusion of extreme trivia; speculations on future events; archiving multiple promotional images; and chat-room like commentary on Talk pages (as I mentioned above). A note that Wikipedia is not "spoiler-free" might likewise be appropriate.

Thoughts? —LeFlyman 20:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

For me, the issue is not necessarily even detail, but rather the tone and nature of coverage, and the audience for which it's written. The problem with a 'fansite' article is that it is useless to someone who doesn't already know about the subject. An encyclopedia article is written for the non-expert.

My concern for listing this in WWIN is that it will add legitimacy to the 'delete, fancruft' crowd. Fancruft generally needs merging and intensive editing, not deletion. Matthew Brown 20:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think like many things, it's a case-by-case basis as far as cruft goes. There's a subjective line between important detail and excessive minutia. I agree that editing is preferable, when deletion is unwarranted, but we need a policy basis for reigning in the excesses of certain individual fans. In the end, it comes down to the consensus of editors on a particular set of articles as to what level of detail should or shouldn't be included; having this in WWIN would provide guidance in reaching that consensus. —LeFlyman 20:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Writing policy to "provide guidance in [reaching] consensus" would be the Wikipedia version of "legislating from the bench." I agree that it has more to do with the nature of the coverage than the detail. For example, "speculation about future events" falls squarely in the "original research" and/or "lack of verifiability" categories. — David Remahl 21:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Most of this is already covered under other policies in this page. I'm not sure the instruction creep is worth it. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Good point about the instruction creep, Matthew. The Literate Engineer 22:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• You're quite right in that much of the proposed addition is connected to established policies-- as is nearly everything in "What Wikipedia is Not." For example, The first two sections, "Not a paper encyclopedia" and "Not a dictionary", merit expansion on their own separate policy pages. "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" is a restatement of "No Original Research." Likewise, "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine" is derived from both NOR and WP:NPOV policies. As with those, this proposal aims to consolidate the disparate policy elements that would clarify why content that might be appropriate to a fan site would not be appropriate to Wikipedia. Such a differentiation is as valuable as pointing out that, "Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider." — LeFlyman 23:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I support anything that makes wikipedia's content simultaneously more academically selective and more accessible for non-experts. This proposal seems to do that. The Literate Engineer 20:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Going back to Lost and, more specifically, Episodes of Lost (Season 2), the real problem is that people are using Wikipedia as a crystal ball. Since this is already banned, why not just add a fourth item to the crystal ball section that says something like: "Wikipedia is not a repository for speculation on minor future events such as the plot of a future television episode, the outcome of a future sports game, etc." I do agree, though, that the Lost article should be cut down to only past episodes and official press releases from ABC. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope that we will hold all topics to the same standard. Broad, deep coverage of science, art, literature and pop culture, all, of course, rigorously verified and sourced should be our goal. Trollderella 00:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

A pleasure to agree with you. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Leflyman's proposal and with The Literate Engineer's take. However, I'd also like to note that this is something I think is particularly important to state specifically. From games to movies to TV series, the line between what is crufty fan-site material and what is "essential information" may be blurry, but there are some real standards that can be easily teased out from common sense and editing effort. After these standards are determined, the editors who have worked hard to do this should have an explicit reference to the rules... citing the policy on speculation, NPoV, and others frequently isn't enough. Stating explicitly in the rules that "Wikipedia is not a fan site" would be a great assistance, because most people with familiarity with the Internet have probably seen a fansite, and know how it is different than an encyclopedia. The problem this proposal aims to fix, while directed initially at our never-ending battle over at the Lost pages, is, in my research, enough of a problem across Wikipedia that, regardless of its overlap with other standards, it needs to be explicitly stated. Baryonyx 03:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense - not unless you want to say Wikipedia is not a science enthusiast site and start deleting details on scientific theories. If it's verifiable, neutral and not OR, it's in. Trollderella 03:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• There's a difference between being a mere enthusiast and being someone who adds excessive, extraneous and non-encyclopedic trivia. The task of writing useable articles requires that editors differentiate between what goes in and what stays out. There's an overwhelming amount of information about every single thing in the world, and not all of it can be included here. The aim of any encyclopedia is to synthesise the important elements, and provide a jumping off point for those who want to research a topic more fully. At some point, perhaps Wikibooks will become the veritable "sum of all human knowledge" and supersede all the world's libraries and Web pages— but Wikipedia isn't the place to put everything. Fans have numerous resources available to present material that isn't appropriate to being included here, from Web sites to discussion forums to fan clubs and newsletters. My proposal is to clarify why we shouldn't be attempting to be a substitute for fan sites— who have a specific, extremely detail-interested audience, which isn't the general audience that Wikipedia serves. —LeFlyman 17:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I support the addition of this item to WP:NOT, but only on the basis that a fan site basically never is NPOV (not on the basis that fan sites have excessive detail.) — David Remahl 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Structured Lists to help organize articles?

I'm concerned about that final third of a sentence in Section 1.5.2, "and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." I have two concerns about it:

1. It does not give any guidance regarding what counts as assisting with the organization of articles.
2. It does not clearly specify whether the exception applies to any and every structured list that assists with the organization of articles, or only, as the section title would indicate, to structured lists of internal links.

I think it would be useful to discuss both those issues, although I admit that I'm motivated by having seen people use this clause as justification for several lists that I believe should not be a part of the Wikipedia. The Literate Engineer 21:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)