Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

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

memorializing deceased regular contributors?

Here...So Wikipedia is the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, and so forth, as long as it happens outside mainspace? as long as they were regular contributors, and more than one tenured Wikipedian will have used the deceased user's page (or an appropriate sub-page) to add comments in the event, and after the fact of, their death??? (bad idea. page is protected, otherwise I'd revert). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.231.205 (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording is pretty accurate. But, anyway, Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines might be the page you're looking for, it came about after this discussion. — Ched :  ?  16:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP got it wrong in emphasis - by saying certain restrictions do not apply we do not say something is therefore encouraged or acceptable. As per Ched and clear consensus in the thread up the page this was allways intended to refer to the main space only - my wording makes it clear that it is not a "free-for-all" in other name spaces. Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A RFC has been opened regarding this issue at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Deceased_Wikipedians/Guidelines#RfC:_Does_WP:NOT_disallow_this_portion_of_the_proposal.

(not by me, but it appears that a member of the community would like to discuss this a bit further) — Ched :  ?  17:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Where are we with NOTPLOT?

My sense is that we've not made much, if any, progress in the last week. The one bright spot, in my opinion, is that we got someone from the "yes" column of the RfC to propose a middle-ground solution. I think that's been fairly rare thus far. In any case, Protonk's proposal was "Arguably a good outcome might be to remove PLOT from NOT, add in some stronger language in WAF and add in an addendum in N that says plot only articles aren't likely to be notable (or something to that effect)". Kww had concerns about PLOT issues not being anywhere in policy. I've got concerns about the details of that "stronger language" but as a concept I think I could live with this. Other comments and thoughts? Is this a good basic framework to start with? Hobit (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A more sensible approach is to agree on the wording first, so that we understand the nature of the beast. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well... I suppose we could always have another RFC. as I see it, there's two major points of contention. 1.) Should the ideas behind WP:PLOT be moved to WP:WAF? 2.) If the answer to 1. is no, what should the wording be? (Likewise, if 1) is yes, we'd need to discuss the wording there.) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What are those ideas? Lets work that out first with the wording. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be easier to deal with a slightly more abstract presentation, like bullet points, then create a wording from what is decided. Otherwise, we end up with endless discussion of whether the wording might be taken as meaning something more. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree on the wording first and then add it to the policy page. Now there's a radical idea.</sarcasm> --Pixelface (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The PLOT template is here on Wikipedia for a reason:

Any changes to NOTPLOT must conform to these standards as a bare minimum. By the wording, it's clear that Plot should not be the majority of an article ("too long compared") and that the reason we would even have any plot details at all is to discuss the real world impact, not just for some fanlisting. The only progress we can have here is to remain true to our roots and not gut a major part of this policy to appease people whose goals are contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. When someone pushes POV onto an article they should just be able to rewrite WP:NPOV to let them do what was prohibited no matter how tenacious they are are how many people they try to recruit. WP:NOT should not be changed just because people really desperately want to do something Wikipedia was never intended to be used for. DreamGuy (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The length compare to the rest of the content is an invalid comparion: We don't want to throw away good work just because it's better-developed than the rest. The template should be changed to simply say the plot summary is overly-detailed - a genuine problem that applies at all levels. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And I have issues with claiming that a template should be how we determine policy. In response to Gavin, I think we need to come to an agreement about a direction before we try to nail down the language. It may be that people bail from the agreement as the language gets nailed down. But that's the risk... Hobit (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if either of you have read any other guidelines or policies, so I am not sure where you have got the idea that over-long or over detailed plot summaries is not a problem when it comes to writing an encyclopedic article. The plot template is actually quite sensible, as the more plot summary an article contains, the more it comes into conflict with other policies and guidelines. Once an article is all plot summary, then it runs contrary to the following:

1. WP:V - If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it;
2. WP:OR - Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources;
3. WP:MOVIE - excludes the following: plot summaries without critical commentary;
4. WP:BK - Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary;
5. WP:WAF - Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference

In addition, there are also all the problems associated with excessive plot summary detailed in the section WP:INUNIVERSE. Overall, there is a large body of evidence at both policy and guideline level, that plot summary only articles fall outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with all your points, that's not the point I made: I said that I feel that, all other things being alright, we shouldn't cut a plot summary simply because it's a little more developed than other sections. Saying that there are situations where an article with a plot summary should be deleted doesn't really change my point. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to SH's original comment, comparing the lengths isn't conclusive, but it's certainly a valid comparison to make. If the amount of real-world material is dwarfed by plot summary, you have to consider whether there's any likelihood of correcting the situation. If there's no likelihood of correcting it, you have a problem.—Kww(talk) 01:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And what if that plot summary is sourced to third-party reliable sources? Do we delete (say) 4 paragraphs of sourced (plot) material because we can only find 2 paragraphs of "real-world" material? Hobit (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To Kww: I don't see any particular reason to require us to provide an inferior description of the plot, simply because the work is only marginally notable, limiting other description, provided A. The plot summary is well-written, and B. not excessively detailed, compared to the original work's complexity. If a work deserves to be on Wikipedia, then it deserves to be done right. Certainly, let's insist on the trimming of fancruft, excessive detail, and so on. However, let's not say that a description of appropriate length and tone should be cut down, limiting the usefulness of its article, because of simple length comparison. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are problematic plot descriptions, of excessive length and detail. I don't think anyone here wants to deny that. But we should be very careful not to insist on the destruction of good, encyclopedic material for arbitrary reasons. Length comparisons of sections are precisely that sort of arbitrary reason. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Problematic plot descriptions, of excessive length and detail, can always be cut back to a level where they are in accordance with best practise as described in Wikipedia:Plot summaries. We don't need to discuss this issue here, because it is assumed that the articles that fall within the scope of that essay meet other guidelines and policies too.
However, this is not the case of plot only articles. We just need to stay focused on those articles which do not contain any substantial coverage other than plot summary. As far as I can see from both the RFC and this discussion here, no editor has put forward a viable argument to say that plot summaries on their own should be allowed to have their own standalone articles in Wikipedia. Basically, such a proposal is the same as saying that articles on fiction would be totally exempt from Wikipedia style and content policies; this is where arguements in favour of eliminating WP:NOT#PLOT fall down.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, Template:Plot is on Wikipedia for a reason: because Hiding created it in his userspace on July 9, 2006 and then renamed it Template:Plot on July 10. It's for tagging plot sections that editors feel are "too long", like this one. Hiding is the same editor who proposed WP:NOT#PLOT and then added WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy page when there was no consensus to do so.[1] If you'll notice, the {{plot}} template was created by Hiding one hour after Hiding added WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy page. If you would have checked the history tab you could have learned that yourself. Using the existence of a template to justify the existence of a policy has to be one of the worst arguments I've ever seen (besides the "here for a reason" one). But using the existence of a template created after an edit to a policy page to justify the existence of the policy has to be the worst argument I've ever seen. You're out of your depth DreamGuy. Go ask Hiding about WP:NOT#PLOT and {{plot}}.

Oh, and by the way, {{allplot}} is also on Wikipedia for a reason: because Black Kite, who was an involved party of the arbitration case E&C2, created it a week after that case closed, right after commenting[2] in an ANI thread about the article History of For Better or For Worse started by Benjiboi, about a plot-only article with no consensus to delete at AFD, but that the nominator, Angr, a self-styled WP:NOT#PLOT "enforcer", then redirected after the AFD closed. Black Kite then put the AFD up for deletion review in order to set a "precedent" and the article was then wrongly deleted by Nakon. I discuss the article a bit here [3] in User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT. Black Kite created {{allplot}} seven minutes before putting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of For Better or For Worse up for deletion review. Black Kite also protected WP:NOT in May 2008 regarding WP:NOT#PLOT, when he wasn't uninvolved, which I talked about in this thread over a year ago.

DreamGuy, you say "people really desperately want to do something Wikipedia was never intended to be used for" but then ignore the fact that Wikipedia existed for nearly 5 1/2 years without WP:NOT#PLOT as policy. When you began editing in November 2004, WP:NOT#PLOT wasn't policy. You either know that or your account was hijacked at some point. You ignore the fact that over seven years ago Jimbo Wales said at Wiki is not paper on meta, "I agree with this one completely" when someone said "Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia?" And you ignore the fact that Jimbo Wales currently profits off of plot summaries by juxtaposing them with banner ads on Wikia, a for-profit website which this policy page and WP:WAF wrongly plug. Was Wikipedia intended to be a used as a front for Jimbo Wales's business ventures? --Pixelface (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is it at all possible you can just leave me out of it? If it is actually important that I did this and I did that as opposed to an editor did this and the same editor did that, fair enough, but blimey, Template:Plot? Is that now part of the whole situation? I think it's quite possible Phil knocked one of those up too, and I think from memory I created that template because someone asked. Do I need to dig out diffs for that too, or is it at all possible we could one day have one of these conversations which does not have to begin from a "he started it" position. It's startimg to become wearying. Personally, I'd like to take a back seat but every time I see my name mentioned and my character called into question I feel obliged to set the record straight. I'm seriously thinking you and I need mediation on this. Hiding T 13:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• DreamGuy brought up {{plot}} and I told him who created that template and when. And I didn't know who created that template until DreamGuy brought it up and I looked. I don't think I called your character into question above (although I did say that you added WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy when there was no consensus for it to be policy, and I've already explained my view of that to you on this talkpage, and at User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT [4]).
  
  If you want to dig out some diffs, you may find this edit range of yours (and this edit range to your talkpage) useful. Personally, I'd like to know more about the events leading up to your WP:NOT#PLOT proposal, like this thread at WT:COMICS, this thread at WT:COMICS, this thread at WT:WAF you created, and maybe even some of the events surrounding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. I'd be happy if you set the record straight.
  
  It seems to me that your WP:NOT#PLOT proposal was about issues editors were having at WikiProject Comics. If someone wants to propose WP:NOT#PLOT as WikiProject Comics guidance over at WT:COMICS, fine with me — but then you'd have to explain how WP:NOT#PLOT relates to this article, which survived this AFD (which you signed off on). Category:Storylines in comics has 329 articles under it.[5]. Looking through AFDs for articles in Category:Marvel Comics supervillains, I have not found any where there was consensus to delete [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Besides, Category:Fiction is much bigger than just comics. Why should every article under Category:Fiction (which had over 1.07 million articles under it as of April 16, 2009) have to suffer because of some petty arguments in a thread at WikiProject Comics where ChrisGriswold and Markeer mentioned making a policy? --Pixelface (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• My talk page is here. Hiding T 10:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's try again. Where are we? I've not seen any proposals that try to address the issues of the RfC from anyone other than myself, Shoemaker's Holiday and Protonk. Nor have I seen any serious discussion about those proposals. If that's right, how do we seriously expect to move forward? Hobit (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've offered two above that I believe meet the issues raises in the RFC (outside of the irreconcilable issues):

The first is more all-enmcompassing:

(Wikipedia is not) Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including aspects of development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary, but these ultimately should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted. For more information on writing about fiction, see Manual of Style (Writing about Fiction).

The other one is to take in account that really that other policy/guidelines like WP:V and WP:N already encompass the need for sources, and thus we only talk about the length / level of detail of a plot summary:

(Wikiepedia is not) Detailed plot summaries: Plot summaries should not seek to describe every nuance of a work, but instead should be used to highlight the key elements as part of being concise. The degree of conciseness required is left to the editors of the page, subject guidelines and wikiprojects.

These need not be final wordings but they are two revisions that reflect the issues of the RFC. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'd missed that. I'm okay with both but like the first better (for content and readability) other than being too wordy (IMO) for WP:NOT. Are there any other propsoals out there that try to address the issues of the RfC? Hobit (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I support Masems first suggestion. However, the second idea falters on why you would want to prohibit detailed plot summary. If detailed plot summary provides context to real-world commentary that provides evidence of notability, then this argument falls down. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Woot! Gavin, Masem and I all on the same page. The world may end. Anyone object? Frankly it's too wordy, but at this point I'm not going to quibble and I _like_ the words. Hobit (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The first seems pretty good, but may I suggest "Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary" be changed to "Articles on such works may start as containing little more than a plot summary" - we do want at the very least the author's name, etc. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree #1 I don't know that such a thing has ever happened (book without author mentioned?) and #2 I worry someone might try to drive a truck through that loophole. I can live with that wording, but strongly prefer it as Masem wrote it. Frankly, we aren't intending to delete the article because it has only plot (right?) so why add the ambiguity where (I think) none exists? Hobit (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The AfD we were discussing above, Magic and Other Misdemeanours did. Also, what loophole? if anything, it's much more strict than Masem's wording which says it may be only Plot summary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? I missed that. I figured out who the author was right away. Weird. In any case, I'm looking at it as a loophole to delete, not a loophole to keep. The greater strictness is what concerns me. So I'd prefer to stick with Masem's language if possible. Hobit (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTPLOT replacement

Written by Masem, and has been agreed to by him, myself and Gavin with Shoemaker's Holiday largely on board. So I think we have something. "Concise" going to continue to be a point of debate, but...

(Wikipedia is not) Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including aspects of development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary, but these ultimately should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted. For more information on writing about fiction, see Manual of Style (Writing about Fiction).

Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Some infelicitous language ("Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary, but these ultimately should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted." seems to lose track of what it's talking about part-way through), but let's implement it as another step in consensus-building and work on tweaks after. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd actually prefer to update "as written" and then worry about the tweaking. I have a fear of the tweaking resulting in no consensus and I'd _really_ like to see this done. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I contacted a few editors who have been involved in these discussion about this in an attempt to get enough folks. I think I picked the "right" people (Kww, Randomran, Protonk, Pixelface), but feel free to notify others. This is not an attempt to bias anything and I'm sure they are all watching this page, but I wanted to get them here quickly to reach consensus quickly if possible. If we get most or all of them on board I think we can update NOTPLOT.Hobit (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary" does not work for me - it is basically a get out of jail for free card. This should be changed to "Articles on such works that contain only plot summary should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into an article that does, if outright deletion is to be avoided". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That language is too prescriptive ("Fix it or it's gone") for policy, and also is a bit too harsh per the RFC feedback. The way I've worded it, it takes into account WP:IMPERFECT implicitly, and is more descriptive. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Change only to primarily or essentially only, and I'm happy. I really detest the the fictional equivalent of WP:COATRACK articles: a bit of casting info used to justify 90 paragraphs of plot retelling. To address Masem's point, perhaps change should either be expanded to must be expandable, which would stress potential over actuality.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If Masem wants to get rid of the perscriptive language, then he has to get rid of all of it, not just those bits that he likes. I would go along with Kww on the grounds that the guidance offered is clear, but no exemption or loophole based on WP:IMPERFECT is acceptable. Rememeber, userfication is better than creating a class of articles that is permanently imperfect. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I thought you'd agreed with what Masem wrote yesterday. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no prescriptive language in my version ("should", not "must"). But the issue is that in the RFC, people pointed out that PLOT was being used to delete works-in-progress. I agree we don't want plot-only articles to fest indefinitely, but at the same time, there's no deadline either. That's why "ultimately" implies that if you don't work on getting past plot-only, it could be merged away at any time. Yes, your suggested wording says that too, but it says with a heavy hand, which we should avoid. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

MASEM, I agree with your sentiments, but think you've left a loophole in your wording - "should" can mean "preferably" or it can be interpreted as "must". You migth want to be more explicit. --Philcha (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually like "should" here. I read it as "are to be" which is less demanding than "must" but covers the same ground. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on everything I've seen, WP policies generally follow the MoSCoW Method for verbage; for example, the WP:BLP is one of the few places where we use "must" and make it descriptive; everywhere else "should" and "could" are better verbs. As this is still policy, "should" fits fine - it's advisable to follow it within the spirit of WP:IAR - with logical and common sense exceptions. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Kww, which of the "onlys" are you suggesting this for? And I prefer the original language over Gavin's suggestion even with Kww's fix (which does improve it, but still is significantly stronger than I could support.) Hobit (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"... containing only a plot summary ..." to " ... containing primarily a plot summary ..." or "... containing essentially only a plot summary ...".—Kww(talk) 15:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad I asked, I figured the other one. I can get behind "containing essentially only a plot summary" if that brings you on-board. Masem, you okay with that? Hobit (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to several of these, but I couldn't get behind "primarily" in this case: That's fine for a guideline, but this is meant to be the most basic of basic policies. I honestly still think we're going way too prescriptive for basic policy even as it is, but am willing to withdraw my objection for the moment, in the interest of allowing some reasonable consensus to be worked in to the currently edit-protected page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with "primarily" or "essentially"; my concern was on Gavin's suggest that deletion will happen, which should still be descriptive (as we allow for things like episode lists and lists of characters, but I'd concern those as part of a larger topic). --MASEM (t) 23:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:NOT#PLOT needs to be removed. Enough already. Policy must have wide acceptance among editors and by all indications, a section on plot summaries in this policy never will. This has gotten insane. It's as if people who don't want WP:NOT#PLOT removed think no plot-only article will ever be deleted again if it is removed. The proposed replacement completely ignores plot-only articles where there is no consensus to delete (or merge) like Fictional history of Spider-Man [17] [18] and Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) [19] [20] and so on.[21]

Masem says "we don't want plot-only articles to fest indefinitely." Who's "we"? Certainly none of the people who argued to keep in those AFDs. Speak for yourself. An article about a fictional character, like Iago, is going to be, for the most part, a plot summary. The "development, critical reception, and legacy" of Iago, while perhaps nice to have, is by no means a requirement. Enter Iago into Wolfram Alpha: A fictional character who is the villain in William Shakespeare's tragedy who tricked Othello into murdering his wife.[22] That would be an okay stub on Wikipedia (and not much shorter than the initial draft).

I already suggested a rewrite of WP:NOT#PLOT in January, but the time for rewrites is over. It's done. People need to stop turning policies into their wishlists and start describing what's actually done, in article space. Enough page protections every few days. Enough bandwidth wasted on what's become the NOTPLOT talkpage. The majority of people in the straw poll above said that WP:NOT should not include a section on plot summaries. What is so difficult for some people to understand? It's over. --Pixelface (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I want to note for the record that I largely agree with Pixelface, but I don't see that in the immediate future thus my effort to find some kind of a compromise. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If every slightest attempt at compromise on the part of those of us who object is going to be turned into hard-line deletionist crap, as seen below, then I think we should ask for it to be deleted. It would be clear that no consensus would ever be possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected Edit?

• I'd say we are at the point we should be asking for a change by an independent admin. I think we have general agreement. Masem, if you agree would you request that edit? I think the only change we are looking at from your wording is adding essentially. I realize we don't have Gavin or Pixelface on-board, but I think getting Kww, Masem, Shoemaker's Holiday and myself in agreement is enough to request that edit. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• You misunderstood. I was replying to Gavin, and was agreeing with Gavin's wording, and making suggestions based on Gavin's wording. Gavin's concerns about a "get out of jail free" card are legitimate. That said, I won't be an obstacle. Go ahead if you must.—Kww(talk) 03:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear then, the wording we have agreed upon is as under:

Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including coverage of its development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works that containing essentially only a plot summary should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into an article that does, if outright deletion is to be avoided. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I think this is fairly concise, and adds an element of guidance about rectification that Masem has added. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's not what I agreed to. I can't agree with the heavy-handed pro-deletion. Indeed, I think that's stronger than the version that caused the controversy. I think that's completely unacceptable. This is the version I agreed to:

“ Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including aspects of development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary, but these ultimately should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted. For more information on writing about fiction, see Manual of Style (Writing about Fiction). ”

That one says they generally should not be deleted; yours, that they always should be unless people immediately improve them. Are you actually interested in working to achieve consensus? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hobit, the fact that I'm not on board is irrelevant. The fact that a majority of editors said this policy should not include a section on plot summaries[23], however, is relevant. Why are those editors being ignored? --Pixelface (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I still agree it should be removed. In fact the latest DrV I've been involved in makes me think it really needs to be removed. But finding consenous for that is nearly impossible. I also think the fact that there isn't consensus for NOT#PLOT means it should be removed. But I didn't get anywhere with that (even though reading policy any other way is nearly impossible). So I took the low-hanging fruit and worked to improve it rather than remove it. If someone else wants to work to remove it, they have my endorsement but I've been warn down by the discussion and want to duck out. Some improvement was better than no improvement (which is where I think we were otherwise headed). I'm actually quite pleased we got somewhere and worry that doing so will reduce the odds of actually getting rid of this silly thing. But bird-in-hand was taken. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding the change I thought Kww had suggested and SH had agreed to. Just a one-word change from what SH had written.

“ Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not essentially be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including aspects of development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary, but these ultimately should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted. For more information on writing about fiction, see Manual of Style (Writing about Fiction). ”

• Kww, Masem and SH: can you all live with that? As with Kww I'm not really endorsing this as I think it's still the "wrong thing", but I think it's the best comprise we are likely to get... Aslo, Gavin, can you explain why you agreed with this when Masem proposed it in the section above, but now don't? What changed?Hobit (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally agreed with Masem approach, because it represents a concise way of wording the prohibition for plot only articles, but providing a temporary licence for plot only articles is not necessary. The phrase " Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary" is such a licence, an is effectively an exemption from WP:V which requires articles to contain coverage that independent of their primary source. I can't imagaine why you would think how this is supposed to work: one part of this version says plot only articles are not allowable and the other says they are. The conflict between is hard to accept, as Wikipedia can't cater for a class of articles that don't fit within its framework or policies and guidelines, otherwise we would need to have some sort of editorial board to regulate such articles, even if they were allowed to exist on a temporary basis.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, WP:IMPERFECT implicitly applies to every NOT phrase including PLOT; technically we don't need it. The problem is , as expressed by several no !votes in the RFC, is that PLOT is used to target articles that are works in progress. In the spirit of reaching consensus, it is necessary to reassert that plot-only articles are starting points but not valid final articles and are expected to improve or be merged in time; in what time frame and how to resolve plot-only articles is an exercise left to other policy and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can live with it as an updating of the compromise. I don't think it should be our final word on the matter. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary" is basically an invitiation to spam plot only articles, and it can't stand. You may as well say "Articles about living persons may start with slander" or "Articles may start with orginal research". Are you kidding?--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A plot summary is an acceptable part of an article; on the other hand, slander and original research are never appropriate, thus this is not a valid comparison. Yes, someone could create articles on every episode of a show, but that could happen with or without this statement, and the second half of that statement along with other policies and guidelines will deal with those that are just spamming those out and those that believe they are acting in good faith. The only way to prevent what you are asking is to modify WP:CSD to include plot-only articles, and I'm pretty sure that will never fly. In other words, there is nothing that we can do in NOT to prevent what you're concerned with. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

But plot summary on its own is not acceptable for the same reason as slander or original reseach; it can't be regulated within the frame of Wikipedia style and content polices. The distinction between plot only articles and plot summary as part of balance coverage is very different (like a dinner comprised only of salt or a dinner sprinkled with salt), so using this excuse to water down the prohibition is not acceptable. The wording can't conflict between its objective (plot only articles are not allowed) and its implimentation (plot summary only articles are allowed temporarilty). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there's a huge difference. Slander and original research cannot be improved into an article and must be removed on sight. On the other hand, plot summaries can be improved. If your goal here is to try to ban plot-only articles at any time, you're not going to succeed. The goal here is to discourage them as much as possible and suggest alternatives, but WP:NOT cannot prevent the creation of potentially useful material. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the goal was to discourage plot summary in cases where it is very unlikely that the article will ever be substantially more than that. Rd232 ^talk 17:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Masem, your claim that plot-only articles are not valid final articles is blatantly false. Don't try and pass off your personal opinion as if it were fact. Your view flies in the face of multiple AFDS where editors felt plot-only articles were acceptable.[24] --Pixelface (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say we are in as much agreement as we are likely to get. Masem, if you agree, I think you should propose the edit formally. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see a much stronger demonstration of consensus than just 4 or 5 editors before changing it. Whether that's a new RFC or just a straw poll, I don't know. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I'd say it's in your court. What's the plan? Hobit (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Further, I don't think an article that could normally be edited by anyone with an account really requires an RfC or straw poll. We already have an RfC that shows there is no consensus for this to even be here and thus, per WP:POLICY it should either be removed or tagged as lacking consensus. I don't see what an RfC or straw poll can hope to accomplish at this point beyond what has already been done with the last one. Hobit (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Before we make this and establish this as policy, I want to avoid all the issues with its dubiousness as Pixelface and others have pointed out that the original addition of PLOT had, and make sure that in the current phrasing that it is acceptable. An RFC noting that this wording attempts to address those issues from the previous RFC should be sufficient that as long as agreed to by consensus, the long past disputes over PLOT will no longer matter. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I view this as a stop-gap. If you are asking people to accept this and withdraw all concerns about PLOT even being here, I really don't think you'll find any language that will get consensus. Heck, I can't support that. And given that half the people in the last RfC felt it shouldn't be here, that's a sense of consenous that won't get met. Is that what you are looking for? Hobit (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't viewing it as such; understandably that would be fine, but before changing, I'd like to know what the next step is in the first place. To me, it seems most were looking to a reword based on RFC comments to finalize this, but if this is only a temp step, there's been no talk of what's next. --MASEM (t) 02:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but after we get something I'm going to walk away from this issue: I'm just warn down. If there is another RfC and I notice, I'll !vote to remove PLOT from here. But I want _something_ positive to get done as a result of the RfC before I pack it in. Hobit (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you would like to avoid the issues Masem, but unfortunately for you, you can't. I'm right, you're wrong, and you have put me through absolute hell. WP:NOT#PLOT did not have consensus to be policy[25] when it was initially proposed, and an admin closed an RFC merely 9 days ago where a majority of editors said WP:NOT should not include a section on plot summaries, with the closing admin saying "There is no consensus on whether NOT should include a section on plot summaries or not." Policies must have wide acceptance among editors. So in what world could the current phrasing possibly be acceptable? One would have to ignore that the RFC ever happened.

WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy, which is what I've been trying to tell you for over a year now. And what a long goddamn year it's been. WP:NOT#PLOT has never had consensus to be policy. What is preventing you from understanding that? I am sick and tired of your repeated attempts to plug your ears and bury your head in the sand. You think you can change the outcome of the RFC merely 9 days later, just because you commented in the "Yes" section? I'm sorry, but where exactly did the editors who commented in the "No" section agree to the current wording? And for you to say "the long past disputes over PLOT will no longer matter", you would have to be completely insane, which, now that I think of it, is actually beginning to make a lot of sense to me. Enough is enough. I'll remove WP:NOT#PLOT myself. For the last time. I hope. --Pixelface (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In scanning through the discussion above, I don't think I saw the following point touched on -- how about non-notable episodes of otherwise-notable shows? If 90% of, say, the Star Trek articles have plot summaries with details about reception etc., do we have to delete the articles of the 10% that disappeared without a splash? (Actually, the example I was thinking of, the episode that took place on Memory Alpha, is probably a bad example -- although that's the only memorable thing about that episode, it's passed into fairly wide use...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we're all worn down. If we can get some agreed temporary wording, I suspect a month's break wold be the next step, followed by a review of what happens in that time. If we can't, I dunno. Delete it as no consensus? I'd prefer, though, to have a compromise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Sarek, they don't need to be deleted, but the coverage of their development, critical reception, and legacy should be expanded. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Shoemaker, I have suggested a compromise. If you are unhappy with this wording, please say why and perhaps we can work towards a form of words that is acceptable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I did say why: It completely ignored all previous discussion by coming out much stronger pro-instant-deletion even than the phrasing that started all of this. That's not a compromise, that's a... not sure of the word... landgrab? If you want to compromise, you're going to have to accept that saying that all articles with more plot summaries than real-world information should be deleted on sight, or heavily edited to remove said summaries isn't going to fly. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As for what to do next, I will offer up the option of another RFC (yes, I know, tiring) but with 4 options:

• The revised version to stay in NOT, based on the feedback of the previous RFC to identify the areas that others felt failed the systems, as the option to keep PLOT in NOT. (This option does open for possibly rewordings to improve, but does not ask for a drastic diversion from it.)
• The option to create a new page to house PLOT as a policy, but not in NOT.
• The option to move PLOT to WAF
• The option to completely remove any statement like PLOT from any policy or guideline.

Unlike the previous RFC which didn't really provide for a good followup, the results of this consensus pretty much should be impossible to disagree on interpretation, and thus a direct action can be taken as a result and lay to rest (for at least a month :) any disagreement about PLOT on its outcome. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that What PLOT is meant to be is still uncertain. Is it a deletion policy for articles with too much plot? Does it insist that plot summaries be kept short until real-world material substantially balances it? Or is it simply a statement that articles should seek to move away from being mainly focused on plot summaries as soon as possible? It makes a big difference. If we don't decide what PLOT is, where it's meant to go is meaningless. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In answer to Shoemaker's earlier post, I think you exagerate when you say "all articles with more plot summaries than real-world information should be deleted on sight, or heavily edited to remove said summaries". Masem's wording never suggested this, nor did my amendments. But we could change the wording so that it is less prescriptive:

Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including coverage of its development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works that containing essentially only a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I feel we are quite close to a compromise. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe I over-reacted. If I might just tweak the wording for grammar and style

Plot-only description of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real-world context of the work, (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting. Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I've bolded a couple minor changes in meaning. For the record:

• "such as": Some works won't have information on one or more of these; for instance, little can be said of the development of an anonymous work.
• "reasonably concise": In some articles, with lengthy, sourced analysis of the plot, the plot is necessarily longer. See most FAs.
• "plot, characters, and setting": This is probably clearer than "fictional content", while meaning the same thing.
• "literary analysis": Perhaps a little book-centric, but if it's possible to analyse the plot, we should encourage people to do so by all means.

I also rearranged some things for clarity, such as giving real world context before plot, characters and setting, to simplify the sentence structure. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That wording is clear but flexible and has my support. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Note that I've made a tiny tweak: I had accidentally deleted "legacy" from the list. I also put the list into parentheses, to help readers a little bit more. If you're happy with this, I'm happy.

One possibility instead of "literary analysis" might be "sourced analysis of the fictional elements" (more generic, though a little wordy)Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am good with this as written (without the changes SH just proposed ideally). I don't see the need for an RfC at this time however. If we find language that Gavin, Masem, SH, and I can all live with I think an RfC is not needed. If this weren't a protected article we'd certainly make the change without it. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the language too - however, it would be nice to get a few more hands to confirm it before seeking a protected edit request (and to make this totally legit, even though I could do it, I would rather not be the one to make the edit just to any possible COI issues. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd just request the protected edit if nothing changes in the next 24 hours. I certainly agree you shouldn't do it. I'd say a request to the protecting admin would be the way to go. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, I'm proposing we go with the text in the last box written by SH (but, of course, without the bolding of the added terms). Hobit (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, now that it is no longer protected, I suggest it would be fine (and probably ideal) for Masem to make the change. Hobit (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I know I have contributed nothing here since the WP:FICT era months ago, but I do read - and personally, I like it. — Ched :  ?  21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I already thanked Gavin, but thanks to everyone who was involved. I think we did a fairly good job. Hobit (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I too am glad we worked this out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Nothing was worked out. A majority of editors said this policy should not include a section on plot summaries[26], so why are those editors being ignored and why are people still trying to rewrite WP:NOT#PLOT when it obviously does not belong here? --Pixelface (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I count 69 no, and 66 yes; not much of a majority (WP:NOT a democracy). Also if there's any sampling bias here, who do you think it favours? Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Please read WP:POLICY. We should not have policies that lack consensus to exist. This one clearly does. Pixelface is in the right, but the current version of NOTPLOT is the best I think that could be achieved. If we actually followed our own policies, NOTPLOT would be long gone. Hobit (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Who said Wikipedia was a democracy? Policies must have wide acceptance among editors. Over half of the editors in the straw poll said this policy should not have a section about plot summaries, and WP:NOT#PLOT is about plot summaries. Is that what you call wide acceptance? Regarding bias, I can't say for sure, but I'd say many of the participants are people who are familiar with {{cent}}, or who follow policy talkpages regularly, which I'm guessing inflates the yes numbers. People who write plot-only articles probably don't spend much time in WT space, but people who hate plot-only articles have every motivation to express their support for WP:NOT#PLOT in WT space. --Pixelface (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
              • I've added {{Disputed-section|talk=WP:NOTPLOT replacement}} just above WP:NOTPLOT, as it does not have consensus in this Talk page nor in the poll 2 months ago. Sorry if it's not the most appropriate tag, but it's the only section-level one I could see that did the job.--Philcha (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
                • This is inappropriate to mark it disputed. Yes, the straw poll, if you looked at the numbers, showed a 50/50 split for the question. But that's just the numbers. The responses give much more insight to what editors' concerns with about PLOT in NOT more than just what the numbers gave, and in several cases, they still suggest it should remain in NOT as long as their concern was dealt with (eg identifying that articles may start as plot summaries and shouldn't be summarily deleted as such) Thus, in the preceding discussion, we discussed what those issues were and how to establish a statement for PLOT that would address those issues, and came to a consensus (including the person that started the straw poll) and waited to see if anyone disagreed, and, at least for me, I was going to get an uninvolved admin to consider adding it, but Gavin added it boldly after page project . To me, this is a logical, consensus driven result from the straw poll, everything that we want to come out from discussion of WP policy. If an editor still wants to argue there's no consensus, then we probably need another straw poll to see if the current version has consensus. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So what is your proposal, Pilcha? If you don't have a proposal, you are spitting in the wind. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the default is that, since WP:NOTPLOT clearly does not have consensus, it should be ignored in the short term, and in the longer term be either modified to a form that obtains consensus or deleted. --Philcha (talk)23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this policy is disputed because you make a bald assertion that it should be ignored. Why should it be ignored, exactly? What modification do you wish to make? You can see all the discussions that resulted in the current version. What is is that you object to? I have removed the disputed tag in the absence of any proposition. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, you are claiming that the current WP:NOTPLOT has consensus. The burden of proof lies on you. At present the available evidence indicates that WP:NOTPLOT does not have consensus. Hence you need to produce convincing evidence for consensus. I am reinstating the "disputed" banner. I suggest you read WP:EDITWAR. --Philcha (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins has asked me to state my own views. I thought I'd already done that, but this discussion has gone one for so long that I've forgotten a lot of it - or perhaps it was in a previous discussion on this Talk page. So:

• WP:NOTPLOT does not have consensus, and should be made inoperative until it gains consensus.
• Rigid application of anything resembling the current WP:NOTPLOT would be bad for Wikipedia's long-term future:
  • Most fiction-related articles start as plot summaries. There are good reasons for that:
    • Many are written by newbies. Most WP editors stick around for only 2-3 years. Biting newbies will drive away potential good editors, but will do much less to drive away POV-pushers and even less to deter vandals. So any guideline or policy that amounts to a threat of deletion for plot-only articles will both make WP stagnate and make it more vulnerable to POV-pushers and vandals.
    • There's little point in adding independent commentary if there's no indication of what the commentary is about. Adding commentary first would create a book of cuttings, not an article.
• Even those that later reach GA or FA remain sub- or start-class for a long time, until someone makes a concentrated effort to upgrade them. Any guideline that sets or implies deadlines would be harmful, by killing potential future GAs and FAs.
• The same applies to many non-fiction articles, most obviously to articles about non-fiction books but also to e.g. scientific theories - they all start with summaries of content, and for the same reasons. It's hard to see why there should be a fiction-specific guideline that condemns articles with only content summaries.
• The revised version of WP:NOTPLOT should:
  • Be a guideline rather than a policy, so that it is subject to WP:IAR.
  • Avoid threats of rapid deletion or any explicit or implied setting of deadlines.

PS I do not expect that the views I've just expressed are consensus. That does not change the fact that WP:NOTPLOT is not consensus. --Philcha (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nearly every point you state above, save for the non-fiction aspect, are all potential issues with pretty much every content-based NOT phrase in the present policy - article may start as guides or catalogs or whatnot and end up getting improved, and thus, implicitly buried here at NOT is the fact that improvement over deletion is called for. But I see no one running around calling for getting rid of NOTGUIDE or any other aspect. The only reason that PLOT is "special" is that it is the most visible of NOT cases. But regardless, that's why the above section talked about a satisfactory rewording that removed any call for deletion and instead recognized the points you stated above - articles may start as plot-only, and that in the long-term, improvements or merging should be done. Most of this language is fluff given the implicit nature of NOT, but being explicit is what meets all these points. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you've just said. My main reservation about your proposed wording was about the ambiguity of "should", which deletionists will interpret as "must". And I think WP:NOTPLOT a should be a guideline rather than a policy, so that it is subject to WP:IAR. --Philcha (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, same logic, every content phrase in NOT should thus be a guideline for the same reasons; the only reason PLOT is an issue here is the visibility of fiction. IAR applies to policy too - that's why "must" is rarely used in policy pages save for when WP's wellbeing is at stake (namely, BLP and non-free content). Editors that regularly seek to delete articles citing only PLOT without attempts to improve or work towards improve is an issue that needs to be dealt with outside of WP:NOT. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents, as previously stated, is that NOT#PLOT lacks consensous. I feel that the current wording is a significant improvement, but given that the RfC asked if NOT#PLOT should even exist and a (very slim) majority said no, it shouldn't be part of policy. I'm not going to be involved at this point; it was way too much time and stress to get what we got. I do think the the exact tag should be changed: I believe there is one for policy rather than a "factual dispute". But I think tagging is the least we can do given the wording of WP:POLICY (If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus; possibilities include silence on the issue and acknowledgement that editors disagree on the point.) I'm going to take this page off my watch list as I really don't want to spend time on this again. If anyone wants my further input please go to my talk page. Hobit (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Every policy is open to challenge, and from that point of view is disputed. But unless there is a working alternative put before us in the form of proposal, we can't address the source of the dispute, nor resolve it. Without a proposal, this tag little more than trying to make a point. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I urge you to look beyond the flat out numbers and consider what was said in expanded statements. Several "no" said "it should be policy except it has *this* aspect", which is what the revised wording attempted to address. There are some "no"s that are never going to be met while it remains in NOT, but many can be addressed. This is why I suggested, before adding it back, another straw poll to reassert consensus on the new wording with the understanding if that did not have consensus, we'd drop it back to WAF. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been hashed out? It seemed like there was a long and dramatic debate over this entree and that it was resolved with a reworked wording that satisfied outspoken partisans on either side of the issue. This is the definition of consensus: working out a mutually acceptable solution rather than relying on polarizing straw polls. Once that has happened, we can't just have one editor coming in and slapping disputed tags on the material singlehandedly.

Philcha, its not really productive to keep rehashing an old straw poll that was taken before an honest search for consensus was made. Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I quote: "The ultimate goal of any article discussion is consensus, and a straw poll is helpful only if it helps editors actually reach true consensus." Quoting further, "article straw polls should not be used prematurely. If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming." Finally, "Because straw polling cannot create consensus, polling is rarely helpful in the development of policies or guidelines, and frequently counterproductive." The straw poll did not help editors reach a true consensus; in fact, the present consensus was reached in spite of the straw poll, and clearly after it was taken. Further, the purpose to which and manner in which the straw poll was taken were clearly not consistent with virtually any of the principles in the above guideline.

In a nutshell, please stop trying to use an outdated and flawed straw poll to justify tagging this entree. Wikipedia operates by consensus, not by polling, and a (at least tentative) consensus has been reached in the present wording. Locke9k (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. No large organization of human beings makes decisions by the process that WP calls “consensus.” No government does, and the United nations does not. The Supreme Court does not. Juries are small bodies, and even they deadlock, so consensus is not a realistically achievable goal for all cases even at this small size (and in any case, juries operate by repeated internal polling, so “consensus” for juries means only universal polling agreement, and is not the same thing as the term is used on Wikipedia). Nor do any professional societies or large businesses with boards of directors operate by consensus. (Nor does WMF itself in its own board-level decision-making, if you’re looking for denial-of-reality). Nor (more internally for en.wiki) does ArbCom. Going back to the “real” world, nor does the military, or any large academic organization, either publicly or privately funded. Not the American Bar Association or the American Medical Society or the United Association of Plumbers and Pipe-fitters. If you have some large organization of human beings which you think operates by consensus, state your example.

What about Wikipedia? Well, it doesn’t actually operate by consensus, except in very small decisions involving two or three and never more than a handful of editors. It wants to. That is its ideal. Some people think it does. However, I’ve been here for 3+ years and seen many a large edit war during my 14,000 edits (see WP:LAME if you like this kind of thing; though these are mostly not things I've been directly involved in). Here, in any case, is what I see happening when many people are involved in any issue: 1) there is a lot of arguing, 2) this goes on until most people on one side are exhausted and give up, leaving the diehards. 3) These square off to see which side has the most wiki-juice (number of involved administrators and their supporters). Then the side with the most juice makes the changes it wants, and if 4) the other side reverts, they are accused of editwaring, breaking “consensus” and become subject to the many sacred accusations which have names like SOCK, CIVIL, COI, AGF, 3RR, EDITWAR, and so on. This gives some involved administrator a reason to block them, so they can no longer participate in the argument. Going to dispute resolution or RfC only results in more arguing of the same type. The worst edit wars where nobody can see to block enough of one side to settle the issue, go to ArbCom where consensus is not the mechanism, but rather arbitrators vote, and more often than not, disputants are topic banned, or banned altogether. That is not consensus. So that’s what REALLY happens on Wikipedia-- it's NOT a consensus much of the time. In case you didn’t know. SBHarris 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Locke9k, how can you say "it was resolved with a reworked wording that satisfied outspoken partisans on either side of the issue."? Where's the evidence it's a "mutually acceptable solution"? And there has been long and dramatic debate about WP:NOT#PLOT ever since Hiding wrongfully added it to this policy after there was no consensus for it to be policy.[27] If the majority of people said this policy should not have a section about plot summaries, how could any rewording be a "mutually acceptable solution"?

Once it's been determined that there is no consensus for this policy to address plot summaries, which the straw poll did, the first person in the "yes" section can't just come up with yet another new wording with five other people and say "It's fixed now." The straw poll showed that there is no consensus for this policy to address plot summaries at all. Period. And there is no "present consensus" on the wording of WP:NOT#PLOT. You can't just pretend the straw poll didn't happen. Policies must have consensus to be policy. WP:NOT#PLOT does not, and it never has. Policies must have wide acceptance among editors. WP:NOT#PLOT does not.

In a nutshell, the straw poll showed that there is no consensus for this policy to address plot summaries. You said yourself that Wikipedia operates by consensus. Masem has been resisting any and all efforts to remove WP:NOT#PLOT from this policy for 15 months now, and enough is enough is enough. --Pixelface (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, I certainly accept the argument that consensus is an ideal that is often not properly put into practice. However, the edit warring and so on that you describe is exactly a result of people not honestly seeking consensus. I agree that straw polls can be useful to determine consensus, but I don't agree that it is almost ever valuable to open an RFC with an immediate straw poll, particularly one framed in a super polarizing yes-or-no way. The purpose of an RFC is to encourage editors to discuss the issue and seek consensus, not to simply solicit more votes on one side or another of an already-polarized debate. A straw poll should be conducted after discussion has occurred, or alternately the RFC should be formatted in a views/proposals setup where editors can contributed views and proposals and others can endorse them. Now that a new wording has been developed which addresses some of the issues raised some of the objectors in the straw poll, we have a new situation. More progress of this kind could possibly be achieved by honest consensus seeking rather than by polling.

On a side note, there is also no consensus to allow pure plot summaries on WP. This is the sort of case where by removing the material from policy, we would be defacto setting a new policy (of allowing more plot summary), which by your own argument also does not have consensus.

Finally, I'll note that I am not particularly a partisan of either side in this dispute. There are pages of almost entire plot summary and in-world content that I enjoy quite a lot and that I am inclined to feel benefit WP in some ways. On the other hand, I sympathize and somewhat agree with arguments to the effect that this sort of extensive in-universe content does not belong in an encyclopedia. In a essence, I will not be particularly devastated if the outcome of this debate goes either way. As someone invested in the improvement of Wikipedia, I am just concerned by the polarized nature of this debate: moderate voices seem to get shouted down by partisans of either side, and resolution processes get framed in a way that leads to more polarization rather than resolution.

Remember, there is no binding content resolution here. The very straw poll you put so much credence in shows an almost exactly split result. The only way you are going to get any progress is by reaching out to people on the other side and trying to find some kind of middle ground or more broadly acceptable proposal. Locke9k (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that there's no consensus for any form of NOTPLOT at this time. Why don't we just remove it and put in some version when there is a consensus? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

List of digital library projects

List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at [28]. The page has been in breach of Wikipedia:LINKFARM#LINK and Wikipedia:List for many years. We could do with help reaching a consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

List of link resources for Graves' disease

I've gotten the linkfarm template on List of links for information relating to Graves' disease. I was directed to this article. Since these are a well-orgnized set of links which all individually meet the criteria of what links should be usefully included in an article, but simply too long, there really isn't much here that applies. Wikipedia is not paper, and the only complaint here that really can be defended is that this list is too long.

Coming here to see what the policy is, the complaint that too-long lists of links can take over an article, has been neatly addressed by spinning this off as a stand-alone list, which is what we do whenever that happens with lists, as per WP:SS. See List of firearms. The only other thing that relates here is the assertion that WP is NOT a "mere collection" of links. Well, why not? It's a mere collection of a lot of things (like firearms), if you want to be snide about describing it-- that sort of what an encyclopedia is, if anything. This is deliberately inflammatory and ambiguous language.

However, I will argue that there is nothing "mere" about a carefully collected set of any data (List of Pacific hurricanes), including links (which are merely one category of very many things which are intrinsically encyclopedic, from birds to plants to books to plays). This is not a random collection of links, but a set which specifically and topically offers further information on Grave's disease (and by the way, I didn't make it, and I personally have no particular interest in it, except as an annoyance in my attempt to build a better article and find a place for the information already digested and presented by other editors).

Here's the real problem. WP has recognized the encyclopedic imporantance of many stand-alone lists, from List of people who have been beheaded to List of bowtie wearers. The latter of which threated to take over the articles on bow ties and beaheading until they were spun off. If you don't like indiscriminate collections, what about List of Chinese people? A triffle incomplete, don't you think? Intrinsically, a good link to find more information is just as encyclopedic as a bird or a cartoon show (List of weekday cartoons), or the names of folks who got beheaded (also woefully imcomplete). However, as a completely random and somewhat mad act, somebody seems to have made a policy here that internet links are not encyclopedic when presented as long lists, whereas they ARE encyclopedic, as short lists. You can't defend that, since no space limitations exist here. This does not make sense. If I'm reading your policy correctly, you have a bad and contradictory policy, and need to rethink it. SBHarris 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Link lists have special issues such as being very prone to spamming by webmasters, so there are good reasons not to overdo them. The Open Directory Project is an existing project which does this kind of thing. And last time I checked (which was long before Wikipedia existed) even they didn't accept multiple links to sections of sites, i.e. the thing that blows your list up to the proportions that make it unsuitable for inclusion in another article. I agree that a list of Chinese people makes no sense. Its AfD in December 2006 ended with no consensus. But that's no reason to keep another list without virtue where presumably there is a consensus to delete. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.

By the way, the list is currently proposed for deletion. If you strongly oppose this you have the right to simply remove the tag and force a full AfD discussion, although I think the result would be predictable. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A user thinks wikipedia is a school directory

User:Ljmb87 thinks Wikipedia is a place to put notableness schools. See the user's talk page for more info.--Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 00:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this policy? --Pixelface (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED and the main page

Discussions of what to feature on the main page through DYK and TFA (and probably also ITN, On This Day, and Featured Picture, but I have never been involved in those projects) often crop up over whether or not a given article, photo, etc. is "appropriate" for the main page; in these discussions, some people cite WP:NOTCENSORED. The latest incarnation of this sort of discussion at DYK is going on now at WT:DYK#Appropriate for the main page?, and User:Backslash Forwardslash has posted some links to other similar discussions within the past several months.

To be perfectly honest, I think playing the "But Wikipedia isn't censored" card in these disputes is wrong. Wikipedia is not censored, no, but the Main Page is particularly sensitive and is treated differently than article space (for example, we all know that Raul654 will not put Jenna Jameson or a picture of a seagull defecating on the main page). Besides, keeping an article off the main page is not "censorship" because we are not suppressing the article itself; it is still allowed to exist in mainspace and be linked as much as it wants to be.

Therefore, I'm wondering if a clause can be added to WP:NOTCENSORED clarifying the special status of the main page? I don't know what the exact wording of this addition should be (certainly we don't want to say "WP is not censored but the main page is!"), I'm just trying to get the ball rolling. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I very much oppose this. The Main Page should be representative of Wikipedia's content, of which, per wide consensus, is not censored. This "shock" or "sensitivity" factor can apply to any page which may unexpectedly have some "explicit" form of content, and to remove sensitive content from anywhere compromises Wikipedia's goals. There are numerous other ways already to filter content from the Internet which one may find objectionable, and we shouldn't be playing the part of the net nanny. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting any changes to what we put on the main page—there already is not consensus to put "objectionable" content there, as evidenced by the pages I mentioned above and the current discussion at WT;DYK where the majority of editors seem to oppose the Cunt (video game) hook over there. I'm just suggesting that WP:NOTCENSORED clarify that keeping something off the main page is not the same as "censoring" it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'd argue that it is censorship, I don't think there's any real consensus as to either way at the moment; it'd therefore be premature for WP:NOTCENSORED to state either way. Per what I've said at WT:Did you know, though, I agree that, even if a consensus to remove such content were established, we need proper guidelines as to what is and is accepted instead of just deciding whether or not something is objectionable at the time of its use on the main page. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping something off the main page is not necessarily censorship, the article is still allowed to exist in mainspace. Compare it to magazine stands and video stores in the United States: there's plenty of porn there, they just put it on the top shelf so it's not right in your face. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely enthused; unlike shops, there are many ways on the Internet to filter objectionable content; your same principle very much applies to anywhere where such content may unexpectedly turn up. It seems inappropriate to me for a supposedly neutral encyclopedia to be enforcing what has proven to be a vague and subjective interpretation of inappropriateness. Really, I think the best way to overcome this issue is to make the reader more aware of the fact that Wikipedia is not censored and of the ways in which they can filter such content; how this will work in relation to the main page I am unsure of as of yet, but merely filtering "objectionable" content is just too subjective and biased as far as I see it. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said at WT:DYK, people who have opposed "inappropriate" content on the MP usually aren't just doing it to "protect the little ones". It's also about Wikipedia's reputation and what part of Wikipedia we choose to show the world. For example, someone at the discussion there pointed out that he might be more willing to feature this article if it was also some of Wikipedia's best work—i.e., if it was well-written, included a section on reactions to the game, etc. But since it's not even a very good article, why bend over backwards to show people something that's going to give them a poor impression of Wikipedia anyway? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, the quality of content is still an independent factor from its appropriateness (although I'm not entirely sure what the criteria are for being featured on DYK). My main point is that censorship shows bias against such content, which I think could affect (and has affected?) Wikipedia's reputation as well. If we give the reader the option, somehow, of whether they want to view such content but not explicitly remove such content from anywhere, we could essentially put this issue to rest. It's this "somehow" which I think is the real question, and that seems to be more of a technical question of a wider scope than that of a policy page. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

←I'm gonnna have to go with Rjanag on this one. I remember there was a lot of talk about the technical side of limiting content when desired back during the Virgin Killer episode, and all that really came of it was: "You can turn your pictures off in your browser if you want". I think the main page needs to stick to main stream, prime-time, acceptable to all, content. The masturbation photos, the penis shooting sperm at a a vagina flash game, and pearl necklace articles are here for those that want to look for them. BUT - that doesn't mean we have to throw it in every visitors face on the main page. If we want to have a reputation of integrity and professionalism, then we have to "walk the walk", as well as "talk the talk". </end of rant> — Ched :  ?  17:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED tries hard to distinguish censorship from all the other countless reasons for removing content, but it doesn't come close. Look at any page's edit history, and most of the removals aren't justified by any of the exceptions to WP:NOTCENSORED other than "obviously inappropriate", which could mean anything. In practice, if you don't like something being removed, call it censorship, and pretend a policy is making the decision and not just you. Conversely, if you do like something being removed, say it isn't censorship, any more than removing "gerls luve kattse" from the cat article would be censorship; that way you aren't arguing against a policy. If you really want this issue to be decided by a policy, you probably have to limit its scope to a list of specified topics, like say sexual expression, and opinions about politics and religion, and maybe not even try to dictate with policy what's OK on the Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'm not so concerned with defining what censorship is, but just saying "keeping something off the main page is not necessarily the same as 'censoring' it from mainspace". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a slippery slope issue here. If we start saying "ok, front page content should not contain X,Y, or Z", it will only be a matter of time before some other group asks for more exceptions to the list. I believe the best answer here is that those responsible for providing the front page content should make sure to use best practices to consider what to include, but if there's no way around it and it is useful or important to include, then so be it. We have the general content disclaimer, and really, if we're worried about such issues at schools or the like, schools today should be well aware of the possible content of WP and can take steps to block as needed, if they feel this is the case. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there's a slippery slope in both directions; if we took this policy seriously then not only would we need pornography and vomit as Main Page featured pictures, but every removal of content would have to be justified by a specific policy – and the Manual of Style, for instance, doesn't count because it's a guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

School street addresses

In this diff, User:Kingturtle explicitly disallowed the use of school addresses in their articles. However, {{Infobox school}} has a street address field, and has for years. I would like to find out if there's consensus for this change or not. I disagree with it, but don't want to revert until I find out if people agree with me or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the standard practice across Wikipedia is to not include contact information or addresses for institutions. The change seems to reflect that practice.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Though we do encourage geolocation, which any competent reader can regurgitate in Google or something to get back an address. But I agree that contact information is not appropriate to include. the Infobox school template is probably out of date and has that simply doesn't encourage it or use it actively. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• As I said on the talk page of the school infobox, an article about a school discusses a specific topic in a specific building (or set of buildings) at a specific location. The address is relevant and pertinent information. I would support removing Kingturtle's addition. I do agree, however, that information such as phone numbers, fax numbers, and emails addresses should not be included. --auburnpilot talk 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with AuburnPilot on this. The article is about the location of a school as much as it is about the school itself (ie it is the building and the use of the building). Removing the location would be akin to removing the birthdate of an actor because it's just a random fact. In any case, it seems like poor form to make the change and immediately begin mass edits to remove this data without having a discussion on the topic. tedder (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To those that want to keep the address - what is it being used for? If it is for locating the school, this is best served by using something that is global - that is, latitude and longitude. If it's being used for contact information (as if to send info), this probably should be left to the website of the school to provide the correct contact information. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's simply part of what the article is about. I can't see how listing the address of a school within an infobox is any different than listing the address of a building within {{Infobox Skyscraper}}. It's pertinent information. --auburnpilot talk 20:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, most people don't walk around with GPS units yet, so global location is only useful in some situations. Also, emails, phones, and website addresses can change -- the street address is a bit less mutable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as GPS, I would not consider coordinates to be even remotely acceptable as a replacement. I use a GPS unit every time I fly, and can tell you from experience, most people don't have a clue how to make sense of lat/long. --auburnpilot talk 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and addresses are more likely to be verifiable and reliably sourced. I can (and do) double-check addresses on several sources, but coords are usually synthed or original research. Yes, this is a poor argument for keeping an address, but it also reflects reality. As AuburnPilot says, it is as inherent to a school as it is to a skyscraper. tedder (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Another objection to using the website for location is that the mailing address might be the school department, and the website might leave the street address off because everyone knows where it is anyhow. (Don't know that any of these exist, but...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, street addresses are problematic, but I will concede to the consensus here that they may be included; however, I stand firm that email addresses, phone number and fax numbers are not encyclopedic, except is exceptional circumstances. Kingturtle (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No particular quarrel there -- what do you say to the person who reverted you on whether websites were encyclopedic?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)KingTurtle, I completely agree with you that email, phone, and fax numbers should not be included. tedder (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW I think addresses should be acceptable, and agree that email, phone, fax, etc. should be removable. — Ched :  ?  20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you see any reason to say "(almost)" never acceptable on email addresses and such? I don't. If there is a case, WP:IAR still applies. tedder (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the line about street addresses but left the information about email addresses and phone/fax numbers. The White/Yellow pages section could probably be worked back into the directory label, as it is rather short in its current wording. --auburnpilot talk 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• A little late to the party here (just saw the ANI thread) but I support inclusion of physical (street) address because schools are related to their local community. Real-world non-technical people would use this info, so GPS data is not useful. I don't see a need for any other contact info. DMacks (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had almost in there because I am sure there are instances I am not imagining; maybe there's a lawsuit in which a particular email address is pertinent, or a famous virus sent out from a particular email address; certainly never for contact information. Kingturtle (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we could create circumstances where an email or contact *is* important (Rejection Hotline, 1-800-COLLECT, E-mail_address#Overview, ), but the "almost" seems like a weasel word. I boldly eliminated it, as WP:NOT can be ignored if necessary. tedder (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I support the contention that phone numbers, fax numbers, and e-mails should not be included (the web page is fine). I also support including an address, as that helps to establish a location, similar to the geodata (though I don't feel so strongly about this that I would be upset if consensus was different). However, there is a difference between the standard street address, and the inclusion of an overly long street address that includes the county and decorative flags. At some point it just makes infoboxes look bad by cluttering things up. I had a discussion with one editor who agreed with this, but still was goingto include it because "it wasn't expressly forbidden" I would certainly support some limits stronger than what exist now. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My original concern about street addresses was that it seemed inappropriate to provide street addresses of places where kids are. I was concerned about pedophiles. But that concern originated about six years ago, when most schools and districts did not have websites yet. Now I suppose these addresses are easy to find. Kingturtle (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is a policy that applies to the whole project, not just schools. One way to parse this would be to allow the addresses of buildings that are notable, while exclusing the addresses of institutions and organizations. Thus, we'd include address in article on skyscrapers and other notable buildings, but we wouldn't include the addresses in articles on businesses that occupy those buildings. The logic there is that physical address is rarely a notable feature of a corporation. To give an extreme example, would we list the addresses of campuses of the University of Phoenix? Certaily not, because there are so many and the are not stable. At the opposite extreme, would we list the address of Harvard University, beyond saying that it's in Cambridge, Massachusetts? Why would we do so? If there is a particularly notable building on campus that has its own article then it might be worth listing the address. In other words, buildings have address, but not organizations.   Will Beback  talk  17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. My feelings in every respect - except I used Brown as my mental image instead of Harvard. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And re: "but think of the children" - any pedophile close enough to go to a school is close enough to use a phone book at a pay phone to find out where it is. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Phone books at pay phones? Where are those still to be found, outside of a few rare artifacts in airports and the like? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Spin off NOTPLOT and CENSORED

I can't help feeling that both WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NOTCENSORED would benefit from being spun off as separate pages. Compressing an entire policy into a paragraph puts an enormous weight on specific wording, reduces clarity in practice, and overloads this talk page. Can we just spin the current versions of these off, and then go from there? (This might require an RFC.) At minimum it will ease discussion both of those topics and of the rest of the page. Disembrangler (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the prohibitions in this policy are same - there will alway be editors who want them removed. The fact is that plot only articles fall outside the scope of Wikipedia, and with out verifiable evidence of notability, they fail all the other core content policies as well - as do most of the other articles that fail WP:NOT. Either you support WP:NOT or you don't at the end of the day. Make your stand against cruft here. United we stand, together we fall. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but how does that address my suggestion? Neither paragraph will be any less policy spun off into separate policy pages, but discussion and clarification thereof will be easier, and this page would be less overloaded. Disembrangler (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It addresses your suggestion in that all the prohibiitons on content are contained in this policy page, not scattered over many. Together set the out boundry as to what Wikipedia is not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting/confusing guidelines

Please note the first pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." I just noticed that in complete contradiction to that first pillar, someone had added that we are "not" an almanac to this page. After I removed it asking for discussion on this apparent contradiction, another account reverted my edit claiming "someone is trying to misconstrue long-established consensus in order to promote his interpretations on some AfDs; also, the cirted page clearly says 'incorporating *elements* of almanacs'", which aside from being an obvious assumption of bad faith, is simply inaccurate as I explained in this edit summary, i.e. "by that same logic we would have Not#Encyclolpedia because the First pillar only says 'elements of general and specialized encyclopedias'". We cannot have this contradictory instructions. So, either we are not an almanac or we are. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get dragged into a lengthy discussion about this too. WP:5P, which A Nobody has been citing his way over and over on various pages outlines the generic traits of wikipedia, and these state that it incorporates elements of various types of works. Saying that it is an encyclopedia, and stating that it does not function as anything other, while incorporating elements from those other things, is clearly not in contradiction of the paragraph he keeps deleting. But enough elementary logic: his view is currently invoked in several debates which are far from finished, and his edits came immediately after a user cited this rule to contradict his reading of the five pillars. Meaning that, aside from being contradicted by logic, his edits are attempting to push an agenda into the core of wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Five pillars has said we are an almanac since it was created on 4 May 2005. Now looking at WP:NOT from the same time, I am not seeing anything about not being an almanac. Also, the disputed addition only appeared on 5 May 2009, i.e. a mere month ago. Earlier discussions, such as Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_9#Not_an_Almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_1#Is_Wikipedia_an_almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_25#Wikipedia:_Almanac_or_not.3F hardly reveal any consensus supporting a notion that we are not an almanac. If there was no consensus to add this contradictory shortcut to the page, it needs to be removed. Moreover, per WP:BRD, it was boldly added and probably in good faith, but now has been challenged and now is being discussed, it you should not have tried edit warring in back in while the discussion takes place. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really a rule, it is just a POV redirect to the rule about having raw statistics as an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ahhh, now I see the difference in the edits. It is about using the word "almanac" as a synonym for "raw statistics". Raw statistics are excluded from Wikipedia. No almanac I have, and I have 5, has "raw statistics", all have organized charts with moderately detailed explanations of the data contained. Most of the entries are country descriptions, lists of popes and presidents and countries ranked by various factors such as GNP. I would say this does not define an almanac at all, and should be removed and changed to "raw statistics". I see STATS is already covered, there is no point having a non synonym like ALMANAC used a s redirect, an Almanac is not raw statistics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree it is stupid to say its not an almanac, when in fact the pillars say we encompass the elements of almanacs, among other things. Dream Focus 03:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going with A Nobody and Dream on this one. WP:5 states CORE PRINCIPLES of Wikipedia. (bold and caps mine) To say anywhere in other policy or guidelines that we won't have elements of an almanac is simply ludicrous. It is a poorly phrased redirect, and should be removed - plain and simple. I'm not saying there's a real problem with item 3. of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" stated as: "Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. " The key words here being indiscriminate and excessive. I'm not sure who put it (NOT#ALMANAC) in there, but it wasn't there last December, or even last March from my view of history. To be honest, it's not really important who, but it should definitely be removed. Talk about confusing to new users .. geesh. Delete with extreme prejudice. Full Stop. — Ched :  ?  05:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed. The usage here of the misleading redirect "NOT#ALMANAC" must go. Editors who do not wish the use of that term "Almanac" should rally a consensus to change the WP:5 Pillars to the WP:5 Generic Traits and before they take it upon themselves to interpret "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" in any way other than what the words wisely, sweetly, and quite clearly say. To use "NOT#ALMANAC" in that specific section in that specific manner implies that almanacs are "an indiscriminate collection of information", which they most certainly are not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Desagree WP has never been an almanac, and should not become one. WP:Almanac linked to this page by July 2008, so the claim that this is a "new" sort of connection is tenuous by a year. Collect (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• As WP:5 states in its introduction, the Five Pillars are based on the policies that existed at the time, but WP:5 itself is not policy. It is a summary, an essay, a quick reference page. It is by no means the final word. In fact, it shouldn't be used at all in this debate. WP:5 is not a sacred text. The way I see it, Wikipedia itself is not an almanac (Wikipedia is not an annual publication), but Wikipedia does contain almanacs within it. Portal:Contents/Portals, Portal:Contents/Lists of topics, Wikipedia:Days of the year, Wikipedia:Today's featured article, Portal:Current events and Portal:Baseball/Anniversaries are all good examples of almanacs and almanac styles. Kingturtle (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of almanacs only to the extent that those elements are notable topics. Almanacs traditionally contain elements that are considered "useful" (high tides, library opening times, rules of etiquette, bus timetables etc), but their inclusion criteria are less stringent than Wikipedia's. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)