Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (November 2005–January 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May–July 2007) Topic: Unencyclopedic (2003) Topic: Trivia (July–October 2007)

RFC on updating NOTDIR to clarify relation with GNG

There is an RFC on updating NOTDIR to clarify its relationship with WP:GNG with respect to lists of transporation service destinations. See WP:VPP#transportation lists— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talk • contribs)

Tweak proposal concerning genealogy

We currently have "Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic". To avoid silly discussions, I think it would be more complete to have "Genealogical entries. Non-notable family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." We clearly can and do write articles and sections about notable verifiable topics of any type, including genealogical ones such as concerning royal families etc. If no-one sees a problem I will add the term (but not in bold of course)? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think the advice applies to both notable and non-notable people. For example, while most US President's family history is documented, we rarely go into the depth of a genealogical entry as compared to the British royalty. --Masem (t) 15:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Technically this is a misreading of what I am proposing, but perhaps it is not clear. I am specifically allowing a possibility for notable families, not notable people. Some notable people have notable families, and some do not. Can you see my intention? Am I wrong to say that the current wording could be seen as implying that we can not have articles about any families at all?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Using your world thus implies that "Notable family histories" thus are 100% okay for a genealogy approach, but that's not always true. That's the part of the wording I'm concerned with. --Masem (t) 15:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I would avoid prescribing a cutoff like "notable" or "not notable", and emphasize that in determining weight, we defer to our sources: "2. Genealogical entries. Details of family histories should be given weight and detail in proportion to that given by quality sources." It's pretty nebulous to ask how much the family tree is illuminating the mind of the reader, but it's not hard to verify, and agree upon, whether good quality sources consider it worth dwelling on or not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I can't really follow what you are saying. Could there be a typo (apart from word/world)? What is a "genealogy approach"? Shouldn't we just stick to talking about "genealogy" or "family history"? I see these words as simply referring to content which discusses family relationships between people. Topics matching our core content policies can have their own articles written about them even if they involve family relationships, clearly, so the text here should avoid implying otherwise? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, what I am concerned about is that the current text might be read to imply that a family history/ genealogy, for example a dynastic or baronial history, can only ever be included in WP in cases like the one you describe, where the family is mentioned within the article of a topic which is not about a family itself. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Context. WP seems to be evolving towards more of the surviving editors working in an increasing bot-like and deletionist way, with fewer people watching, and so it seems worth being careful? I see wording issues here can cause cases where people say consensus-seeking is not needed because policy demands a certain edit. I come here after reflecting on a discussion I have been reading and then participating in on this template talkpage. In that case there are multiple policy confusions, but this page has been cited especially in earlier parts of the discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I read through most of that discussion, and the main objections are not related to this policy, but to V and NOR, which seem reasonable - if the entire family tree hasn't been discussed as a whole in reliable sources, then it is probably bad form to piece-part it from multiple ones and give it undue weight. The change you've suggested to this policy would completely go against the consensus of that discussion. That discussion emphasis that we need to have family genealogies to be published as a whole in reliable sources as to show there is interest in that before including. Hence we would not include "non-notable" ones. --Masem (t) 13:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot more to that ongoing discussion, but for the purposes of this discussion the important point is that you are correct: the tweak I am proposing is not very directly related. It just came to mind while looking at various policy pages. You possibly misunderstand the intention of my proposal, and reading it back myself I find it badly written. I am saying indeed that there are many very notable and easily sourceable families who we have uncontroversial articles about. We shouldn't be implying these are forbidden. Perhaps someone can think of a better wording, but my only reason for proposing to add "non-notable" was to avoid people saying that the sentence applies even to notable families who we can write about like any other notable subject. In other words, the current wording could be read as saying that any information about families can only be in WP as part of articles which are not about families. Does that make sense at all?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 17:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

RfC on content concerning illegal fetal tissue dealers

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy#/talk/8#/talk/8

I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. natemup (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarification requested for product pricing (Sales catalogues)

What's best practice/general consensus for including vs excluding pricing information? I've not paid attention to discussions, and tend to remove pricing on sight unless there's clear encyclopedic value to the information (eg It clearly belongs in Pyrimethamine, though I disagree on what information is in that article and its emphasis.)

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Sales begins, An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention.

It continues with, Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention.

So we're clearly excluding product reviews as sources and indicating that some level of detail must be given about the pricing in the independent sources. That seems to me to open ourselves for PROMO and RECENTISM. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

In that article, it seems appropriate to discuss the actual sales price to the perceived manufactured price since that inflation of the cost is seem as an issue with that. However, past that, the run down of price per country seems unnecessary (such drugs being far cheaper outside the US is common knowledge). Basically, the third-party should not just be about the price but expand more why that price is interesting or of note. --Masem (t) 19:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm considering a NPOVN discussion, but wanted to get a feel for what I might be missing.

Here are other examples:

• IPhone 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a simple table, sourced from a simple price list. --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'd say this is a non-starter in meeting NOT and POV requirements. --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  The table is definitely too much. The MSRP in major regions for the product for the base version of the product is reasonable as this is generally standard for any notable standalone hardware product that has an MSRP. (in the video game area, we try to stick to only US, EU, UK, JP, and AUS as major areas that tech products impact within the broader scope of en.wiki), But not for all variations and all regions that gives. --Masem (t) 01:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Buprenorphine/naloxone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the reason for inclusion is that a single analysis predicted a lower cost due to a lesser risk of abuse compared to buprenorphine alone. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  Inclusion in the lede seems rather grossly undue based upon the sources. Inclusion of any price at all seems questionable given that the rationale is about a relative price. My suggestion would be remove the pricing entirely, but include the material on the relative pricing and why. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  Definitely not needed in the lead, and the information could be given by dropping the price, and explaining it's more expensive in the US than UK (And give some %age) which is unexpected due to the rationale used there. --Masem (t) 01:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  In WikiProject Motorcycling we've found it helpful to think of pricing as only one of several factoids about a product that vary from country to country and market to market, such as trim levels, or colors. The fact that a "new" model comes out with "bold new colors" is non-news that we ignore. The standard is whether sources attribute some significance to a particular price or a particular color or option. So on Suzuki Hayabusa we talk about the copper paint scheme because it attracted notice, but don't list every color scheme of every model year. We don't tabulate every color, and don't tabulate every price. We don't mention what options cost, unless sources say why we should care about a price, and the article will mention adjacent to the price why that price was worth noting. This became a huge thing with electric cars, calculating total cost of ownership, price of charging in each electricity market, etc. It became endlessly long tables of raw data that isn't really encyclopedic because it's contingent on precisely where you live. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We have many high quality sources that comment on prices including textbooks like the British National Formulary and US government sites. Prices are important and many, including in the medical field, do not have enough clarity around them. I have had people come to the ER after seeing their family physician a few hours earlier as they were unable to afford what the FP had prescribed and were requesting a less expensive option.

The prices of medicines and transparency around them is key to public health. Many NGOs such as UNICEF[1] and MSF[2] are working to improve transparency in this area.

Many within the pharmaceutical industry are trying to decrease transparency around medication prices with lawsuits currently ongoing in the US.[3] We are not censored obviously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)