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)

Wikipedia is not objective.

See the claim put forth at WP:NPOV/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity and my edit that was reverted [1]. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT people's philosophy theses, either. Policy is hard enough without incorporating the nihilists, no? Chris Cunningham (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The point isn't for it to be a philosophy thesis, but for policy pages to actually be rational and self-consistent. Claiming Wikipedia policy says nothing of objectivism, while at the same time invoking the idea in euphemisms across several policy pages, and claiming to put forth a reliable encyclopedia, is probably the largest contradiction in Wikipedia policy there is. On the one hand, nobody wants to say, "Wikipedia is not objective," (as demonstrated here) because that would make Wikipedia look bad. But on the other hand, nobody wants to say, "Wikipedia should be objective," either, because then that would violate WP:Anti-elitism.

If Wikipedia policy is descriptive: WP:NOT should contain a section, "Wikipedia is not objective." If Wikipedia policy is prescriptive: WP:NPOV should emphasize objective analysis and directly use that word -- not just hide it behind euphemisms. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consider objectivity. Rather, we consider neutrality and verifiability. Thus it is unecessary to use the term "objective" and possibly unwise given the irrelevant philosophical can of worms you open by doing so. Hyacinth (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I do, however, feel that it in no way makes Wikipedia look bad to claim it is not objective any more than it makes Wikipedia look bad to claim that it is not omniscient. Hyacinth (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hyacinth, that begs the question: Should users objectively verify material in accordance with WP:NPOV? Or should they do it subjectively (also known as POV-pushing)? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have little to do with what Wikipedia is. Hyacinth (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement, not policy

I created a new template to reflect the fact that this page does not give procedures or instructions and is thus not a policy, but simply a statement. Hyacinth (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

this is a policy. you dont need procedures or instructions to be a policy. β^_command 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you need more than an assertion.

Policy: 2 a: a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions b: a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body

Hyacinth (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures covers it, it says what is not acceptable. β^_command 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What does one do with that information? Hyacinth (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion pages

are we "allowed" to share our thoughts about the topic / subject of the article? what should we do if we make posts about things related to an article on its discussion page (for example, if we make a post about how the history channel had a show on nostradamus and portrayed osama bin laden as "the anti-christ" that nostradamus predicted on the "osama bin laden" Discussion page) and then someone deletes our posts, and cites this policy? what if they also deleted a post pointing out a grammatical error on a protected page that cannot be edited by everyone? isn't there a no revert wars policy? what should we do? Jaguar Verde (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The talk pages are provided for the sole purpose of building and improving the articles. We tolerate a small degree of cross-talk from new users who don't yet know better (and we try to assume good faith when we do so) but it is not at all unusual for irrelevant tangents to be removed from a page.
The grammatical error example would seem to be an appropriate use of the Talk page. Can you please provide a link to the edit in question? It would help to see if there's something else going on. Rossami (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I've reverted this edit. It changed this section:

Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project. Wikipedia is not the white pages.;;

to this:

Biography articles should only be for people with clearly established notability, as demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project. Wikipedia is not the white pages.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of enshrining the rather vague, often self-contradictory "notability" guidelines in the heart of our policy. This policy sets out Wikipedia's purpose (and what it isn't for). To say that those guidelines are definitive is incorrect. Sometimes they don't work, and that's why they're guidelines. --Tony Sidaway 07:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I know its a guideline, but would it not make sense to suggest that these exist in not-so-strong language for reference?. For example, from the original version, I would add after the 3rd sentence and before the last. "Notability guidelines are available to assist in judging the appropriateness of the inclusion of a biography." (note BIO which is specific to people. I would recommend a similar change (not a strong assertion that notability guidelines are perfect) in the IINFO section. --MASEM 12:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think something like that might work. --Tony Sidaway 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Deal with "game guide" content more directly

Currently, the section entitled "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook" (linked to from WP:GAMEGUIDE), is broken into four pieces. Game guides are covered in the first section, Instruction Manuals: "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks." (emphasis mine)

The problem with this is that it implies that game guide content is restricted to "how-to" information. True, many game guides are filled with this sort of information, such as tips for beating a level or earning a high score, but game guides go beyond instructional content. For example, suppose someone created an article that listed the monsters found in a video game, together with statistics, such as how many hit points each monster had, amount of experience and gold awarded for defeating, etc. This isn't instructional—it doesn't say how to defeat the monsters—but it is clearly game guide material in my opinion. Whenever I find such content and remove it, I usually link to this section and say that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Often, someone will revert and say that it's not game guide content because it doesn't instruct the player on how to play the game.

I would like to split game guides out from instructional manuals as a fifth part of this section to deal with them more directly and explain them more clearly. The proposed section would state that Wikipedia is not for detailed descriptions of how to play a game (whether a video game, pen-and-paper role-playing game, or other), not for tips and techniques such as glitches or detailed strategies that are only useful to those playing the game, and not for lists of statistics or minutia such as one would expect to find in a game guide. Pagrashtak 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the split, and new proposed section. I've personally cleaned many articles up, and seen some reverted because they don't think it's game guide content. If a better section was made, this problem wouldn't be around as much. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the split also, though not necessarily the proposed language. This does need separate treatment. Given that NOT is policy, the actual wording will need a much more general discussion than just here. The discussion should involve at least the relevant WikiProjects, and probably should be announced at the VP. In thinking about what is appropriate, consider the articles on chess, many of which are very strongly supported by reliable published sources, and also very detailed. DGG (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, something about easter eggs and secrets should be listed in it. I've seen many "secrets" and "easter egg" sections on video game articles. Nothing out of control (that I've seen at least), but I think it's right to put it in this proposed section as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. Certainly DGG is right that this needs more discussion to develop consensus. Although the example of monster hit point data is a good one (and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia), it is already covered with WP:NOT#STATS (and probably other things). Since "game guide" is used so frequently as a reason for deletion, it probably makes sense to spell out what we mean by that, but it is also a sometimes contentious claim—so I'm not sure we're justified in expanding its scope. For example, I would disagree with a prohibition on descriptions of strategies or easter eggs; both are things that are sometimes notable and widely written about. From my perspective, the reason that "game guide" appears here in WP:NOT is more of a stylistic issue than a content one: We must write about things in an NPOV, external manner, not by walking the reader through a tutorial or giving advice. Still, we can write about games and their noteworthy aspects (which might include easter eggs and bugs and strategies), as long as we do so using an encyclopedic style and employing our other various policies of neutrality and verifiability. — brighterorange (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Should this statement by Jimbo be referenced or linked to? It is relevant to what Wikipedia is not (especially pertaining to game materials). Jappalang (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A NPOV manner is not incompatible with giving instructions on how to play a game, unless you mean we should also give instructions on how to play it poorly. NPOV doesnt seem to apply here at all, except as we would list the available sources in an even handed manner. Other things do, of course, but the only way to intelligently talk about a game to someone who doesn't know it is to explain at least in summary how to play it. actually this is the same as fiction: you have to explain the plot in order to know what you are talking about even at the very most basic level. On this I dont think Burtorange and I disagree in practice. There are articles with too much detail. where I think people differ, based on AfD discussions, is whether a list of the game objects is appropriate: I think that';s how a game is defined: the rules, and the objects, like the plot and the characters. Obviously again, we dont want to give all the detail--but there are not all that many articles here that give the detail to the extent I would expect in an actual guide to playing the game. DGG (talk)

This debate seems to hinge on the meaning of game guide. Wikipedia is certainly not a guide to games, irregardless of what a game guide itself is. Hyacinth (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games addresses this issue in detail at Wikipedia:VG/GL#Content. That may provide a starting point for discussion. Anomie⚔ 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons) helped to bring this discussion up. And I want to be sure that we don't see articles like the one debated there be considered a "game guide". I 100% agree that things like stats (hit points, AC, etc.) don't generally belong in a write-up (though something like Lloth's AC and hitpoints in Q1 might be relevant as showing how the D&D game has changed). But I don't want this to become "notable information that is part of a game doesn't belong here". I'd also like an explanation as to why Ruy lopez does belong here (which I think it does) even in the face of WP:NOT as it stands. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this proposal. I think it could be solved with a reword - remove the "how-to" implication and just make it a bit more broad. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with the proposal. As Hyacinth suggested, perhaps a lot of the confusion over this comes from terminology as well: "game-guide" can imply an actual guide to playing games (like a walkthrough or strategies), whereas "guide to games" can cover the broader elements such as in-game statistics, unit and weapon lists, Easter eggs, and all the other undesirable unencyclopedic information. I'd recommend using the latter in any new versions. -- Sabre (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(To Hobit) That's an example of the type of response I'm discussing, although I agree that the actual article in question there does go beyond game guide material. For the sake of argument, consider this old revision of an article about dragons Dungeons & Dragons. If I called that game guide material (which I do, and I think you might agree) and someone were to give the response you cite above, how should I reply? The response is somewhat correct—it's not instructional and it's hard to fit it into one of the four currently listed types (instruction manual, travel guide, internet guide, textbook) but I would definitely call it game guide content. That's why I'm proposing this change. Pagrashtak 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I view that article as a stub currently looking a bit like a game guide. I'm not being sarcastic. What I mean is that if someone had a list of characters from a show, or list of "minor" theories and only listed the roughest of details about each, it would be a worthwhile stub for people to fill in. I think the same thing is trying to happen there. The topic need not be a game guide, and once filled in (if it ever were) would not be. It may not be notable, but that's a different (and I'd claim the right argument. Again, I'm opposed to topics being off limits if they are notable. Ruy lopez should be in wikipedia because it is a notable strategy, even though WP:NOT might (I'd say _does_) imply otherwise... Hobit (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the AFD for that article, you'll see that notability was in fact the reason I gave for deletion. I mentioned game guide content secondly, since the article was entirely composed of such. I think we're getting a little off-topic, though, as this discussion shouldn't have anything to do with notability—that's for Wikipedia:Notability and its subpages to handle. This is about article content. Pagrashtak 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with the premise of this section. If a subject is notable, it belongs here. I don't see a need to add an additional "set of rules" for game related material. In other words, I don't see the need for this, and if you are going to propose additional standards for game-related material, you really should inform all relevant wiki-groups before you proceed. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you're still confusing the issue. This has nothing to do with notability, so there is no need to bring it up. Notability concerns the suitability of topics. My proposal is related to article content, which notability does not cover. I'm not trying to change anything about the way Wikipedia editors operate, I'm just trying to clarify the language that describes it. The "set of rules" you refer to is already being practiced—I am not adding any standards that are not already in effect. Pagrashtak 17:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You lost me. Can you point me to articles that you view as a violation of this new "NOT" clause but isn't covered by the existing policy? Hobit (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fan site

There should be a section here called "Wikipedia is not a fan site", so it would tell people that Wikipedia is not a fan site. Mythdon (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be true. De facto consensus is that Wikipedia is a fan site and an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't like that, but that's another story. User:Dorftrottel 09:41, January 26, 2008

"indiscriminate" needs to be defined, and I think it can be done in a compromise fashion. I do not give up on having high standards. Making them too rigid is what causes them to be unrealistic. DGG (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we would better focusing more on what Wikipedia is than is not. The more elitist we get, the less our readership and the smaller number of contributors. If we should delete anything it is words like indiscriminate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you are seriously supporting deleting that entire section 2.9 , nor that you want it to say Wikipedia is not a collection of information. so how would you suggest it be worded.?DGG (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I'm not even sure what "not a fan site" is. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Forum

I think that the what wikipedia is not article could be improved by saying that people are free to discuss articles on the discussion pages of the articles. Why can't they be discussed? I feel that this would greatly improve the article because wikipedia has the advantage of BEING online, and thus, to discuss intellectual encyclopedia articles with people throughout the world. It is a given that this a great advantage, but some wikipedians do not want this. Why? What is the major disadvantage to this? BriEnBest (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT is wishful thinking

I propose removing #2. of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, related to plot summaries.

The section says "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply [...] plot summaries."

I'm afraid that this is merely wishful thinking and that in reality, consensus is to tolerate pure plot summaries. Anyone who believes I'm wrong, take a look at our nice collection of Star Wars articles, then come again. User:Dorftrottel 09:47, January 26, 2008

It says "not solely plot summaries", rather than "not simply." That sentence can be seen to represent the actual current consensus, with a flexible interpretation of "solely" and a recognition that the articles about a complex work of fiction are a grouping--some will discuss some aspects, some others. I'd rather change "brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate" to "a reasonable plot summary is appropriate". (with reasonable defined, of course, in guidelines elsewhere. I think there is consensus that some of the over-fanlike summaries have been much too long and inappropriately detailed, but also that one that adequately describes the work is a necessary element. DGG (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The existence of a long term problem is one of the reasons this point was added. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, believe me. But as long as it isn't enforced (and it isn't, ever) this point is literally worse than pointless. User:Dorftrottel 04:57, January 29, 2008

• Agree with the change proposed by DGG. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'd also be moderately happy with Dorftrottel's suggestion, but I don't think consensus is there. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with removing the line as we should focus more on what Wikipedia is anyway than what it isn't and we definitely do not have any consensus that articles that begin as plot summaries are problematic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

An article initially comprising nothing but plot summary would be deleted if not expanded to discuss significance. There is quite strong established consensus for this. --Tony Sidaway 03:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You and I wish. In case you haven't noticed, there is a new crop of users who do not know the very first thing about encyclopedic standards, and doesn't care about them, but who have instead learned and adopted aggressive blocking practices in AfDs, and how to adapt guidelines to their ends. User:Dorftrottel 04:54, January 29, 2008

Well if there are such users I haven't noticed. Looking around at random to find valid invocations of WP:PLOT, I see that it usually occurs in conjunction with other "indiscriminate collection" problems, and what's more I see plenty of unanimous or near-unanimous deletions on that basis:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate Future (Heroes)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehuty
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saucer separation
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIS Sivar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bewitched Party
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tion Hegemony

--Tony Sidaway 05:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fun

Wikipedeia is not fun. 69.202.119.212 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Or spelled that way ... a comment that you would probably place under "not fun" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is too! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines in NOT

This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate
content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars.

I'm worried that this makes guidelines on the same level as policy because policy (NOT) says you must defer to guidelines. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the single most important sentence in WP:NOT. The instant we tolerate unencyclopedic content, Wikipedia will cease to be an encyclopedia by any stretch of imagination. I suppose making it even more clear by adding something along the lines of "Wikipedia is not not an encyclopedia". User:Dorftrottel 05:01, January 29, 2008

The thing is there is an obvious disagreement in our community as to what is encyclopedic. As an online encyclopedia adervtised as one that anyone can edit and the "sum of human knowledge", is it really accurate to compare ourselves with what's in say Britannica? My feeling tend to be that articles on stuff that I don't personally care about don't and shouldn't really bother me. So long as editors are willing to work on such articles, sources exist whether primary or secondary, and there's reader interest, the more inclusive and comprehensive we are the better. The more narrow and restrictive we become, the more elitist we become and the less useful as a reference. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no "obvious disagreement". There is a vocal minority that has no idea about encyclopedic standards, and no intention whatsoever to learn about or follow them, and instead is increasingly successful at undermining them at every turn. But we do have thresholds of what is and what is not encyclopedic. And we do have thresholds of what can and what cannot be considered human knowledge in the first place. And secondary sources are not an "optional luxury", they are absolutely necessary. If you do not understand that, or cannot accept it, you're in the wrong project. "The more narrow and restrictive we become, the more elitist we become and the less useful as a reference." — That's what you actually believe, isn't it? Just the opposite is true: The more open and indiscriminate we become, the more mobocratic and less of an encyclopedia. What you people want is not an encyclopedia, but an indiscriminate collection of information. But that is utterly incompatible with the notion of creating an encyclopedia. See also Eternal September and, once again, this rather interesting article. Again, there is no controversy, there's just some kids who need to learn but have no interest in doing so. User:Dorftrottel 06:47, January 29, 2008

If anything, I notice more of a vocal minority of editors attempting to delete as much of the project as possible. The majority of editors focus instead on writing and editing articles. If you look at the first encyclopedias from the Enlightenment, you'll notice that they use primary evidence initially and as secondary sources become available, these sources then become cited with greater frequency. Wikipedia is a community and as such, it shouldn't discourage good faith editors from contributing and expanding the project just becausee some segments of the community do not like articles that others believe are indeed worthwhile. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you look at something else unrelated and irrelevant to what we're doing from history, you'll find that people used to use horses rather than cars for transportation. That doesn't mean we should do it today. I don't understand why you continually bring up what was done several centuries ago, as that is irrelevant. Secondly, your assertion that exclusion will make us no better (or broader) than Brittanica is both a straw man and a false dichotomy, as is your assertion that anyone wants to delete "as much of the project as possible." Do you really think I, or anyone, would delete carbon or Earth or Bill Clinton even if we could somehow get away with it? Do you really think if we remove television and character episodes we won't be broader than Britannica? (Hint: They don't have an article on Art Garfunkel, and I've not seen anyone propose deleting that.) If you'd like to be taken seriously, please make reality-based arguments that apply today, not that applied a few centuries ago. But kindly stop the handwaving. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Then as a new kind of encyclopedia we should go beyond what any encyclopedia has ever done before and not turn away our contributors. Articles on episodes and characters that can be sourced and written in a well-worded and well-organized manner only help to make our project more attractive to our readership and may inspire readers to edit other articles that some editors believe are more "encyclopedic." I for example frequently use the Random article button to learn about new things and help improve articles that I may otherwise have never thought of helping improve. It is way more rewarding improving and building things than removing them. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And it's great that you do that. (I don't mean that to be flippant or sarcastic, it is intended quite seriously.) I've certainly taken a few articles under my own wing and done what work to them I could. Brine pool, for example, looked like this when I first saw it on newpage patrol. I thought it looked an intriguing subject, and while no FA, you can certainly compare that to the current edition. Yet, a major part of editing is to trim, and challenge, and cut. Some may not find that rewarding, and that's quite alright—we would no more force a person to work at that if they don't want to then we would force them to work on articles about Russian fauna if they'd rather write articles about galaxies. What should happen, however, is when the cleanup crew comes in, they should be treated as fellow editors, not "oh, THEM," and have some would-be owner of the article prevent cleanup, and treat them as some less-than-editor of the page. Those who clean and trim are editors, not something else. We presume they have good intentions, we do not call names such as "Destructive! Deletionist! Hates the project!" If someone comes in with a sourcing concern, don't handwave them off, go look. If they're wrong, and tons of source material is out there, great. But if they're right, stop trying to obfuscate the issue—articles lacking significant independent material need a delete or a merge, as appropriate, not a protracted discussion of how it's REALLY alright this time. It's REALLY not. We're a tertiary source, we write from secondary, independent ones. If those aren't there, we don't second guess their decision not to write, and we don't give the subject more weight than they do. Period. As to your specific assertion, I fully agree that well-written, well-sourced episode articles are quite alright. On the other hand, poorly-written, unsourceable collections of trivia need to go. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

According to our own guidelines we use both primary and secondary sources and not just secondary sources. What frustrates me is that numerous AfDs I've participated in our nominated with a "no sources to be found rationale" followed by quick "per nom, no sources" arguments and then relatively easily I have found sources resulting in the articles being kept when the discussion would have been unnecessary had the nominator just done a simple online search. That is what frustrates me. Believe me, I do not think everything that has been written for Wikipedia should stay and I do think that editors do need to be on the look out for certain things. For example, I am definitely willing to vote delete on occasion, as I did here, here, here, here, here, and here, although I tend to avoid many discussions that are obviously going to be deleted and probably do not need another post in favor of deletion. In those instances, I would rather look for an article to improve or welcome new users as a member of the welcoming committee and kindness campaign. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

True. However, we use primary sources as supplements, not solely. Secondary sources are required. Primary sources can then be used, once those are established, to provide additional material. They may not be used as the sole basis for an article. And while I do agree it is frustrating to see those who could have easily found sources not do so, one asks the same of those who write the article. Sourcing is a requirement, from the very first edit that creates a mainspace article, not a nicety, not something to get to someday. It's unfortunate that such misunderstandings occur, but a great way to avoid them is to find and cite your sources in the first place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Many articles appropriately use only secondary sources. But there is not one single article, not one, that could do with only primary sources. Sometimes only secondary sources are needed, but never only primary sources, never. Never. Only. Primary. Sources. And there are simply too many AfDs where people vote keep and say that reliable, third-party sources "probably exist". User:Dorftrottel 08:54, January 29, 2008

It's just distressing when one goes to AfDs and sees such deletion rationales as the following: "The movie is crap", "Seems damn uninteresting too, unless you're 5", "Oh and the current revision of the article is shit, by the way", "None of this unnecessary extra geek shit", "Shitty article and probably self-promotion to an unknown band", "ridiculously generous admin closure", this discussion, this discussion, etc. Such comments do not encourage editors to want to contribute if their good faith volunteer efforts will be ridiculed in such a fashion. We should all work together to source articles and we should do so in a civil fashion. Anyway, I'm logging off now due to neck pain. So, I hope everyone has a nice night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• While that discussion is interesting, I think it misses my point. Policy should not be deferring to guidelines IMO. Hobit (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The same thing occurs for WP:V depending on guideline WP:RS. The way I would see it is that, policy here is stating that WP is not a indiscriminate collection of information. As policy should change at a much slower pace than guidelines, the policy defers to the guideline to define what is the present definition of "indiscriminate information" (similarly, verifiability defers to reliable sources to state what is an RS). The policy is still maintaining that there's a way to determine discriminate information from indiscriminate, but because this can potentially be a "flavor of the month" issue, it should not make any exacting statements on what that distinction is. --MASEM 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Good point, but that makes guidelines a policy as I read it. I still feel that from a "rules" viewpoint, a stronger rule should not defer to a "weaker" one. I'd suggest:

This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies, 
in particular those covered in the five pillars.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 

• • • • Yeah, although it would be wikilawyery, one could argue from the original statement that WP:NOT (policy) states that all articles must abide by guidelines. This would give guidelines all of the strength of policy. (This is different from the acceptable situation that Masem describes, where the policy refers to guidelines within a particular scope and purpose.) I don't think anyone would take this argument seriously, but it certainly is preferable to have rules that are consistent and logical. We could delete the reference to guidelines as Hobit suggests, or say something like "must follow policies and should follow guidelines." — brighterorange (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm considering making that change in a day or two (the one I stated above) in "code". Please comment here.... Hobit (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Brief plot?

Above, it was proposed to: change "brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate" to "a reasonable plot summary is appropriate". I agree with DGG that this more accurately represents consensus on fiction articles. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I obviously support it: what I primarily have in mind is finding something like this which will let us get back to writing and editing articles.DGG (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - we don't need 900 word summary for an episode of The Suite Life of Zach and Cody, but it's a bit unfair to have to cramp a plot that's hard to explain in 800 words into 400 words. Will ^(talk) 23:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to ask people to be concise. Brevity is always good. The few plot summaries I've tried to edit always had plot creep...everyone would pitch in and add five or ten words and before you know it the plot was growing like grass on a summer lawn and had to be mowed again. So whether the right length is 100 words or 700, the more you can stick to the important facts that explain the work rather than retell every side plot in the story, the better. Wikidemo (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Many plot summaries are overlong by themselves and particularly with regard to the often enough completely missing rest of the article. No need to encourage and justify that bad behaviour yet further. User:Dorftrottel 02:54, January 30, 2008

"Reasonable" is subjective. One can argue 15,000 words is reasonably necessary to convey a 30-minutes episode or a 5-hours action game's contents. To prevent such arguments, it would be better to tag on what would constitute reasonable right after the statement ala "The summary could include major plot points but should not contain minor plot details and trivia" or such. Jappalang (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Subjective is good? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Subjective can be good or bad, which is why I suggest appending further clauses to the suggestion. What can be construed as "reasons" include minute detail which are interesting, "it doesn't hurt to add it in", or introduces flavor into the article, etc (yes, those are taken from arguments to avoid in deletion but...). Adding these tend to bloat the article and go against WP:NOT, but "reasonable" without additional clauses gives ammunition to their advocates to do so and be contentious. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"The summary could include major plot points but should not contain minor plot details and trivia" — fully agree. Qualifying a plot summary to strictly follow WP:DUE seems viable and useful. User:Dorftrottel 02:54, January 30, 2008

• I would rather include something along the lines of "Provide only a very concise outline of the plot for overview. Then discuss the plot along reliable third-party secondary sources instead of merely reproducing it. User:Dorftrottel 03:27, January 30, 2008
• I think there are two parts of the current wording that are better than the proposal. First, "brief" is less ambiguous than "reasonable". "Brief" sets the clear expectation that an encyclopedia article must primarily focus on real-world impact, not in-universe recapitulation. Second, the current wording says "may sometimes be appropriate", not "is". Not every article on a work of fiction needs or is improved by a plot summary. Rossami (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am prepared to agree that there may be some such special cases. But even in the instance you give in the section below, a sentence saying what the book is about would seem apppropriate: "Blah is a book which was published in January 2008 by Johnny Jazz, a science-fiction story set on Mars. " But if that were all that were in the article, how would the book be notable anyway?

The point of "reasonable" is that it is ambiguous enough for all to agree on it. "Brief" is not acceptable to a sizable number of WPedians. , limiting to major plot lines is appropriate for episodes but certainly not for major works of classic fiction. "very concise outline of the plot for overview. Then discuss..." is again not appropriate for major works. there has to be a sufficiently full account of the plot to support the discussion. To put it bluntly, readers come here for plot summaries. Yes Reasonable is subjective. One can argue 15,000 words is reasonably necessary to convey a 30-minutes episode or a 5-hour game.", but One can argue anything. But almost nobody thinks plot summaries of that length of such things are reasonable, and they cannot be defended. If I had the sentence i really though best, it would be "In general, describe the plot fully enough to provide an understanding of the work, and support a discussion of it"--that's essentially what we try to do on all other topics. But Im willing to compromise from that. But I think any acceptable compromise that will actually be acceptable will be pretty vague. DGG (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Brief is perhaps less ambiguous, but I think more accurate to what is actually deemed acceptable. Articles on fictional subjects tend to have rather large plot summaries because that's what is generally wanted by our readers. And I have a hard time thinking of a case where a plot summary of a work is inappropriate. Do you have an example? Hobit (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus regarding Plot summaries (WP:PLOT)?

I see that Hiding added "Plot summaries" to WP:NOT#INFO on July 9, 2006 after a discussion on this talk page. I want to see if that sub-section of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information currently has consensus. If not, we can rewrite it, or even remove the whole section. I see the section links to two disputed guidelines, WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT — I think those links should probably be removed. The section as it is currently worded affects articles such as Jean Valjean, Cosette, Holden Caulfield, Clevinger, Pierre Bezukhov, Elros, John Galt, Luke Skywalker, etc. So, do you think the section is fine as it is? Could use some editing? Should be removed? --Pixelface (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• It should be put into stricter words to prevent the galopping decline of encyclopedic standards. And the links are fine, although I would add e.g. WP:WAF. User:Dorftrottel 03:32, January 30, 2008

As I brought up a couple of months ago here, extremely detailed plot summaries, especially in the absence of commentary that touches upon those details, is a copyright violation. I marvel at how we have thousands of articles like There Will Be Blood that contain a scene-by-scene description of an entire work (fair warning: if you haven't seen the film yet, don't read the article), and nobody bats an eye at this -- yet if if a single screenshot or even promotional photo were added to the article without following an extremely restrictive and bureaucratic process, it would be summarily deleted. Sooner or later our fair use guidance will take this into account, but for the time being, it's something of a blind spot on Wikipedia, with WP:PLOT being our only stopgap.

The fact that this proposal to remove WP:PLOT is being made as point doesn't help the situation any.--Father Goose (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked if the section currently has consensus — I'm not trying to disrupt Wikipedia. I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen no statement to indicate that extremely detailed plot summaries are, in fact, copyright violations.

The guideline WP:WAF says [2] "It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation." The guideline WP:FAIR says "It is illegal (among other things) to reproduce or make derivative works of copyrighted works without legal justification." but it also says "Copyright law only governs creative expressions that are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," not the ideas or information behind the works. It is legal to reformulate ideas based on written texts, or create images or recordings inspired by others, as long as there is no copying (see plagiarism for how much reformulation is necessary)." The policy WP:NFCC seems to appear mainly to images and media files.

Plot summaries do not require a fair use rationale. I'm unaware of Wikipedia being sued by anyone for providing "extremely detailed plot summaries", so I doubt that they are copyright violations. --Pixelface (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, until we are told that there's a legal issue or the Foundation says that there's a problem, we should not fear the copyright cops on this. (I will point that there have been show guide books that have been sued and lost under derivative work/lack of fair use laws. However, again, until we're told this is a copyright problem, we should not think of the legal ramifications.

However, plot summaries are still derivative works, and thus are non-free (as in thought) content, which can hamper Wikipedia's mission to be a free content encyclopedia. There's some line between saying "'Fahrenheit 451' is a book about limiting free thought", and giving a highly detailed chapter-by-chapter account of the book, where one moves from being an appropriate free content description to a non-free content description, and erring on the side of "brief" (or whatever word is used) is a better way to go to maintain this. --MASEM 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface: sorry, my criticism was directed at Dorftrottel, who suggested removing it because he was upset that it wasn't being enforced strongly enough (an archetypal WP:POINT). However, there is unmistakably an underlying copyright issue. I'm not urging copyright paranoia, but what we have right now is copyright blindness, and we'll have to give up on that eventually. I strongly recommend you read up on the subject of fair use (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html), because these blow-by-blow plot descriptions fail all four of the "fair use criteria" that the US courts use. The fact that we haven't been sued yet should not be taken as an indication that there isn't a problem.

I am personally a copyright-paranoia-hating inclusionist, so if you see me raising this as an issue, that's because it's a real one. I'd really prefer we do something wise about it now before the Foundation has to get involved: the more they get involved, the more restrictive the outcome will be, which is something I'd like to avoid.

One can say with confidence that short summaries are okay, but complete plot descriptions qualify as nonfree content. Read up on copyright law if you doubt this (see the link above). I would really prefer we come to terms with this before it's pressed upon us by external forces.--Father Goose (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I went hunting around to find the discussion specific to the plot summary section that happened on this talk page:

• Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/archive6#Plot summaries
• Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 7#Plot summaries as part of article series
• Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 7#Plot summaries part 3

• Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 9#We need to remove the part about plot summaries
• Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 10#Expanding "plot summaries" to other in-universe databases
• Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 13#Rewording the plot summary section
• Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 15#Are reliable sources needed for plot summaries?

That's just the discussion on this talk page. Other discussion also played a part in this, such as Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items, WT:FICT, WT:WAF, and others. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What is most bizarre is the statement that brief plot summaries 'may sometimes' be acceptable. Surely they are acceptable?--Nydas^(Talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird. I can't think of a case where a "brief" (or whatever word here) plot summary is not acceptable when it is accompanied by real world info. Maybe language like Brief plot summaries, covering the major plot elements of the work, are acceptable.? --MASEM 16:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How about "Brief (or succinct) plot summaries are often acceptable"? -- Ned Scott 06:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that sorta is back against what Nydas mentions: is there ever a case that, if real-world information was provided, that you would never include a plot? (that is, "often" here implies there's rare cases it is not, and I can't think of any.) --MASEM 06:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

When they unbalance the article. Basically, the thinking behind adding the section was that an encyclopedic article is not a plot regurgitator. If all you have in an article is "Blah is a book which was published in January 2008 by Johnny Jazz" followed by a 2000 word plot summary, to my mind you do not have an encyclopedic article. An article which basically states "Blah is a book which was published in January 2008 by Johnny Jazz", to my mind should not have a plot summary. Wikipedia is not a plot summariser. There's quite a few concerns here, from copyright to encyclopedic approach to advertising. Hope that helps. Hiding T 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Basically, the thinking behind adding the section was that an encyclopedic article is not a plot regurgitator." What about the articles Jean Valjean, John Galt, and Lord Capulet? I suppose they could use some analysis but the articles will still be mainly "plot regurgitators." --Pixelface (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the article at Jean Valjean is unecyclopedic and needs improvement to be so. I believe that view is supported by WP:NOT. I haven't glanced at the others. Looking through the history of the article, I see that for almost five years the consensus was for it to redirect elsewhere. Hiding T 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the character Jean Valjean is notable enough to have its own article? What about the character John Galt? --Pixelface (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. Jean certainly, is is a figure discussed in his own right as a representative of social injustice perhaps as much as the book himself. John Galt, perhaps, again for use based on political reasons. Agreed that the article need improvement. Most WP article on fiction need improvement. I wish people would let us go about improving them, instead of having to rescue them at the lat minute. Lord Capulet, tho a much more minor character than the others, is by an author whose work is discussed exhaustively in academic and other sources. I'm not sure he would be, if by any other playwright. DGG (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I try to avoid discussing what is a notable topic. My opinion tends to be that we should just write encyclopedic articles, and if an article isn't that right this second, that's okay per the editing policy. If they were up for deletion I would oppose that, although I could see a case for redirecting. The thinking behind WP:PLOT was that we should say we do not want opur articles to look like this. It was not to say that we should delete articles that look like this, but that they should be improved. Now the methods of improvement differ from person to person, but the idea is that that is the argument to have, not the argument over whether it is notable. Notability is a red herring. We need more featured articles. The goal of policy and guidance and indeed Wikipedia is more featured articles. Therefore guidance and policies should push people in that direction. In the knowledge that perfection is not required, of course. I don't believe we are too far apart in our views, Pixelface. I simply think we are a long way apart in how we express and pursue them. Hiding T 15:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright is an issue only at the extreme end, which is not what is in question here. I think it clear from the discussion in the above two paragraphs that there is no present consensus on the current wording. I proposed a compromise, and there seems to be no consensus about that either. The alternative is to remove the section altogether if we cannot agree on the wording. altogether. I would be open to another compromise solution, but not one that has the word brief concise or any synonym. I dont think there is consensus for that any more. Consensus has to be something everyone can at least live with, and from manifold discussions it is clear that a sizable number of wpedians in good standing cannot live with this one in its present wording. DGG (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the wording of brief, but without stipulating some size limitations or restrictions, editors will wikilaywer and run with it to provide pages and pages of plot info by that. However, combining ideas above, how about restating it as: A plot summary covering the major plot elements of the work are appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." and defering to WAF about in-universe writing to deal with anything more? --MASEM 19:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus isn't easily overturned by the appearance of a few objections on a talk page. Let's discuss this more to see if consensus really has changed on the matter. If necessary we can advertise the subject at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion (WP:CENT). --Tony Sidaway 01:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept Masem's wording. It's not what i would choose exactly, but it is an acceptable compromise. It's in any case preferable to the present wording. DGG (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are we proposing to swap for what? Hiding T 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Exchange the current "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." with "A plot summary covering the major plot elements of the work are appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." and deferring to WP:WAF for detailed guidance. User:Dorftrottel 04:47, February 2, 2008

Could I at least suggest "A plot summary covering the major plot elements of the work is appropriate"? That seems grammatically correct. So we're just swapping the one sentence for the other and leaving the other sentences intact? Hiding T 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I fully agree with MASEM's suggestion. User:Dorftrottel 04:47, February 2, 2008

• I disagree, as I think the notion of a fictional work being primarily something other than a fictional work, is well, silly. A fictional work has non-fictional parts, but the notion that those non-fictional components should be the focus of an article meets neither common sense nor what seems to be consensus (given the articles we actually have). Hobit (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• What should be the focus is what other sources have stated, because it's very hard to write an article on a primary source and stay within our policy on original research. Points have to be explicit and not require expert knowledge. Anything which speculates is strictly out without a secondary source. Hiding T 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly true to some extent: many of the plot summaries give what amounts to an evaluation of the action and motivations which needs to be sourced. Usually there are perfectly good sources, in the reviews of almost any work significant enough to be in WP at all, but people do not always bother using them. or, worse, (judging by the style that sometimes appears) they may sometimes use them by copying and pasting them or paraphrasing without a citation. But a plain description can be taken from the primary source, while anything not blindingly obvious does need sourcing. I'm not after keeping low quality plot summaries, but improving them. We can spend our time arguing about deleting, or we can work on improving. One of them helps the encycyclopedia. DGG (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the only real bone of contention tends to be length. That's why I'm going to oppose the change. We need to guide that the summary should be limited in scope in some way. Brief is a bad word, but it guides in the right direction. I'm ears to other ideas, limited, although thinking about it, maybe we should go the other way and simply say they should not be extensive. Hiding T 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• That alone isn't enough; it's easy to write a completely verifiable plot description that still amounts to nothing more than an abridged reproduction of the work. OR is always a no-no, but it isn't the root problem here.--Father Goose (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you are referring to copyright issues, then at the end of the day I think we have to avoid copyright paranoia. Hiding T 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Copyright issues and style issues in this case overlap. An unstinting plot reproduction is neither what an encyclopedia should offer nor legally what it can offer (if it's a copyrighted work). And I most certainly do avoid copyright paranoia. You have read the link I posted above, right? I'd really rather address this issue before studios and publishers notice the problem, which will trigger greater paranoia in the long run than if we do what we ought to be doing already, even if only for stylistic reasons.--Father Goose (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• You are aware that only a court can decide what is copyright infringement, and that this is a top-down issue rather than a bottom up issue, and that the nature of Wikipedia in some senses protects us from a number of disputes. Have you by chance raised the matter with Mike Godwin and the board? Hiding T 12:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've been dreading that step, because I'd rather we handle this issue with our own good sense instead of calling in the truncheons. The courts have indeed decided in the past that the kind of content we've been discussing here is copyright infringement. Surely we could indulge in an ounce of prevention.--Father Goose (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• You've met the community? We can't even get agreement on how to categorise ourselves. This one needs to come from the top down, just like the image copyright issue eventually did. The issue is too complicated with shades of grey, there are too many factors involved that I think an assessment can only be made by legal counsel. Hiding T 10:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah. I have contacted Mike.--Father Goose (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have too. Well, I left a message on his talk page, which he expressly asks people not to do, so maybe I haven't gone about it the right way, but the effort is there. I prefer to keep it on wiki if I can. Hiding T 11:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• His response, excerpted: "You're missing the fact that we are not receiving DMCA takedown letters regarding plot summaries, and that plot summaries, in general, are not taken to be copyright infringement so long as they do not include any great degree of the original creative expression." So that shitcans my argument.
  I know what you mean about keeping it on-wiki, but I guess Mike doesn't live on-wiki like we do -- just as well for him. ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Images on category pages

On the Category:Images of synagogues page I added: This category should include Non-free content. Public domain or Free license images should be uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons as I thought the proper place for images is commons. However, when noting WP:NOT#REPOSITORY it only mentions if an image is in an article, not on a category page? Should images be left on category pages? Please advise. Chesdovi (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)