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 "Journalism" vs. "First-hand accounts"

As User:Fuzheado has pointed out, "journalism" covers a very wide range of material, and much of Wikipedia certainly is journalism of a sort. While the associated description of what what Wikipedia is not (first-hand reporting and the like) is appropriate, the bullet point that Wikipedia is not journalism is misleading. Furthermore, it was added without discussion by a relatively new user, and simply never reverted until Fuzheado attempted to do so on January 7. That line should be changed back to "First-hand accounts" or the like, as saying Wikipedia is not journalism (period) is pretty indefensible and not in line with the spirit of the project.--ragesoss (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what kind of work we do here that is journalism? As a tertiary source it seems more like we filter and collate the work of journalists rather than doing that work ourselves. Fletcher (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fletcher. Any sort of journalism conducted on the Wikipedia level would be a violation of WP:NOR, and precedent has been overwhelmingly set that "first-hand accounts" without source are not allowed per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I am very vocal in my opinion that WP:RS needs to be updated to be more blog-friendly, especially with regards to news-related issues, but I don't suggest for one minute that Wikipedia itself become a news source. If an attempt at semantics is being made here -- it could be argued that all research is journalism, and research is part of what Wikipedians do -- I think that's just splitting straws. Wikipedia's article on journalism clearly connects it to the reporting of news. 23skidoo (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What is an article like US Airways Flight 1549 if not journalism? Journalism is not limited to first-hand accounts and original reporting of news (which, of course, violate the basic policies of the project). Books and articles that bring together published work to create an overview of a topic are also considered. See The Foundations of Participatory Journalism and the Wikipedia Project. Wikipedia is pretty clearly engaged in a type of journalism. The Wikipedia article definition makes this clear; from the lede of journalism: "the craft of conveying news, descriptive material and comment". It says nothing about primary/secondary/tertiary sources in the definition, and Wikipedia is a project that is based on conveying news (originally reported by others), descriptive material and comment (by others). Similarly, the first Merriam-Webster definition is "the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media", something that is an important element of what goes on here. Other definitions don't even specify "news", since journalists often present stories that are not about current events but past ones, or explain complex topics that aren't news per se.--ragesoss (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia article, relaying what others have said about the topic. If there is anything in that article that is a) a first-hand account added by a Wikipedia contributor or b) anything that involves a Wikipedia contributor interviewing someone and putting that information into the story, then it must be removed per WP:NOR. Now that you've brought it to my attention I'll be checking the article and removing such information if it exists. On a cursory glance I don't see any. Recycling information collected and reported by others is not journalism. 23skidoo (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm unconvinced by an argument whose principal claim is that editing an encyclopedia is an act of journalism where the sole justification comes from the lede to Journalism. I'm not convinced that NOTNEWS applies any more or accurately describes the majority of content creation on this site (more likely it describes the content creation we would like to see...humorously contradicting WP:POLICY). But I'd need something meatier than "journalism isn't just first hand reporting of news". Protonk (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Then please point me to a reliable source defining journalism in a way that excludes, say, our articles on US Airways Flight 1549 or Virginia Tech massacre. I've pointed to academic work by a journalism professor citing Wikipedia explicitly as a type of journalism, and shown that some of what Wikipedia does is consistent with a dictionary definition and our our article's definition. I'm not suggesting any change to the policy of what Wikipedia is not, since it does a good job of explaining why Wikipedia is not the place for certain types of journalism. I'm just suggesting that we roll back an undiscussed change that is contradictory to both the spirit and practice of WP:NOT.--ragesoss (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Until WP:NOR is repealed, I will continue to argue against this. 23skidoo (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Why? It is painfully obvious that collaborative effort to distill information (gleaned from secondary sources, even) into a coherent narrative of a subject represents some kind of authorial work, even though wikipedia denies this (The mantra, plagued by cognitive dissonance, is that we simply and neutrally recapitulate available information). It is likewise obvious that "journalism" is not simply first hand reportage of facts. I could go one step further and admit that editing of content on wikipedia is novel and creative yet directed by constraints on tone and sources in a manner very similar to what we would describe as journalism. What is missing for me is the takeaway. What does that knowledge empower us to change about NOT? Because editing on wikiepdia is de facto journalism does not immediately lead us to the conclusion that rules on wikipedia must allow or priviledge certain types of content. Should we change the word "journalism" to "first hand reportage of facts"? Should we attempt to make less explicit the other half of NOT#NEWS, that wikipedia is not the forum for muckracking, even if the subject is covered by sources peripherally? I don't think so. So what should we say? Protonk (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • • I have to agree with Protonk's point, wikipdia is in denial. There are vast numbers of articles on wikpedia the authorship of which are solely the product of collaborative OR; irrespective of the number of sources they might cite. Measles (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Seems fine how it is. Fletcher (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree. Unless some new wording crops up that produces more clarity, I can't imagine changing it. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• One can take advantage of semantic ambiguities to state WP falls under the definition of journalism, as indeed we do convey "news, descriptive material and comment." But this glosses over an important difference in that we are putting together the work others have done; we're not reporting, describing, or commenting in our own words. There may be some overlap but I think we can still distinguish WP from journalism at a conceptual level. Fletcher (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't walk too far down that path. Insofar as editors avoid plagarism, they use their own words. The implications of that in practice (assuming that the spirit of NOR is followed) are minimal, but the distinction is more than purely semantic. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That's true enough, we do create something here, I just think what we create is different from what journalists create. Fletcher (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is thath "journalism" is an extremely broad term that includes on-the-spot reports, investigative journalism, editorials, interviews, etc. - none of which are WP's business. In addition the journalist's Holy Grail is a scoop, getting there first, and that is also not WP's aim. Conclusion: labelling WP as "journalism" would cause confusion among editors and readers, and is a bad idea. --Philcha (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that no one is proposing labeling Wikipedia as journalism, just replacing "Wikipedia is not journalism" with something more precise and accurate.--ragesoss (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Replace it with what? What, exactly, is the language you want to replace NOT#NEWS with. As I said above, I could be swayed to agree if the policy did not lose clarity. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Replace the bolded word "Journalism" with "First-hand accounts" in #5 section of "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought", since that's exactly what the following text describes. I'm not talking about NOT#NEWS (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #5), which only mentions "tabloid journalism" rather than journalism-full-stop.--ragesoss (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But limiting it to "First-hand accounts" actually seems less precise, because as you have noted yourself, journalism encompasses a broader range than first hand reporting. If we rule out "journalism", using common definitions of the word, we rule out not just first-hand reporting, but also other things Wikipedians should not be doing, such as interviewing witnesses (second hand reporting) or doing one's own research to explain the facts. In that sense ruling out "journalism" has a little more punch to it than just proscribing first hand accounts. Fletcher (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines journalism as the following:

The aggregating, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles for widespread distribution, typically in periodical print publications and broadcast news media, for the purpose of informing the audience.

I think this is summaries what we do pretty well, so saying that Wikipedia is not journalism is very silly IMHO. I recommend we change it to something along the lines of "Wikipedia is not a publisher of first-hand news reports". If we have to also tell people not to do things like interviews, we should give that its own bullet on the list. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The distinction you are missing is that we don't create news reports; we create summaries of what actual journalists have created. In essence the job of a journalist is to explain the facts; our job is to explain what is widely believed to be the facts. There's some overlap, but we are still performing different roles. It would be interesting to survey some professional journalists on the question. If you told one that you sit at your home computer with one browser tab opened to edit Wikipedia, and a few more tabs opened to CNN, Google News, etc., and by updating Wikipedia after clicking through these news reports you can fashion yourself a journalist, despite having never hit the street to report on an event as it happens, or tracked down witnesses to ask them questions, I would not be very surprised if he laughed in your face. Fletcher (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we are not journalists in the same way as a CNN reporter. However, we do "write, edit, and present news media", which by Wiktionary's definition makes us journalists. It is because of the ambiguity of the word that I think saying "Wikipedia is not a publisher of first-hand news" would be more accurate. By the current wording, which seems to forbid any definition of journalism, we should not have an article about anything, any event, or anyone until it or they are completely out of the news. Since this is clearly unreasonable, I think we should change the wording. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't write, edit, and present news media. We write, edit, and present encyclopedia articles. It is only because we are not a paper encyclopedia that we can write encyclopedia articles about current events as they happen. But one should not mistake us for a news outlet (cf. WP:NOTNEWS). Even though, admittedly, a major event will rapidly spawn a Wikipedia article as editors rush to update it, the article is gradually sculpted into something more well rounded and comprehensive than you would see in most news stories, and at the same time lacking in some of the minor details the news media will keep you updated on. You seem to have adopted an extremely broad definition of journalism such that anything written about something in the news is ipso facto journalism. A student writing a school report about Obama is a journalist under this definition. No, in relying on a simple dictionary definition I think you're missing the difference between WP and journalism. And please note the current wording of the policy specifically allows encyclopedia articles about current events, so there is no danger whatsoever of such articles being deleted under this policy. Fletcher (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, Fletcher gives an accurate and useful synopsis of the issues under discussion here. (I set aside a couple of statements like "You seem to have adopted... " and mentally substituted something like "One should be cautious about adopting ..." , leaving intact the rest of the summary Fletcher just gave.) In this light, WP writing can quite reasonably be said to resemble journalistic writing in some respects, e.g., objectivity (WP:NPOV) and dependence on reliable sources (WP:V). But in other respects WP articles deviate very substantially from models for journalism. For one thing, any kind of content must not be introduced here first (WP:NOR). For another thing, articles should meet WP:NOTABILITY. In that respect, WP is rather the opposite of most journalism, in that rather than seeking to be the one with the "scoop", WP articles must be derived from already published reliable sources. In general the best practice, I think it's fair to say within the three core content policies and other relevant WP policies, is to summarize topics based on the second or third generation of reliable summary sources regarding the topic being written about (WP:PSTS). Of course there are exceptions where WP users quite appropriately pick up the story from the first generation of reliable sources, particularly w.r.t. current events. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am using a broad definition of journalism, yes, but the word can be interpreted that way. As per the Wikipedia Weekly episode, I think that some people are using the overly broad definition as a justification for deletion when the policy was never intended to be read that way. We here each agree with what the policy is meant to say, so why not eliminate the possibility for ambiguity and change the wording to specifically say that? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific in your example? Fletcher (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about a sentence under the crystal ball section

The policy states that, in regards to a future event, "speculation about it must be well documented." That seems sort of vague, and I was just wondering if anyone could clarify or expand on exactly what's meant by well documented speculation. Timmeh! 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• If news organizations or other reliable sources are discussing the speculation, then CRYSTAL doesn't really apply. Take the Watchmen movie. There was news coverage of it well before it was a feature film or even entered principal photography (the WP:FILM standard cutoff). In that case, it wasn't speculation to have an article on the future event. Protonk (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  If so, then what is the point of having the phrase "speculation must be well documented"? Also, would the reliable sources need to have articles devoted to the subject to be considered well documented speculation, or would they just have to mention vaguely and/or in a single sentence in an article with a different topic that they think "this might happen in (insert year or multiple years) years"? Timmeh! 13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  Because we get lots of articles with user speculation or fan speculation about some album or movie (usually an album). The album, when it comes out, will obviously be notable (it's from some A-list star and some big studio, or something), but the only people saying it is going to be an album are kellyclarksonisthebestever.blogger.com and some editors on wikipedia. We want to say that is not wanted (explicitly, even though it is kind of redundant to NOR), but allow articles on future events. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete content to prove a point (1)

Please add your comments to the section below, not this one. This section is now obsolete/moot.

I added a new guideline in the Wikipedia is not a Battleground section which says "... do not delete content or articles just to prove a point....". I added this without prior discussion because I think consensus on it is pretty obvious. I included a line that says "Examples include ...". If you can think of better examples, by all means add and/or replace. RoyLeban (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I object to it. It doesn't belong on NOT. If anything, it sounds like it belongs on POINT. but frankly it is redundant to WP:BEFORE, alludes that editors who delete content or pages are inherently doing something wrong, and doesn't really assert a position on editing that I could see a large percentage of the community getting behind. Also, please note that Wikipedia:POLICY#Changes_to_guideline_and_policy_pages suggests that discussion precede editing on policy pages. Protonk (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You (protonk) said in your reversion that this was a "substantive change to a policy". That was not my intent and I don't think that's the case. Rather, I was clarifying existing policy and adding some examples. I guess I was a little too bold. But I wish you had not reverted. So, I've made a much smaller change, just adding "or delete content or articles". Assuming you do not object to the text that was already there, I hope you will agree that this is just a useful clarification.

But, I do think some examples would be helpful. I thought this was a good place for them, but I could see your point about putting them in WP:POINT instead. But WP:POINT already has numerous examples. Maybe a better thing to do would be to add "when not to apply" sections to many policies. I would appreciate it if others would weigh in.

For the record, here are the two versions of the earlier change:

Previous Revision		My Revision
Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.		Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban. Do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Similarly, do not delete content or articles just to prove a point. If you find content on Wikipedia which you think is inappropriate (including things listed on this page), but which is close to appropriate, do not simply delete it. Fix it instead, or tag it as needing to be fixed. Deleting content, especially content which is close to acceptable, does not help Wikipedia grow. Examples include long plot summaries (when a shorter one would be appropriate), numerous examples (when fewer examples would be fine), and information which is in the wrong place (move it to the right place).

RoyLeban (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I still disagree with this. If a user thinks that content on a page is not appropriate, then they plainly aren't removing that content to prove a point. Likewise, I think that it is impossible to say here that "long plot summaries should not be shortened" or that "reducing examples" is bad. We should not revert additions of content, even if it is malformed (so if someone add an example but doesn't spell it properly or doesn't reference it, we should fix the spelling and add the reference). That suggestion doesn't belong in NOT. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I also am uncomfortable with it because people could be acting in perfectly good faith by removing inappropriate content in those cases. The examples given are more about somebody's editing style and decisions which can be discussed on the talk page of the article to decide what is appropriate. It doesn't fit in BATTLE. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think adding this is the epitome of assuming bad faith. People who engage in clean-up are not trying to "prove a point", let along "create a battleground". I'm sure that a few people at some point or another have pushed to remove content just because they hate another editor, but we shouldn't tie everyone's hands for the actions of a few bad editors. Randomran (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about editors engaging in cleanup, though I can see how my comments could be interpreted that way. I'm talking about people damaging articles in the guise of following Wikipedia guidelines. Using the example of a plot summary, imagine a long plot summary of Star Wars that begins "The credits roll in" and an editor shortens it to just that. This is a slight exaggeration, but not by much. And a plot summary is not wildly inappropriate. If a plot summary has been in an article for years, edited by many editors, and one person comes across it and summarily deletes it, without discussion, then, unless that edit is noticed relatively quickly, all that work may be lost forever. You can argue that a plot summary should be shorter, but just deleting the long-term work of multiple editors is not a way to improve Wikipedia. Here is a recent example: Near Dark history where the plot summary has largely existed for two years, through 75 edits (note: none of them mine) and was just truncated to a nonsensical opening by someone who had never previously edited the article. And he claims it's justified by WP:NOT.

I have searched for and could not find a specific Wikipedia policy to point to in cases like this. Put another way, I'd like to see something like this somewhere: "The intent of policies is to improve Wikipedia. Do not follow policies just to follow them, especially if following them does not improve Wikipedia. If you find content which is appropriate but does not meet guidelines, you should improve it or tag it rather than delete it. For example, do not simply delete content and expect others to come in afterwards and complete the work." (I can see consenus that it doesn't belong in WP:NOT -- but does it exist already and, if not, where should it be?)

Note this deliberately sidesteps the whole issue of whether Wikipedia should have plot summaries or not. I know that there's contention there, but it's not my point here.

RoyLeban (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That isn't an issue of NOT, that sounds more like vandalism or editors being beyond ridiculously zealous (as appears to be the issue at Near Dark. Not plot doesn't mean no plot summary at all, certainly for a film article. Looking at that article, DreamGuy appears to being pointy rather than acting in good faith. The article should, at most, be tagged for overly long plot though it really isn't that long (only 150 words or so over the max allowed by the MoS) and someone work to cull it down to the appropriate length, but that does not mean ripping the entire thing out in this case. I've left him a 3RR warning and a discussion has started at the talk page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete content to prove a point (2)

Sigh. I tried to make a clarification to the Wikipedia is not a Battleground section. That got reverted and other editors thought it was more than just a clarification (see above section). I then made a significantly smaller change which was pretty clearly just a clarification, but now another editor has changed it to something that is even less emphatic than the original, whereas I was trying to make it clearer and a bit more emphatic. I would like others to weigh in.

Original version: Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point.

Version by RoyLeban: Do not create or modify articles or delete content or articles just to prove a point.

Version written by Fletcher: Resist the temptation to change Wikipedia just to prove a point.

The differences are: "Do not" vs. "Resist the temptation"; "change Wikipedia" vs. "create or modify articles or delete content or articles".

What do others think? RoyLeban (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First, blech over the Near Dark mess. I realize now that said editor is doing this to dozens of film, book, and play articles claiming that WP:NOT forbids plot summaries. *sigh* That said...hmmm...right now either version seems fine to me, though I learn more towards "Do not" rather than just "try not to, eh?" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Right on blech. I was looking for something to point said editor (and others) to. It's not just plot summaries, but that is the most obvious and egregious example. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viridae#Regarding_your_unblock_of_DreamGuy RoyLeban (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Roy, if you disagree with me, the answer is not to stalk me and attack me. In fact, multiple editors have told you the things you were doing were wrong, so showing up here just because someone is comlaining about me just to say "me too" is not at all helpful. Give it a rest, and take the time to learn how to work within Wikipedia rules instead of trying to team up with disgruntled people. DreamGuy (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need nine words when two will do? You might scroll up the project page to WP:BURO which reminds us to avoid instruction creep -- we do not need rules to govern every possible action a user might take. Saying "create or modify articles or delete content or articles" is bad prose and sounds like something you'd see on the back of an insurance policy. We can convey the same essential meaning in far fewer words. I added the verbiage about "resist the temptation" because we already have two "Do not" imperatives in that section, and it seems preachy and repetitive to keep saying "do not do this, do not do that", etc., like we're lecturing a bunch of five-year-olds. Fletcher (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Because at least one editor, DreamGuy, is running around using WP:NOT as a justification for ripping entire plot sections from dozens of fictional arguments under the claim because NOT is a policy and it says "concise" summary, his view of concise (2 sentences) is the only valid one so he is justified in vandalizing articles and making personal attacks against multiple other editors trying to correct him (and then claiming that because he was unblcoked for his edit warring, that his view has been validated). Which brings up issue two, does WP:PLOT need tweaking to clarify that "concise" does not mean 1-2 sentences and that there are actual guidelines spelling out what is concise, including WP:MOSFILMS and WP:MOSTV. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always felt that plot could use some tweaking so it's not used to simply erase plot summaries, or turn them into two sentence teasers. But any discussion about clarifying PLOT is always jacked by a handfull of editors who want to remove it entirely. Randomran (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not true Randomran. Please don't make false claims like that. For example, there was this thread that you commented in — just two weeks ago. And people want to remove WP:NOT#PLOT from this policy because WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy. It never did have consensus to be policy. Yet Hiding added it anyway. So the talkpage archives are full of threads with people saying WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed. And when the editor who proposed WP:NOT#PLOT and first added it to this policy removed it in May, Collectonian re-added it. --Pixelface (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

... jacked by a handfull of editors who want to remove it entirely. Randomran (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Randomram. --Pixelface (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a strange claim, after you open your mouth and prove me right. Randomran (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No Randomran, I proved you wrong, by linking to that thread from two weeks ago that you commented in. Can you reply to anything I said? --Pixelface (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest you both back off a bit instead of rehashing the past. The future is more important. I would be happy to assist in working on WP:PLOT / WP:NOT#PLOT which, for those who aren't familiar, are two names for the same thing. Is it possible to come up with a list of alternatives for PLOT that could be discussed for consensus as opposed to a super wide-ranging discussion as I've seen? Personally, I think PLOT is vague enough that it is ripe for distortion (and we've seen examples here). Does there need to be an entire policy on just PLOT? In the short time, I have made a minor change that points to additional detail: The definition of "concise" varies depending on the context: movies and films, television shows, novels, and general fiction. I hope this is a non-controversial change as it makes no change to policy. RoyLeban (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. Let's see if anyone else says anything. Randomran (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, talk about someone freaking out and misrepresenting what other people do and say to try to make a point. I never said two sentences was my definition of concise, but point by point plot details certainly are not. The Plot tag template spells it out, NOT spells it out, but some people just insist upon doing the OPPOSITE of what the policy says. We need a clarification to specifically say plot by plot summaries are not allowed. Unfortunately WP:MOSFILMS and WP:MOSTV, like a lot of specific subpages concerning policies, often are written by people who do not have consensus for what they put and violate the main policy... we also have the same problem with, for example, the naming policy and the people coming up with flora article naming rules. It has always been WP:NOT's stance that we are NOT Cliff Notes, etc., and if some subpages suggest otherwise, those are in error, not this page.

Also, when something is in violation, deleting is preferred to leaving it the bad way. It's not a question of POINT it's a question of being more in line with policy. Closer to good is always better than bad, even if it's not perfect. And assuming that it was done as some sort of WP:POINT violation is a violation of WP:AGF. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of trimming bloated summaries down to size, but when you remove large blocks of text, some attention is needed to ensure the resulting language still makes sense and is informative. So if you have five paragraphs of plot and want to trim it down to one, you don't just delete the last four paragraphs, but rather you cut out the minor detail and bring up the ending into the first paragraph, leaving just enough information to preserve the story arc. I'm not sure how you are doing it, but if you're truncating the story arc I can see why people would find that disruptive. Fletcher (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Story arcs in and of themselves are violations of WP:NOT. We do not do detailed blow by blow descriptions of fiction. Does the phrase "Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot." mean anything to you? That's our template for the plot section not following policy. That's what we need to do. Any attempt to do something else is not what Wikipedia is here for. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF usually goes out the window when you keep edit-waring without completing or engaging in the WP:BRD cycle. After the first revert, you should have made your case on the talk page. There are, after all, other ways to deal with the issue other the wholes removal of the plot. But instead making your case and discussing the matter, you reverted, reverted again, and again while at the same time spreading the conflict to other articles.

Besides, this isn't the first time someone attempted to make a WP:POINT by removing plot summaries from articles. There was a similar incident a couple of years ago during the spoiler debate, one of the spoiler warning proponents started deleting plot summaries declaring them unverifiable and original research. --Farix (Talk) 19:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a WP:POINT violation, it's following policy. And, frankly, plot summaries should follow our normal standards for reliable sources. Characterizing it as a WP:POINT violation is itself a violation of WP:AGF. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's disruptive when you repeatedly edit war over it on multiple articles without engaging in any discussions. I was just pointing out why others would not WP:AGF over such behavior since that is contrary evidence of good faith. But it is also not following policy as policy does not call for the arbitrary removal of plot summary or replacing them with just a teaser. What it does call for is that the plot summary to be condensed down while still remaining as complete as possible. --Farix (Talk) 11:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, either you have good faith or bad faith. Right now, I'm going to assume that you are well intentioned. You need to slow down and not insist that you are right. When multiple people disagree with you, maybe they're right. The intent of all Wikipedia policies is to improve the encyclopedia. When you make an edit that deletes content form multiple editors, content that has been in an article for years, content that contains substantial information, etc., etc., it hurts Wikipedia. Deleting a plot summary, even an overly long one that has been slaved on by others, removes content that is valuable. Isn't there a chance that you're wrong? You refuse to accept this and instead seem to believe that you're the only editor who truly understands Wikipedia policies. Until you really understand what consensus is, you'll continue to butt heads with other editors. RoyLeban (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but deleting things that do not fit Wikipedia standards is a well established part of editing Wikipedia. Deleting content that violates policy is not only NOT removing valuable content, it's removing BAD content. I am certainly not the only editor who understands policies, but it's clear we have some here who don't. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy what RoyLeban said. I'm not going to read up on this specific conflict. Maybe you're well intentioned, but you have to be respectful of others too. There is wide room for disagreement for what's a concise plot summary, and what's excessive. The best place to answer those questions are at the article talk page. Don't edit war or personally attack other editors. If it gets heated, take the discussion to a higher form of dispute resolution (see link). Randomran (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You should look up on the specific conflict. I have all the respect in the world for editors who edit responsibly: who make an effort to read up on policies and follow them. Someone who wikistalks a user because he's pissed off that his edits to an article were removed and complains on multiple talk pages and even goes so far as to edit a policy page to try to provide ammunition for his own personal conflict is engaging in behavior that simply cannot be condoned. I look forward to the time when Roy gets some perspective and realizes that he doesn't WP:OWN articles by virtue of him editing them. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not news source

I would like to see a heading something like: "Wikipedia is not a news source." This is touched on in the section on original research --> journalism...but I think it extends beyond this, since material exists that is not original research, and that is notable as news (not in the wikipedia sense of notability), but not notable for an encyclopedia.

I think the use of wikipedia for current events is very problematic, primarily because it leads to the inclusion of material that is not notable in the long-run, and because the quality of material entered hastily as news unfolds is usually questionable. So I propose adding "Wikipedia is not a news source". If no one objects, let's add it. Cazort (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have it: see WP:NOT#NEWS. Fletcher (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I found it now! It's buried in there. Don't you think it maybe warrants its own heading? It seems this issue comes up very frequently. Cazort (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots of items in WP:NOT come up frequently -- what you see depends on what types of articles you edit most. I think people are pretty familiar with WP:NOT#NEWS and it doesn't need to be a top-level heading. There's also an essay WP:NOTNEWS which you can also refer people to when appropriate. Fletcher (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we clarify NOTDIRECTORY?

I AFD'd a large group of lists (about 150) basically named "List of companies in ..." as violations of wp:NOTDIRECTORY. It seems from the initial responces that the NOT policy is either unclear on this point or I am misunderstanding it's purpose. I think the purpose of the policy should be made more explicit so that editors have more guidance on whether they are using it to maintain a good encyclopedia or misinterpreting its intent. Please consider commenting here and/or at the above listed AFD. NJGW (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add to NOTDIRECTORY a phrase that indicates that a plain list of businesses is a business directory. It already says "wp is not a Yellowpages" (as a clause), and I think a list of businesses with no indication of notability or context also has no encyclopedic value except to create business buzz for those listed on such a list. Perhaps a note that such lists already exist in the form of categories. Any input on this? NJGW (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to start rewording this policy in a few days, so any input would be helpful. NJGW (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just not sure I've seen a problem here. We create articles on businesses. Why not have a list of those articles on businesses? Randomran (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

First, it would seem that the categories are precisely what you describe. Second, the lists have no notability guidelines, including grocery stores and the like. They read like a Yellow pages without the phone numbers. Someone suggested only listing those businesses listed on stock exchanges, but that would simply mirror existing websites. The lists are non-encyclopedic directories, so having some clause in NOT#DIRECTORY seems logical. NJGW (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• note: This issue has come up before to AFD lists: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Kuwaiti_companies. This is a proposal to stream line such AFDs by clarifying current policy. NJGW (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you saying we should delete every article in Category:Lists_of_companies_by_country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomran (talk • contribs)
    • Please see relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies/Lists of companies by country. At that project, they suggest lists be about "notable companies which have or previously had a significant presence in the country," which may be a better naming template for the many disparate versions of names for these lists. Note also that List of companies was redirected to an appropriate category. I suggest that the lists are duplicating the categories OR adding NN company names to WP. NJGW (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • We already say that Wikipedia isn't for everything that ever existed. It should go without saying that we can have lists of notable articles, and that lists aren't necessarily a way to circumvent our standards for inclusion. We don't need to go ahead and start deleting entire categories of lists. Randomran (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Just saying "we can have lists of notable articles" is not accurate. Not every case of list is encyclopedic, and that is made clear in the policy. I'm trying to make the case that this particular group of lists is not encyclopedic, and that they are business directories, so that a clause may be included in that line of the policy. If you disagree with those points please explain why. NJGW (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
          • You're the one who has to explain to me what's unencyclopedic about this particular type of list of articles. Most lists of articles are okay if they're discriminate, and if they're not an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. What's wrong with these, if they're notable, and we're not tossing in crap or ads? Randomran (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
            • I have explained this, but because you asked politely I will do so again. Most of all they do not contain notable entries and are full of crap (like grocery stores), and are very difficult to police because of the sheer number of them (and permutations of naming conventions). They are an indiscriminate list. A discriminate list already exists for each of these at the semi-duplicate categories (I say "semi-" only because items notable enough to have articles can be listed by default--auto policing if you will--and so they are missing all the cruft). Also, once again, they are a business directory. My main points here are that that this policy already says we can't have a business directory (eg Yellow Pages), and consensuses in previous AFD's have confirmed this (including the AFD for "List of companies"), as well as at the Companies WikiProject. The consensus already exists, these are non encyclopedic, and what I'm suggesting is putting a clause that a list of businesses is a business directory and that the Categories take care of any perceived need of such a list perfectly. NJGW (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
              • I agree with you that they are hard to maintain, but not impossible. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Businesses and organizations in Second Life (2nd nomination). We almost deleted. But after a clean-up, we realized it was as encyclopedic as any other list. If there's a problem with spam, a solution might be to ask for semi-protection. Randomran (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Why do I have the feeling that we shall keep repeating NOTDIRECTORY and NOTYELLOWPAGES and then keep completely unrelated lists of companies (apart from their country of operation and/or origin)? Can anyone really tell why they should be included in an "encyclopedia", even in one as inclusive as the Wikipedia? What purpose are they serving that can't be served by the categories? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This is straight out of our policy on lists/categories. See Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_lists. Sure, a plain old list of names is redundant with a category. But you can improve the formatting, and add other information to sort on -- such as the dates the companies were founded, or what sector of the economy they represent, or their current CEO. Randomran (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Makes pretty little sense. List of Mining Companies in Vietnam may be an encyclopedic list, but a List of any and every company of Vietnam looks pretty unencyclopedic. Where does the policy you quite says that unrelated business directories (a.k.a. yellowpages) are better than categories? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Categories are not equivalent to lists. A good list will include information and presentation that is not possible in a category. That bad lists of a particular type exist is not a very good reason to categorically ban all similar lists. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change NOTDIRECTORY

I've posted links to this section in many relevant places (including the policy pump a couple of times), and only received input from two people. I'm going to propose the change now, and see what discussion that sparks.

Old version

Proposed version

Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.

Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Lists of business related only by geographic location are business directories, and not encyclopedic. These are more efficiently and neutrally managed through categories.

• I just don't agree these should be relegated to categories. To me, a list of businesses is definitely appropriate so long as it doesn't go into exhaustive detail and non-notable entries. And there is even more value to a list of businesses when it goes beyond a list of names. For example, the list of accompanying founders, founding-cities, years founded, its final status (merged, amalgamated, bankrupted...)... That's something that no category can do. Randomran (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What does anti-leech mean? Plus... on devoting time

The Wikipedia is not a battleground section contains the following text

• Wikipedia is not an anti-leech community. Users should not criticize others on not devoting time to edit.

I have two issues:

1. I understand really well what the second sentence means, but I don't understand the first one. The double negative doesn't help, nor does the use of an uncommon term not normally associated with a negative. If I interpret it to mean Wikipedia, as a community, does not care if people leech information from it, it has nothing to do with the second sentence. Does anybody know for sure what the intent is? (and what this has to do with the "battleground" section)
2. I like the second sentence, but I suggest the addition of "You should not create work for others or direct others to do work."

RoyLeban (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no rule against creating work for others or directing others to do work. We're a Wiki. We work by collaboration. Randomran (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some editors make a habit of proactively assigning work to others. Sometimes they pop in, tell other people to do things, then vanish. Absent a prior agreement, that is not collaboration and is appropriate. If you have a better way to phrase this, I'm open to suggestion. But, now that I think about it, it probably belongs somewhere else. Where? RoyLeban (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to start banning and blocking people who assign work to others, who haunt the talk pages, or focus on meta-editing meta-editing like tagging? If not, then we should leave this out entirely. Randomran (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see where this is going. The statement just means that people are not obligated to spend a certain amount of time editing, as it's a volunteer project and people have real-life concerns that take precedence. I do agree with RoyLeban that the "anti-leech" phrasing sounds a bit odd. But it's a given that we create work for each other by editing, tagging, or making comments in discussion. That's part of the collaborative process. Fletcher (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not my intent to take it "where it's going". Yes, we absolutely create work for others by editing. Every {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) tag is creating work for others. When we ask for consensus, we're creating work. And I ask people to do work all the time. For example, I've recently left notes for a bunch of people who edited the Ambigram page asking if they would comment on some pending actions on the talk page. I'm referring explicitly telling people what they should do. My response is "Do it yourself -- you're not the boss of me" :-) That's all I'm getting at. RoyLeban (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to add something about not bossing others around, since this is a volunteer community. Randomran (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a version without the "anti-leech" wording:

"Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users."

Not feeling bold tonight, sorry. Is that any good? Fletcher (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Randomran (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it. I could also see appending "When editing, think about whether you are creating new work for others." (note: think, not do) but I'm ok without it and this is certainly an improvement.

I'd love for it to say, bluntly, "Don't criticize others for not doing work that you're not doing either", but there's no "Be Blunt" policy :-)

Thanks RoyLeban (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Good call, Roy. I've removed the bit. It's cryptic for anyone not versed in the jargon and generally unnecessary. If anything, attempting to volunteer other people for work one is unwilling to do onself belongs in the civility policy, not here. Durova^Charge! 03:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the sentence written by Randomran (oops!) Fletcher, without the addition of the extra things I commented on. I'm going to look at the civility policy and see if the other stuff might be appropriate there. Thanks, everybody. RoyLeban (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the credit goes to Fletcher for the wording. But agreed -- good job everyone. Randomran (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The passage -- "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely." -- is rather misguided and is not policy. Turning the other cheek or addressing only the literal factual content of personal attacks only works some of the time. There are other alternatives - removing or consolidating the disputed text, closing discussions, bringing the matter up for administrative review, cautioning the user to stop, etc. The first half, that incivility should not justify incivility in return, is reasonable. The imperative language on what editors are supposed do next is simply not the case. Wikidemon (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is policy -- I don't think I made any substantive changes to that part of the wording, just altered slightly it for readability. It's certainly true that turning the other cheek doesn't always work, but there is a progression indicated in the text whereby one might, at first, consider turning the other the other cheek; then one might warn the user about no personal attacks; and lastly one might consider the formal dispute resolution process, which is wikilinked. It sounds like you are only focusing on one sentence rather than the paragraph as a whole? And some of your alternative suggestions sound like they are geared towards admins -- do we want to encourage the average user to delete or modify someone else's comments in a discussion? That sounds like it would further inflame the situation. People should not generally do that unless they really know what they're doing. Perhaps however we should wikilink to WP:ANI which is a more common path than going to mediation or arbitration. Fletcher (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal - deletion of WP:NOT#WEBHOST

As it relates to userspace I propose, based on a seeming growing consensus at deletion discussions and other areas about user pages, WP:NOT#WEBHOST be deleted. If deletion is not an option than it must be reworded to reflect that "trends of opinion" do not support deletion of any material contained in userspace outside of blatant copyvios, direct sales/marketing (explicitly listing prices and/or information where one can purchase items) or non-free image gallery's. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, everything I've seen has still supported this. There was a "recent" ANI case (last two months) of several uses using userspace to play a virtual reality TV game; they were subsequently banned. What is an example of where this policy no longer seems to hold true? --MASEM 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

er (x2) - I see nothing to support this reading. I would also like an example. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Er.. <sarcasm>Sure.. but only after we add User: and User_talk: to robots.txt so that they aren't indexed by Google.</sarcasm> IMHO, removing this would effectively allow people to use userspace pages to host all kinds information on non-notable (entities|subjects) that have been or would be deleted from article space.. This happens to some degree already, but at least now - those pages can be deleted when it's clear that the user isn't here to contribute productively to the encyclopedia, but rather to promote (themselves|their pet subject) with a page that sits on en.wikipedia.org . --Versageek 18:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to state that, for me, it is the wording of associated guidlines based on this policy that I have had issues with in the past, however there is recent surge of discussion that has sparked this. "webhost" has many meaning in relation to userspace and a huge part of this. Also it partly stems from the MFD "Please familiarize yourself" section that includes a link to "Wikipedia:User page — our guidelines on user pages". Now, because it was asked for, not because I am canvasing or forum shopping, here are some related discussions that all tie back to this policy: The spark - A proposed article User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers and it's talk page brought it to this: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. The outcome of that has lead to this: DRV which in turn has resulted in this proposal as well as this: Wikipedia talk:User page#Deletion review regarding indefinite hosting clause (The direct guideline at issue there is Copies of other pages which explicitly defines how WP:NOT#WEBHOST relates to userpage content via this: "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."
Also somewhat related to this was a long standing (August 29, 2007) paragraph that was removed, on January 2, 2009, with no discussion, from the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators that stated "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions."
A few discussions that tie into userspace include: Editing policy-Getting on to the primary issue, Template:Underconstruction - TfD, Define and clarify "indefinitely" and, for comparison, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery from 2006 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam Carr/My archive of original photographic contributions January 28, 2009. Some current, active, MFDS using the "isn't hurting anything", "not violating any Wikipedia policies", it who the user is type arguments - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Britt25/sandbox for CVS/Pharmacy, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChanceYoungJr.Robert and the controversial Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians
Related essays (because people do cite them in some way is deletion discussions) include: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. There is also a secondary issue of who the user is and if they are required to follow this (or any) policy related to userspace. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khuntien Ngin/Rendy Marciano and compare it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. In both cases these are articles meant for mainspace in userspace; in both cases the main authors came to the MfD and said they would work on the article and that they are trying to fix them up. Both contain arguments of "delete" based on Copies of other pages and not a free web host. Both also used arguments of WP:OR. However the outcomes are very different - one user has been active over the years so "there is no time limit", "OR does not apply to userspace" and "not a web host" does not apply to this user. In the other case not one person said "keep" because "OR does not apply", Not one person said "keep" because there is "no time limit", not one person said "not a web host" does not apply. Matter of fact outside of the author(s) only one editor voted "keep" because "there is no requirement for "notability" in userspace". Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here that necessitates any change. User space content (save for WP:BLP and WP:NFC, and uncivil behavior) are outside of the general content guidelines or notability guidelines (deleted pages are often userified to be improved before being added again). There is absolutely no problem writing a userspace article that you intend to move to mainspace without any references, just that once you do move it, reference should be present and all other content guidelines should be met. The only issue here is the present lifetime of the material, which the MFD review stated was not defined and thus up to consensus. I see no problem with a article being built in userspace to last a year or two there without modifications, but 3-4 years may be pushing it. But WEBHOST is still being considered in how the article is being retained, so there's no point in remove it particular for a minor case like this. --MASEM 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But it is not "a minor case like this" - did you read any of the links I provided? It is an ongoing issue. I was just re-reading one of the conversation unrelated to the current DRV I mention. From December 2008 opinions, from different editor (some are admins) is that the policy does not apply to everyone. For example one said that "keeping an article (Or a project or portal page) in userspace only becomes a problem when it violates WP:UP" and added on that if the argument was it was on their userspace and the version they like we "refer them to Wikipedia:Userpage#Copies of other pages" However the same editor, when asked about their own subpages, said "I am not at all concerned about the pages in my userspace" because they are a "pretty experienced user" and a "top contributor", and, in somewhat of a challenge, "feel free to nominate them. I am confident that my pages won't get deleted". This is a case of "who" being allowed to override policy. Other comments from other users were another admin who has had a small stub on their user page for over 2 years (untouched), and whose MfD closed before it was even opened after they made the comment "This is in my userspace" and "in general I don't see any need to delete inoffensive draft articles in userspace", who described why this is article is still in userspace - "keeping the article in user space serves as a reminder to me to check for new evidence every so often. Many of us have started articles on topics where evidence cannot be easily found but where we suspect that evidence of notability exists, and perhaps it will eventually be found." Another editor cyber yelled: "So what if an article that is userfied is never worked on?". The idea is one needs to look around - I was asked for example so I gave several. It is still not "all" of them. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But even if these particular cases, where the user is keeping an "unfinished" version of an article in progress in their userspace, is a small fraction of what WEBHOST deliniates. WEBHOST implies that we are not your blog, personal web page, your Myspace or Facebook pages, or for content that is outside the improvement of WP in general. That part sticks, regardless of what is done about articles in indefinite progress in userspace. If anything, if your concern is that certain editors manage to keep in progress articles alive in their userspace, that probably should be brought up to WP:USER where more specifics on appropriate userspace content is listed. --MASEM 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing that's important here is "are they here to build the encyclopedia".. if their contributions indicate they are - then a few sandboxes are probably just fine. I'm venturing a bit far from the topic, but if someone has an issue with an unfinished page/work in progress in a user's space, and it's clear from the user's other contributions that user is here to build the encyclopedia not just push a POV or futz around in userspace - why not request the user save the unfinished page with an empty copy as the top version when it's not being actively edited? It's WIN/WIN, user has access to the content, messy sandbox doesn't show up in a search. On the other hand, if the content goes against other policies/guidelines it probably should be deleted on those grounds or a combination of those grounds and NOTWEBHOST. An example that comes to mind is a POV-fork of an existing article. Generically speaking: "you are entitled to your POV, but en.wiki is not your webhost. " --Versageek 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But I think the issue is being somewhat overlooked. This is about Policy. Should it be brought up at WP:USER? Yes, and it has been, however what is there is based on this Policy - specifically it describes how this policy is relates in userspace and than says: "In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host." << - link to this section being discussed, of this policy. So this issue does not solely lay with the guidelines found at user. It is not only about articles in userspace, although it is most often used in the way at MFD's. It is also applied to photo gallery's, blogs, resumes, chat rooms and anything else that an individual user could place on a "webhost". I like this policy, however I am, frankly, getting tired of citing it and being told, in various ways, "It means nothing" followed with the reason why it means nothing. So why have it? If we only have it to prevent blatant advertising and blatant copvios and blatant advertising than we should re-word it that way. In doing so it will effect wording in other guidelines that lead back to this. If we only have it so it will apply to newbies than it needs to be laid out that way as well. Sometimes editors tend to forget that everything is interrelated and that passing it off to somewhere else is not always the best thing to do because it puts us in a situation where one guideline says one thing and links to another that says something else and that in turn, links to something else. And, again, not everyone is "blatant" enough to say they are a "pretty experienced user" and a "top contributor" so "I am confident that my pages won't get deleted" but I see an awful lot of arguments that contain some variant of "it's doing no harm". In some of the discussions linked to it is fairly obvious the many of the "keep" opinions come from the same users who regularly vote "keep" no matter what. With the removal of the paragraph in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators I mentioned above it now implies that any deletion discussion can be a head count and not have to be based on policy. Yes, it still says that the closing admin is is not supposed to do a head count and but the "underlying policy", but the wording removed was far more specific in that a closing admin had to consider policy first, not public opinion, even if the "rough consensus" seemed otherwise. Look at the talk page and the "discussion" about removing that paragraph - there is zero consensus. One editor says there is no "non-negotiable" policy, another editor says "the core content policies are non-negotiable. WP:CONSENSUS does not trump any of them" And another editor says "WP:Policies is fairly clear that consensus does trump policy" and removed the paragraph. And this applies here as as well. If a deletion discussion contains 2 vocal "keeps" based on nothing but opinion it supersedes policy. The same can be said for a "delete" as well but it is rare I see "delete" followed by "it is doing harm", but somehow I doubt that argument would be accepted the same way "Keep: It is doing no harm" is. But to steer back here - if "no web host" is only meant for specific items and specific people than lets reword it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

{unindent}I hadn't noticed the change about AfDs and I've replaced the text. No matter what the headcount there can be policy reasons to delete. And I want to keep the webhost section -- I've seen people try to store large pdfs for instance, let alone all the other stuff like chatrooms. dougweller (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, Dougweller, Masem, Cameron Scott and Versageek's positions are on solid ground here. Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST remains a necessary statement of limits on the use of Wikipedia webspace. Granted that its enforcement is not always perfect-- it frequently runs into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and other issues including the often off-the-cuff conclusions of users in MfDs that sometimes seem more like a vote than a consensus process. And, there've been occasions where MfDs have been frivolous and based on mere differences in personal POV about the material in a userspace. Nonetheless, a clear statement is needed that WP's purpose is to be an encyclopedia not a free webhost where userspaces are totally at the discretion of the user. Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST has long served this function, supplementing WP:USER with a concise statement of one of the things that Wikipedia is not. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting at the very different conversations. Here it is a solid "keep" while over at User it is a solid "delete" for the section that relates to this policy. However the idea that copyvios, advertising and such still be deleted is still holding. Once this is all "settled" my suggestion is to make sure, across the board, all related items be in sync with one another. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at User specifically involves a user's Wikipedia-related activity-- in this instance an old draft of a proposed WP page sitting in userspace collecting dust. The assertion that an old draft of a proposed WP article in one's userspace violates Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST is, at least IMO, not a credible assertion. :In general, as has been asserted by some at Wikipedia talk:User page#Question to consider here:, users are free to let WP-related stuff collect dust within reasonable limits, and perhaps even indefinitely. In addition, it's common practice to lay out research as well as to post opinions and various personal snippets on user pages and subpages. These are acknowledged to be within the reasonable limits of user pages. As Dougweller has pointed out, there's a limit, determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis, a limit beyond which one's userpage activity goes substantially beyond the purpose of Wikipedia and strays into activities that one would expect to conduct via a web host. If the participants at WP:USER seek to codify exactly what these limits are, e.g. by setting a specific limit on how long a draft can remain in userspace, that's a separate discussion. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In a sense you already answered, or at least acknowledged, a question about this policy. You ended with "...by setting a specific limit on how long a draft can remain in userspace, that's a separate discussion.", and that is a huge part of the overall issue. This policy does not mention any time limits or any sort or even hint at them yet policy trumps guideline. "Well it may violate the guideline but it does violate the policy" in other words. The fact we have a statement here that says "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." is not how it is related at the "Further information: Wikipedia:User page" link provided. Some would call this an opening for a "circular argument" because, while the Policy states "[If] you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account.", the guideline allows this sort of thing by providing users the basic "keep" argument of "Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth." Now, as it ties into what you said - this is the policy is is it not? This policy links to Wikipedia:User page does it not? And under Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages the line "In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host." direct links back to this policy does it not? And this proves my point - we have a policy that is linked to a guideline that defines, and explains, what the policy is as it relates to Wikipedia not being a webhost, yet, at deletion discussions admins and editors can be found stating there is no such policy or guideline or those who acknowledge it will "keep" and use the guideline description to back up that anything in userspace is somehow automatically "related" to the users work at Wikipedia, thus Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST Policy does not apply. Either the editors in the "policy camp" need to help to clarify the definitions with the "guideline camp" or there needs to not be, simply, any "webhost" policy, at least not in it's current form.

The time limit issue as it would relate to "works in progress" or "archive pages" does tie in because as worded in the policy it is a flat out "no" - as in "Do not use Wikipedia as a webhost". Period. When the "translation" got done vague terms such as "long-term", "indefinitely" and "permanent content" (as used in relation to "indefinitely") came into play. These are clear time limits, although to what degree is the issue. Would taking a page that was deleted from another wiki and placing in my userspace fall under an "indefinitely archive" of "previously deleted content" - "In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host"? How about if I made a mainspace article about myself and it was deleted, so I moved to my userspace in a subpage and kept adding information of myself to it - would this fall under "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes" - "In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host"? The discussion on that page is about the overall section that defines "Wikipedia is not a free web host". What I see is a bigger issue coming out - userspace is userspace and, outside of copyvios, blatant advertising, specific articles (userfied) (<- unsure because of an older topic on the same "how long" issue about deleted than userfied article) or (Not mentioned there -) an image gallery containing fair use images, "any old rubbish" can be in userspace without any restrictions. A list of my favorite TV shows, songs, Movies? No problem. A school paper that someday may be a mainspace article? No problem. A gallery of my favorite Common images? No problem. A list of concerts I have seen? No problem. The possibilities are endless. The consensus of that discussion, if it continues the same way, would defeat this policy, in essence. And if that is the case - well, you already know the question. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Removal of galleries is another discussion I was trying to remember when I was asked above for examples. While more related to WP:NOTREPOSITORY it certainly relates directly to WP:NOTWEBHOST, number 2 - "File storage areas" and if, via the overall discussion, userspace is deemed "off limits", outside of what has already been mentioned, it would nullify userspace galleries and images uploaded for use in userspace only galleries. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. With respect to your statement "The consensus of that discussion, if it continues the same way, would defeat this policy, in essence." : No, it wouldn't. As I pointed out, the discussion at WT:USER is about one very specific aspect of userpages, the length of time a page draft can remain in userspace. A consensus that such drafts can remain indefinitely would not by any reasonable stretch of imagination negate Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We must be reading different things. The discussion I am reading contains comments that are saying that, outside of the few specific items mentioned above, anything in userspace is off limits. What you are saying, "the length of time a page draft can remain in userspace", in only one part of the discussion. The RC is based around Copies of other pages however one needs to read actual comments. Read the main RFD posting at the top - "If this deletion review is endorsed, it will essentially mean that userspace is, in most cases, untouchable." Now read the fullt content of most of the comments - so far, at least as I type this, most all say to remove the existing time limits and don't define/add any set time except for, possible userfication. But that is not all that is being said, for example "As far as I'm concerned people can have any old rubbish sitting around in their user space, provided it's not offensive or illegal or being misused" seems to also be a reflection of "userspace is, in most cases, untouchable." Another example is, while endorsing the removal of time limits for articles, "As we have said above, people can have anything they want in their userspace, so long as it doesn't run afoul of serious problems like copyvio/G10/spam/etc". Point is "anything" means "anything". I am really at a loss what I am not saying correctly to get that across. Let me try this:
* A personal essay about the sex life of somebody - An unamed diary of sorts, no BLP issues - in mainspace probably not going to fly. Move to userspace and it is hands off.
* A photo gallery of images of trains. In mainspace, with no context, may not be allowed. In usersapce - hands off
* A list of my favorite TV shows. In mainspace no way - in userspace - hands off
* An autobiography - unless I am "notable", in mainspace - no way - in userspace - hands off.
* An article on my favorite cover band that plays at the corner bar. In main space doubtful unless it meets the WP:Music criteria, but in userspace - hands off.
* An personal synthesis of how the end of the world will be caused when a giant scallion climbs on board the space shuttle and, along with Bart Simpson, defeats the headless corpse of Space Ghost. In main space - probably be speedied as a hoax but in userspace - hands off.
And, as I said above, the list is endless. And if your idea is that it only will deal with "draft articles" not having any time limit that is a fairly big misunderstanding. And even if that is a reading by some I can see MfD being met with the same "keep:Doing no harm" but also the defense "It is just a draft, someday I hope to get it into mainspace" and than - hands off, forever. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're reading too much into comments from a xFD/review. Userspace is not sacred - if it isn't part of helping to improve the encyclopedia (with just a salt of vanity for a user's main page) it should be deleted. If it passes the duck test - that is, it looks and reads like a potential WP article and, assuming good faith, the editor planned to use it in mainspace, it probably will be kept. None of the cases you describe meet that and thus would be deleted if they existed and were brought up for review. I think to be convinced there's a problem, we need to see a userspace page that clearly wasn't meant to be moved into mainspace, and that survived a xFD or review of such; if such existed multiple times, then there may be consensus to change this, but as it is now, that's not the case. --MASEM 00:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this puts the discussion into somewhat clearer context for me, as does the clarification by Soundvisions, IMO Masem is essentially correct. While liberties are commonly granted to users who develop ideas, keep track of research, and other such things that might not very clearly be for use in article namespace or project namespace, the principle Masem states is I think generally accepted as the purpose for which userspace is intended. I might not interpret it quite as restrictively as Masem does, but the principle holds. At present I don't see any contradictions between this page and WP:USER, almost no matter which way the current discussion there goes. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

← I can understand the ideas presented, and honestly - I agree. As I said was up above I like this policy. However when I stumble across a userspace that is "storing" something, contans a myspacey - resume like page, or contains a "work in progress" that has not been touched in almost a year or longer it, to me, invokes this policy. The guidelines that define this policy as it relates to userpages seem to aid in telling editors why is allowed and why. However when, at a deletion discussion, a handful of users come in and give their opinion of "keep" using some variation of the argument "not doing any harm" or "no policy talks about this" I truly think it 1> is a problem with how the policy and/or guideline is written or 2> overall, "consensus" that the policy/guideline is irrelevant (and also 3> The policy/guideline is only meant for newbies, not established users). Per "we need to see a userspace page that clearly wasn't meant to be moved into mainspace, and that survived a xFD or review of such;" I can only cite ones that pop into my head - although some may not have been brought to a deletion discussion because of who the user is and "clearly wasn't meant to be moved into mainspace" is going to be debatable when we get into subpages because sometimes, as shown above and below, these are "articles" deleted from mainspace and have become (take your pick) "long term" archives, "indefinitely" archived or "personal versions". Also "article" is a controversial term when push comes to shove because I have been told more than once that anything in userspace is not an "article", therefore any policy or guideline that refers to an "article" does not apply to userspace - even if it is intended to be a mainsapce article or once was a mainspace article. In some case userpages are nothing more that copies of existing pages so it would be hard to argue that these are page "never intended" to be in mainspace when they "are" in mainspace.

1. Taken from above examples. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khuntien Ngin/Rendy Marciano and compare it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. Excluding the "who" for a moment and focus on the reasons given in the noms and the arguments - there is no indication that these articles would make it in mainspace. In both cases the concept of policy issues came up - WP:OR, one of them. In both cases the main editors came into the discussion to plead their case. Both said they wanted to work on them, find more sources and present them on mainspace. In both cases this policy was cited. In one case the proposed articles had only resided in userspace for a few weeks, in the other - 11 months. In one case there had been no ongoing discussion about the subject, in the other case there was an 11 month discussion on the talk page. Arguments arose in one discussion about how WP:OR does not apply to user pages but was never questioned in the other. In one several editors argued there was no such policy or guideline that indicated works in progress could not be stored in userspace, it was never questioned in the other. At this point it is impossible to not bring in the "who" element as a possible indication of why one article was kept and the other wasn't, however one must read the actual "arguments" presented in these MfD's to see the arguments being presented really were not about "who" in one case, nut in the other were. One also has to now look at the related DRV for one to see further discussion. It is also where it is coming out more clear that the policy/guidelines do not matter. (Example, the closing admin re: WP:DGFA: "The page in question is not an article (it is not in the mainspace), and the OR policy does not apply to user space. So this sentence from the guideline is irrelevant (as well as the talk page)" and their response to the very specific WP:DGFA line that states "where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions" was "Which article? There is no article here. What we have is a page in the user space. Hopes and intentions of the creator do not matter.")<-(by that thought there should be a DRV brought for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khuntien Ngin/Rendy Marciano as it seems all the "delete" arguments were invalid - at least following this admins logic)
2. Related to above somewhat - but as of yet untouched, and doubtful they will be, based on the current state of things: User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wold Newton Universe characters from 2006 - ended up here: User:Lady Aleena/Wold Newton. Also see User:Lady Aleena/Speculative fiction, started in 2006 but seems to just be, well, an "indefinite archive" and there is not any real indication this is intended to be a mainspace article. Nor are any of the "lists" this user has such as User:Lady Aleena/Films, User:Lady Aleena/Friends or User:Lady Aleena/Media franchises, F-H (Which contains links to some of the users other non-article articles/lists)
3. User:TonyTheTiger/Photographs, photo gallery which based on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam Carr/My archive of original photographic contributions (Closed before any discussion could be had meaning it could not be noted that this gallery contains images not hosted here, but on Commons, as well as personal images only used in this gallery. To me this gallery violates a few things - "user pages are not personal home pages nor is Wikipedia a free host, webspace provider, communal image-sharing service or social networking site"; "Images should not be uploaded merely to fill a userspace gallery. Images appearing only within a userspace gallery are presumed to have been uploaded for private amusement and are subject to deletion as orphans." and "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted.") will not be nomed (at least not by me) because of "who", not because of policy. Related is Tony The Tiger (martial artist) and Antonio Vernon which resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Vernon and has been at User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon ever since. When I asked about this last year, in relation to a violation of this policy and was told not to bother because "it is harmless" and that the user is very active therefor an MfD would fail.
4. A tale of two (three) resume/spam like user pages: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jason E Ramsey, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jarredland and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman. When I made the nom for User:Johnbuckman it was based on "Wikipedia is not a webhost". The user is also an SPA who has only made COI edits, although I did not mention that because I felt it did not matter (at the time) because the user page violated Policy found here. As you can see there was no debate at all - it was a solid keep and "who" the user was did not matter, at least based on the arguments). So when I saw that User:Jarredland and User:Jason E Ramsey had been nomed after only a few weeks I quickly voted "keep" because of the Buckman MfD. This is where I brought up the SPA/COI issues because of arguments against Land and Ramsey for being SPA/COI, however the end result was that "not a webshost" only applies to newbies who create their userpage first and do not make any mainspace edits fist, however not a webhost Policy does not state this anywhere.
5. When a stub is not a stub: Raimond Spekking deleted June 3, 2006. Also created June 3 at, and "officially" userfied to, User:Eastmain/Raimond Spekking on June 5, 2006, sent to MfD on October 31 2008 as "Long since abandoned sandbox" and withdrawn the same day after the user said it was theirs and there was no need to "delete inoffensive draft articles in userspace". While implied this would would be worked on it has never been touched by the user. When this was raised in another discussion it was established that because of who the user is this was allowed to stay, policy and guidlines do not matter in such cases.
6. Misc things - User:Cjneversleeps/Corrections.com - kept because it was nomed for MfD too quickly and despite having COI issues user was going to work on it. Not touched since. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Britt25/sandbox for CVS/Pharmacy (appears to be a duplicate of CVS/pharmacy) - kept because "not doing any harm" and "not breaking any rules". This is similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChanceYoungJr.Robert, a duplicate of Ray Charles - kept because "isn't hurting anything" and not in any violation of any policy or guideline. And here is a fairly fleshed out userspace that, to me, violates "not a webhost" but because of prior noms being snowed as "keep" because of "who the user is", ad because of the growing "userspace is off limits" feeling, have not made any nom for any of these - however: User:Wellus/Photo/2007 - personal photo gallery; User:Wellus/Miscellaneous/School - list of school related work including "articles" User:Wellus/Miscellaneous/School/Contemp and User:Wellus/Miscellaneous/School/General; A random page of "thoughts", in German, User:Wellus/Miscellaneous.

I am sure there are more, but other editor can take some time and search. Most times I find things because I am searching through images. I find links to userpage galleries and other subpages that leads me to these "hidden" pages. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Add on - A couple of interesting discussions. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SmashTheState was a "keep" and, while not based on "not a web host", the discussion does indicate a strong "consensus" that what is in userspace is off limits. We have a user stating that "Wikipedia is the place where angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerds with serious personality disorders come to take out their frustrations on others." It appears to be a rant brought on by the deletion of Andrew Nellis, who the user says "My real name is Andrew Nellis and I am a well-known activist and when a deliberately libellous article was created about me here, Wikipedia entered my personal radar.". My personal feeling is that this userpage is being used as a "blog" - it fails "not a webhost" because of it. However one can also say it is a userpage, it is related to the users work on Wikiepedia. Yes it is full of WP:OR and some, such as the nom, claerly see it as a violation of WP:UP#NOT, number 10 but the "consensus" is not so. Overall this MfD is almost treated as a joke when you read comments such as "Keep, angry white males like me sometimes benefit from having our shortcomings pointed out". And a new MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza/Userpage, based on "not a web host", appears to be leaning to the "delete" side but contains a interesting break down of why this nomination does not fail this policy. While I may not agree with it - it is from an editor who, more or less, votes "keep" in every MFD they can, but not with this much "effort". It also jumped out at me that another editor, here, says "delete" because this is "not a personal website" yet has agreed with "keep" elewhere because "consensus" shows userspace is...well, userspace. These are issues I just "don't get" because they send mixed singles - 1> "Vote" however "consensus" is going irregardless of policy 2> Always vote the same in every discussion irregardless of policy because 1> a closing admin only "counts heads/votes" so it doesn't matter anyway. 2> "rough consensus" always trumps long standing policy 3> nothing should be deleted from userspace. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected for a week

I've protected the current revision of this policy page for one week per WP:PROTECT. Please ensure that all changes to this policy have consensus among the community before making them. This is an important policy and editors have a right to expect it to not be in flux. Note that WP:POLICY suggests that WP:BRD is not an appropriate editing strategy for policies and guidelines. If and when the parties come to agreement on a change they may use the {{Editprotected}} template or ask any admin to reverse my protection of this page. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot section needs to return to more original wording

The text used to say:

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

This is the current wording:

Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.

That section should return to the older version. The current wording completely misses the point that encyclopedias are about real world impact and analysis and not merely explaining the plot point by point. The newer version replaces "brief" with "concise" (which is slightly more ambiguous -- and in fact recently someone tried to argue that some ten paragraphs was plenty "concise" and that I obviously didn't understand that concise didn't mean short and used this as rationale to revert a paring down of the plot section. Worse than that, it removed "may sometimes be appropriate" and replaced it with "is appropriate" which suggests that it is not something to be avoided but something that is encouraged.

I do not know under what circumstances this was all changed. Unfortunately a lot of changes to policies and guidelines get done under the radar of the overall community, sometimes incrementally so even people watching might not notice the overall change and sometimes quite suddenly. Frankly, all policies should be locked 100% of the time in my opinion so that they cannot be changed without a clear demonstration of wide-ranging explicit consensus.

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is the heading of the section that plot is discussed under. We need to follow that fundamental principle, and to do that we need to restore the older text. And if the text of the subpages of the manual of style on fiction summaries conflict with this, those need to be updated to fit the policy, not the other way around. A little group of people on a hidden corner of Wikipedia can't just decide to ignore policy and then try to get policy changed to reflect what they want. Until those pages do not contradict WP:NOT they should not be linked to off this page and confuse people. DreamGuy (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction should discuss its plot, as to establish what the work is about; WP's problem is that articles also tend to omit the second part that being the real world aspects. Both aspects should be covered, just not one over the other, however, we will never run out of plot to add. Not to any great length of course, but enough to explain the major themes going on. That's why "concise" was chosen over "brief" - it implies compacting it down without losing significant detail, while "brief" suggests partial plot aspects. Now, a ten paragraph plot may be hard to believe but it could be appropriate - what article was it from to compare? --MASEM 22:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC

Ten paragraphs would never be appropriate. At most it should be a couple, unless it goes through and explains special significance as it goes. DreamGuy (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose this suggestion. Agree with Masem, you just can NOT give an encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction without ever covering what it is about, particularly as it often gives needed context for other sections. This seems more like a new attempt to get rid of "spoilers" by trying to claim plots have no place when they do. The Manuals of Styles do NOT conflict with WP:NOT at all, which is why the have consensus, they simply help give definitions of what "concise" means in relation to various works. 2 hour film, a 400-700 word summary is concise. A 30 minute episode, 100-300 words. There is no "little group of people" attempting to hide anything nor ignoring policy. These MoS have long been upheld in FAC, FLC, and referred to in other such discussions. Where policy/consensus did change, the MoS were updated as well (such as the changes a few months ago noting that the episode summaries were too long in FLCs). Your continuing assumptions of bad faith at hundreds of active editors is pointless, and your continuing to attempt to claim that WP:NOT forbids any plot summaries and supports your ripping them from articles has yet to actually be backed up by consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement "you just can NOT give an encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction without ever covering what it is about" is true, but irrelevant to the point being discussed. You can talk about what it's about without a point by point detail. This isn't TelevisionWithoutPity.com, it's an encyclopedia. The changes you are talking about as supposedly being supported by a consensus were pushed into this page without any sort of site-wide discussion, or even an awareness that it was going on. Frankly, it surprises me very little that the same handful of people who pushed this nonsense through would be here trying to claim consensus on it now, while most people on the site have no clue that the policy was changed to read exactly the opposite of what it started out as and what it was put here for. DreamGuy (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Masem and Collectonian above. The plot does need to be covered to a decent level. Concise is a better way of saying how the plot should be covered because the word brief might suggest trimming important plot detail just to keep the section short. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot detail isn't even what it's supposed to be about, per the wording of the template about Plot and the way this page used to read, so to insist that it has to be there because otherwise plot detail might bemissed misses the entire point. This is not WikiPlotSummaries, it's Wikipedia. Real encyclopedias rarely go through and summarize any work of fiction point by point, and when they do it's because it's a work that is so famous and culturally influentially that every point has great meaning. Letting us all know every bit of everything of every TV episode and movie we have an article on is a mockery of the entire concept of an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP is more than just a standard print encyclopedia - we aren't limited by space. At the same time, we don't want random speculation and details about trivially minor characters that go on for pages. Plot is an allowed element of an article on a work of fiction. It should be concise and exactly the right length to describe the plot as to make the other parts of the work clear and coherent. Sometime this means it can be 50 words, sometimes this means it needs to be 1000 words. --MASEM 01:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP is a real encyclopedia, and this is how things are done here. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that there's a consensus to have things as you described. We are not limited by the styles of other encyclopedias. A plot summary detailing major events in a story is necessary to providing full coverage of the work, but If you think we're promoting scene-by-scene recaps then you're mistaken. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, Collectonian and Bill above. I am ok with varying definitions of "concise" for different types of content. A great example of this: My son asked my yesterday what book X was about. I said, let's take a look at Wikipedia. We found a great plot summary (2,000 words, 4 paragraphs, 380 words) that told him exactly what the book was about. Not too little detail and not too much. Had it been any shorter, it would not have answered his question and, of course, he wasn't interested in the rest of the article, which discussed the style of the book, it's adaptation into a movie, a sequel, where it's been parodied, etc. I'm not saying that stuff should be deleted but the article should meet a broad range of needs, not just the needs of people who are uninterested in plots. Concise (not truncated or stupid) plot summaries absolutely belongs on Wikipedia.

DeletionistsExtreme deletionists would like to see plot summaries like "Hamlet's father is murdered, maybe. Hamlet goes crazy. Everybody dies." That's great for the Reduced Shakespeare Company, but Wikipedia should not be a joke. RoyLeban (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

*cough* Not all deletionists are that extreme...not even most, and certainly not this one. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies! No slight intended and I've amended it above. I tend to be an inclusionist, but I'm not an extreme inclusionist. I think the right place to be is in the middle, not at either extreme. Contextual flexibility (with consensus) is important and those on the extreme ends tend to be inflexible, thinking rigid adherence to policy is more important than significant consensus about when an exception is acceptable. To me, this is part of NPOV. RoyLeban (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite agreed there. :) Way to much extremism on both sides doesn't really help anything at all. It doesn't have to be "all (extreme inclusion) or nothing (extreme deletion)" - there are happy mediums which, for the most part, work quite well when the extremism isn't brought in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep current wording. It more accurately describes the community's consensus and common practice. As for what exactly is a concise plot summary, that should be determined on an article by article bases using editorial discretion. --Farix (Talk) 12:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The current wording describes neither community consensus nor common practice. --Pixelface (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you can read through these talkpage threads about WP:NOT#PLOT if you want. In September 2006, Kyorosuke changed WP:NOT#PLOT to say "articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely summaries of that work's plot" without any prior discussion. So WP:NOT#PLOT shouldn't be changed back to that. WP:NOT#PLOT needs to be removed entirely until it actually has consensus to be policy. --Pixelface (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Concise doesn't mean brief but neither is it more vague. We have expectations at various wikiprojects as to what "concise" is. I would oppose any attempts to establish a unilateral word/paragraph limitation and I suspect such attempts would not find consensus among the project as a whole. Protonk (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this and similar comments above. Another way of looking at it is that NOT#PLOT applies to plot-only articles, demanding that we have a balance of plot and other aspects of a work, but doesn't apply to plot-bloated articles. The guidelines and editorial consensus are the ways we decide how much plot to have. Fletcher (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The essential idea of an encyclopedia is to present all the information needed for a well-rounded education - the complete circle of knowledge. Such a complete education includes details of the plots of fictional works. This may be seen in the standard education in countries such as Britain in which the study of plays, books and poems is quite normal. In my own case, I was expected to read and recall the text of works such as The History of Mr Polly, Macbeth, Tam O'Shanter and so on. And it was the works themselves which were the essential content, not secondary analysis nor real-world details such as critical reception, author's royalties or the like. This focus upon the work can be seen in respected encyclopedia such as Britannica in which their entry for Macbeth, say, provides details of the plot of the play. So, the current reference to encyclopedic manner is quite false. It seems to be pure POV, unsupported by any evidence and original in its sentiment. It is thus utterly contrary to our core policies and must go. We are here to educate in a comprehensive way and so must not bowdlerise our content. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I disagree, and I don't think it's apt to make anecdotal comparisons to your literary studies. A literature class is aimed at literature students, not a general audience, so the material covered in such a class isn't necessarily ideal for a encyclopedia aimed at a general audience. Similarly, at a vocational school you might learn step-by-step detail about how to rebuild a transmission, but that doesn't mean we should include such detail in our transmission article in spite of WP:NOTHOWTO. NOT#PLOT means that comprehensive coverage means we should cover other aspects of a work besides plot. Fletcher (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• NOT#PLOT is being abused to remove content not to supplement it. My remarks on education were not about specialist literature study but relate to general education which is expected of everyone. To see current educational thinking please see the English National Curriculum which explicitly details the basic education expected of everyone. Moreover, I reinforced my point by reference to the Encyclopaedia Britannica which is a reputable general encyclopaedia. This is hard evidence that the presentation of fictional plots here is encyclopaedic. While I present objective evidence, you and others seem offer nothing but your personal prejudice. I see no evidence that this prejudice is anything more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and so this should be dismissed per our policy WP:CENSOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly feel that "concise" is more accurate than "brief". We don't want it to be small. We want it to be lean. I actually think we need to go the other way, to prevent abusive interpretation of WP:PLOT that would let someone delete entire plot summaries, or turn a movie summary into a two-liner. Most of the time this kind of extreme deletion will get reverted, but it happens too often, and we can nip it in the bud by having a clearer policy. Randomran (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Concise is great -- "Expressing much in few words" or "marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail". This doesn't mean short. And length has nothing to do with POV.

It seems to me there is largely a consensus here, but I'm wondering if thers a better, more precise way of saying it than the current text and I'm also wondering if, given the contention here, even if it's just one editor, something should be done to get a wider range of opinions.

Finally, DreamGuy's revert/edit not only removed the edit which added the cross-refs to MOS, it also reverted a number of changes by a number of other editors, including the consensus change discussed above. What is to be done? RoyLeban (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true; we seem to have lost our agreed changes to NOTBATTLEGROUND. You could ask Protonk to revert back to the previous version, or we can just wait until protection expires and fix it. Fletcher (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that DreamGuy is accusing me (here and elsewhere) of edit warring, attacking him, and of trying to change policy to make a point (which is particularly ironic considering his edits and clearly misunderstands what WP:POINT is saying!), I would rather not be the person to make that edit. RoyLeban (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Colonel Warden, which sort of articles are your refering to? If you are refering to articles that are comprised soley of plot summary about topics that are not notable, then they fail both Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, and therefore may be deleted at any time. The reason why this sort of coverage can be deleted is that it is not encyclopedic. To write an encyclopedic article, a topic needs to be the subject of substantial coverage in the form of commentary, context, criticism and analysis from reliable secondary sources. Plot summary on its own does not provide this and is little more than indiscriminate flap copy without it.
  As regards your "evidence", the analogy using the Encyclopedia Britiannica is misleading. The article inclusion criteria for this type of publication is was the opinions of their editors; the source of the contributions was the original research provided by experts in their respective subject areas. Wikipedia can't work along those lines, so we have to have inclusion criteria based on objective evidence and we cite our sources. This applies to articles in every subject area, not just fiction.
  I think you will find there is broad support for the current wording: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." If you want to change it, go to WP:Village pump (policy) and see if you can get a change to WP:NOT to allow the coverage of indiscriminate information in the same way that Wikia or Wookieepedia do. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics debate at Noticeboard

There is request for opinions on the inclusion of lyrics in fight song articles at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Summing_up. NJGW (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#STATS example

Could somebody tell me why Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 is considered a good example for this section? I just had my nose rubbed in it as an example of what's acceptable per policy, yet it would appear to be completely incomprehensible to somebody lacking a fairly detailed knowledge of the timeline of, participants in, and the electoral mechanisms underlying, the election in question. I notice that its use as an example uses the pre-move name -- it was renamed Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 in April. Is it possible that it was a good example, but has become completely bloated since? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

On further investigation, it appears to have been first introduced in October 2007, when the article looked like this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the essence of my question is whether articles which are nothing (or little) but long lists of tabulations of primary information (election results, opinion polls, etc) encyclopaedic or WP:NOT? The main text seems to say 'not', but the example of Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 appears to contradict this. For example would it be encyclopaedic to have an article that consisted of nothing but the daily maximum temperatures of Al 'Aziziyah (where the highest ever temperature on Earth was recorded) for the last century? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, I think that the problem here is that you want the policy to place a complete ban on the tables of data, ignored the caveats in the policy despite repeated requests to look at the nuances, and you are now shocked to find that the example cited in the policy does not illustrate the hard line you were reading into the text.

Let's pick apart the three sentences of WP:NOT#STATS:

1. "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles."
   Note carefully that it does not say that this is always the effect, just that it "may" be the effect. In the case both of the opinion polling example and of the British National Party election results whose deletion you have been pursuing, the data is not sprawling: it is tabulated and cross-linked, and additionally it has been split out from the main article to avoid overwhelming that article.
2. "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader".
   There is an issue here in relation to WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT about how much is needed. In some cases that may be one sentence, and in other cases it may be much more, but since both the articles under consideration are clearly labelled as split-outs from the main article, a reader who needs more context than is available in the lead section of the split-out can read all the background in the main article. A balance has to be drawn between the need to provide a comprehensive explanation of the context of the split-out and repeating too much of the main article, which would waste the time of those who had already read the main article before venturing to the split-out.
3. "In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists."
   Again, this has been done in both cases.

If you read what the current policy actually says, the opinion poll article doesn't contradict it. The contradiction is between what you want the policy to say and what it actually says. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

BHG: given that you've made it abundantly clear that to you WP:NOT#STATS actually reads 'WP::LOTS_OF#STATS', I think I'll wait for a less partisan opinion, preferably one that doesn't reduce that policy to irrelevancy (I have to assume that it wasn't created unless it was meant to serve some purpose). I have seen no indication that articles covered under WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT are exempted from any other policies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, you're back in comic mode again. :)

I do not and have not argued for "lots of stats", simply that

And given that I have come to this talk only after trying to fend off the consequences of dozens of posts from you insisting that a) election results are simply "statistics", b) WP:NOT#STATS means "no stats at all, ever" and c) that WP:NOT#STATS's notes about presenting such material in a structured, organised and explained way should be ignored ... given all that as well as your continued disruptive efforts to remove material after your interpretation did not achieve consensus at AfD, it's quite funny that you accuse me of being "partisan".

Anyway, let's see what other editors say. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions one way or the other, but I'll offer some thoughts:

• From my reading of WP:NOT#STATS, statistics are definitely allowable, but articles should contain a mix of prose to summarize and give adequate context. The intent appears to be that Wikipedia articles are not "simply" statistical data as some of the aforementioned election articles seem to be.
• OTOH, this has to be balanced against principles of WP:NOTPAPER and Summary Style; if highly detailed information can be provided and can be structured legibly, does the project benefit by deleting it? Perhaps modification or integration with other articles is warranted rather than outright deletion.
• The AfD results from two aforementioned articles were keep and no-consensus, so there does not appear to be consensus supporting deletion. AfD results are not dispositive, however, because they can be distorted by a local cadre of passionate editors. But the inability to delete the articles should still be considered.
• We have to consider if these kinds of pages are maintainable. In 2013, after another election cycle has gone by, can we be sure there will be a core of dedicated editors patrolling the 2008 results to remove vandalism and correct errors? Obviously vandalism is a concern in any article, but statistical data is especially vulnerable because false information isn't as obvious and easy to fix as it often is.
• Given that what is "important" will depend on the interest of the reader, I'd like to hear BrownHairedGirl's answer to the above question about creating pages of meteorological data. Or what about sports scores or astronomical tables. Where do we draw the line? If we keep these election results pages, is that fair and consistent with the rules we apply to other editors who wish to add highly detailed information to other areas of Wikipedia? A quick check of 2008 NFL season indicates we have lots of statistical information on that topic, but it is also fairly well integrated with prose, as are its spin-out articles. We have to consider if stats-only pages are consistent with our mission as a general purpose encyclopedia.
• Personally I lean toward merging or trimming and adding prose to summarize events. Fletcher (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fletcher, Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. What is going on that anyone is even considering removing the results of elections to a national parliament because it might set some sort of precedent for keeping the scores of ballgames? Please, do think about this -- it really is somewhat surreal that this suggestion is even made, and that election results are lumped being lumped in under this broad heading of "statistics" and being compared to temprature records from one location.

As to the maintainability of election results five years after an election, please take a look at City of London (UK Parliament constituency), where there are voting result going back slightly longer ... 296 years, to be precise. That's the most extreme example I know of, but there many other articles going back to the early 19th century which record the vote totals for each candidate in elections, all of them on the watchlists of numerous editors with skills and references to maintain them.

In three hundred years time, will people still be paying attention to scores of ballgames as they do to elections?

Please try to step back and take a wider perspective on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary I would suggest you step back and take a wider perspective, as all topics fall under Wikipedia's policy equally (with some exceptions such as BLP that have legal implications). I don't think it is appropriate at all to suggest the topics you happen to think are important should be exempt. In reality a breakdown of election results is no more or less trivial than the weather or sports -- like I said, it depends entirely on what any particular reader happens to be looking for. Perhaps you've noticed we try to be neutral and not prejudiced towards one point of view. It is not so much a question of whether "election results" should be allowed (they should) but whether it is appropriate to have articles comprising only statistics of election results, or whether, instead, some of these statistics can be summarized, or perhaps merged into a larger topic to be more accessible to the general readership.

Further, I am still doubtful about how well these lists can be maintained. City of London (UK Parliament constituency) does not have online references so it is near impossible to spot check. After a brief random look at British National Party election results three of five checks against the online reference revealed what looked like typos, transposed numbers or similar discrepancies in the figures -- and only some of them had online figures available. I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia if I needed these numbers, and if I didn't need the numbers I'm not sure why I would be reading the page; a general overview of the results might better serve the average reader. Fletcher (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fletcher, the sarcasm is misplaced: I have indeed noticed that Wikipedia has a fundamental policy of a WP:NPOV; it was one of things that encouraged me to start editing here three years ago and to put a huge amount of time into wikipedia. However, you are confusing a "neutral point of view" in writing articles with a very different notion, that all things are of the same priority. If that was the case, we wouldn't delete articles due to non-notability, or merge other articles.

You are thoroughly mistaken to suggest that I am seeking some sort of exemption from policy; quite the contrary. I have been arguing against efforts to extend an unsupported interpretation of policy by editors who want to remove fundamental information on the operation of the democratic process when there are tens of thousands of articles listing the composition of sports teams and their scores over decades. Why on earth are editors arguing that the encyclopedia would be improved by removing election results whilst retaining countless articles like 1884 Brooklyn Atlantics season? Note that I have nothing against baseball, and would strongly oppose the deletion of such articles; but when elections receive so much less coverage than sports, what does it say about some editors goals for wikipedia that those working on articles about the election of national legislatures are facing this bizarre attempt to extend policy with the specific aim of reducing coverage of elections? That's why I responded to your earlier comments by suggesting that you "step back and take a wider perspective", because a comparison of the detail of coverage in these different areas suggests a huge systemic bias which this attack on election results risks exacerbating further.

I'm afraid that your notion of election results being inaccessible to a general readership is highly patronising to readers, and insulting to wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid newspaper (the latter being written for those with a reading age of 9). If we start to query whether a reader can understand the process of counting votes set out in City of London (UK Parliament constituency), then we might as well also delete all articles on philosophy, science and anything else which requires a degree of mental exertion, and make wikipedia an encyclopedia of Pokemon characters and pop stars.

The availability or otherwise of online sources is not just an inappropriate test for the reliability of an article, it is actually an inverse test: if you read WP:RS, you will see that the best sources are peer-reviewed scholarly works, which are mostly not available online. As to the accuracy or otherwise of figures in British National Party election results, I have not yet had a chance to check against authoritative sources, but I will do so once the deletion attempts stop; the article was undeleted only 10 days ago, since when its existence has been under constant attack from a small group of editors trying to find any possible policy excuse to delete it again or to gut it.

You may of course be right that a general overview would better serve some readers, and that's precisely why these articles are structured as they are. Those who want a general overview of BNP performance can read British National Party#Electoral_performance, which is quite properly linked to from the top the results article, in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. This is a principle applied widely across wikipedia: to structure material so that those wanting an overview can read that, but those who want more detail can follow links to more detailed articles. In the case of City of London (UK Parliament constituency), if you take two minutes to actually look at its structure, you will see that section 2 lists the Members of Parliament, while section 3 goes into greater detail by listing the results of each election. So the reader can choose whether to just read the condensed and colour-coded list of MPs or to go on and read the explanation of the electoral process and study the tables of election results. I'm astonished that you choose to comment on the article without apparently having noticed that.

As to maintenance, it seems to me that there are there are three issues: a) will the sources remain readily available; b) will the data be updated; c) will there continue to be editors interested in maintaining them. As to the sources, they are widely available in academically-reviewed bound volumes in public libraries as well as on some authoritative online sites (e.g. Richard Kimber's); and the historical data merely needs patrolling against vandalism, not updating (the results of the 1983 election will not change). Querying whether editors will continue to be interested in maintaining the articles is a concern which could be applied to any subject on wikipedia, but applies most strongly to recent events. Elections which are still the subject of academic study and scholarly publication after decades or centuries hundreds of years seem to me to be much less vulnerable than many other topics.

Finally, your point about reliability is a much wider one about the utility of wikipedia as whole, and is in no way restricted to any of the articles under discussion. Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source on any subject: citing wikipedia in any academic work should be grounds for failing that assessment. But we publish it and insist on referencing to provide a highly-accessible source of knowledge on an amazingly wide range of subjects, so that reader can cross-check any points of interest. That applies right across wikipedia, whether we are considering a quotation from a long-dead writer, an account of a battle, or an election result ... and singling out election results in this way is a strange thing to do.

At this point, I wonder whether there is any benefit in engaging further with you or Hrafn. This bizarre attempt to use the misleading heading of "statistics" to problematise the inclusion of election results is part of a wider systemic bias on wikipedia, and if these bizarre efforts persist then I will consider whether it would be better to raise it in wider forums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving away from the maintainability aspect for a moment, I would like to question the usefulness to the reader of large amounts of uninterrupted raw data. Typically readers can only assimilate a relatively small amount of numeric information at one go (generally probably in the order of 5-10 data points) without some sort of visual representation (e.g. a graph) as an aid. If it were possible to visually represent the BNP results as geographic 'hot spots', I could easily see this data providing useful insight into the BNP's geographic distribution of support and how it changes over time. Without it, a reader who was not acquainted with what areas the electorates represented would be wholly at sea, and even a reader so acquainted would have considerable difficulty perceiving any patterns. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to expand the article to include such a representation, and can find reliable sources which allow that that to be done with synthesis, original research or reproduction of copyright material, then it might be an idea worth pursuing. That specific discussion belongs on the article talkpage, not here; but as a general point I despair of the notion that a reader who is sufficiently interested in the subject to want to consider it in detail cannot be expected to make any sense of simple tables of data. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

BHG: thank you for that vituperative response to reasoned discussion on useful versus non-useful representation of data. The work would require neither synthesis (it is merely a graphic re-presentation of existing data without any interpretation) nor copyvio (electorate boundaries are government-published and typically not copyrighted). It would however require an enormous amount of work, especially as electorate boundaries are regularly redrawn and electorates created and/or merged. Lacking such presentation, the data is of no utility to the average reader -- the point that I was making (using the BNP results merely as an example). The level of detail that you are advocating presenting provides no insight into the evolution or distribution of support for the BNP (for example), so provides nothing for a reader to be "sufficiently interested in". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, as above this proposal belongs on the article talk page rather on a policy discussion. The reason I caution about synthesis is that as you acknowledge, electoral boundaries change, and any visual presentation of how support changed over time in a particular area would require exceptionally detailed analysis and assumptions about the distribution of votes within a constituency.

Given that you suggest a presentation of the data to illustrate a particular aspect of it, you are contradicting yourself when you persist in claiming that the data "provides nothing for a reader to be sufficiently interested in". There are other ways in which the data can be used, the most basic of which is noting which of the ~650 UK constituencies the BNP actually contested in a given election.

Why are you continuing to misuse a policy talk to reiterate your lack of interest in a particular list of data, rather on the general policy principle? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. No. This is not a "proposal" but an attempt to come to grips with the meaning of a policy, merely using BNP as an example (as I have pointed out to repeatedly).
2. Given that you did your level best to shout me down and shut me up on article talk, I find your demand that I return there to be absurd.
3. Your analysis of graphic representation of BNP results is (i) wrong (such representations are not uncommon in maps and atlases and do not "require exceptionally detailed analysis and assumptions about the distribution of votes within a constituency" -- in fact they would require no intra-constituency analysis at all) & (ii) irrelevant as I was only using this as an example of graphic representation of data.
4. Your claim that I am "contradicting" is based on a complete misinterpretation of what I have been saying. In simplistic terms: graphical representations of large amounts of data = potentially useful; bald tabulation of large amounts of raw data = not useful. No contradiction whatsoever.
5. If "there are other ways in which the data can be used" that provides useful information for the reader, then use them in such ways. Summarise the data, don't regurgitate it. And certainly don't expect the reader to count the number of rows in the list to find out that there were 650 constituencies contested.

If you have nothing more to add to this thread than ubiquitous and generally irrelevant ad hominem attacks in violation of WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF, I would suggest that your input can be dispensed with. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. You have decided that despite the lack of a consensus for the removal of the data tables, the BNP article is an example of bad practice, so you have brought the discussion here in an attempt to alter the policy to suit your view.
2. If you have a specific proposal to add something to the BNP results article (rather than yet another way of removing data), then it belongs on the article talk page.
3. Constituency boundaries have been changed several times over the course of the period covered by the article. Your suggestion of graphically comparing the vote in a constituency in 1983 with that in further years does require detailed analysis of the ward-by-ward vote breakdown in the constituency because the boundaries may have shifted significantly in that time (in some extreme cases constituencies of the same name in different eras have no geographical overlap). Furthermore, constituencies vary significantly in population size and even more in geographical area, so suing maps to indicate levels of support can be highly misleading.
4. A graphical representation is one way of presenting things, which some readers may find useful, but many forms of graphical representation are best used as an addition to the raw data, not as a replacement for it ... and in any case, the graphical representation can only be verified by comparison with the raw data, so adding a visual representation does not assist removal. You are indeed contradicting yourself, have shifted your position from arguing that the data is useless and should be summarised to arguing for it being presented in a different way, and you take no account for the WP:V issues involved in creating a complex graphical representation of data without also presenting that data so that the reader can verify it.
5. Summarising the data would remove the list of constituencies contested by the BNP, which you may not find valuable but other readers will. You are quite right to point out that the totals number of constituencies contested should be listed in the article (just such a table is already in place at British National Party#Electoral_performance), and this is just the sort of improvement which I have in mind for the article once it is freed from the attacks of editors forum-shopping in a campaign to remove the data tables.

Once again, please re-read WP:AGF. I am not required to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, and in this case you have now been engaged for over a week in a quest to find a policy reason to remove data from an article (the debate is now happening at the 4th location in two weeks). There is no reason to assume that this sort of disruptive and tendentious misuse of process is being conducted in good faith, particularly since you have failed to respond to my request that you allow time for editors to improve the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. I am entitled to both hold an opinion on whether the BNP article is "an example of bad practice" and to seek a clarification of where the policy stands on this issue. Your repeated attempts to shout me down on this is grossly WP:INCIVIL.
2. A 'don't remove anything, no matter how unencyclopaedic' attitude is unhelpful. I see no point in responding further to this point.
3. No ward-by-ward analysis is needed. All that would be required is a GIS loaded with electorate boundaries at each election, and a list of % support in each constituency for each election. This would allow a map to be generated, colour-coded according to % support (e.g. at simplest level, white=no candidate, yellow=0-0.5%, orange=0.5-1.0%, red=1.0%+) in each constituency for each election, according to that constituency's boundary in each election. That the electorate boundaries in the maps are slightly different in each election is irrelevant.
4. Very few readers would consider a verbatim listing of 650 constituencies to be informative. It would be a bit like reading the ball-by-ball record of a cricket match -- something that only a fanatic could love. Repeating my earlier point, large amounts of data, unsummarised, and not graphically-presented, is indigestible to practically all readers.
5. Your attitude towards WP:AGF goes well beyond "evidence to the contrary", to an ongoing attempt to portray my comments in the worst possible light, often with no basis whatsoever in statements I actually made. Examples are: "you want the policy to place a complete ban on the tables of data" (I don't, and never said that I do), "editors who want to remove fundamental information on the operation of the democratic process" (gross hyperbole on the importance of this information), "you have brought the discussion here in an attempt to alter the policy to suit your view" (I brought the discussion here to get the policy clarified).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Hrafn, you are quite entitled to hold a view. My objection is to your forum-shopping pursuit of the issue, which even extends to a repeated failure to even acknowledge a request to follow normal practice and give time for the article to be improved. Several editors offered at AFD to expand the article to address problems, but as soon as it closed you demonstrated your bad faith by opening an RFC which asked for comments on whether this was likely to happen. I make no apology for following WP:SPADE and pointing this out.
2. I am not saying 'don't remove anything, no matter how unencyclopaedic', because I disagree with your dogmatic view that this data is fundamentally unencyclopedic, regardless of the outcome of DR and AFD. If you are suggesting adding info, then that discussion belongs on the talk page, not on a policy page; but if you are persisting in forum-shopping to devise a mechanism remove data, then that is just more disruption.
3. Your suggestion of a map is very pretty (if someone wants to undertake the huge amount of work involved), but even with a separate map for each election it risks being misleading, because a change in constituency boundaries in an urban area may not significantly effect its composition but may not be visible on a map of the scale required to fit on the page. Since the map would not include a link to the article concerned, there would no direct way for the reader to navigate to an article which could explain the change, nor is likely to be possible on a map to include the name of he candidate, no matter how notable the candidate is. I repeat that I have no objection to you or any other editor devising such maps if you want to; my objection is to your misuse of this policy page to try to impose a "replace data with maps" principle before a detailked examination of how effectively a map could actually present meaningful information.
4. You say that "very few readers would consider a verbatim listing of 650 constituencies to be informative", a comment which is either a deliberate red herring or another example of your failure to actually study the articles over you are so outraged. The article only lists the constituencies which the BNP contested (53 in 1983, 2 in 1987, 13 in 1992, 56 in 1997, 33 in 2001, and 119 in 2005), and I see no suggestion from any quarter that all the other constituencies should be listed.
5. I have not misprepresented you. You deny that "you want the policy to place a complete ban on the tables of data", yet the whole basis of your argument at AFD, on the article's talk page and here has been to repeatedly insist that the information is unencyclopedic and should be removed. That's the only point in labelling as unencyclopedic. You quote my words "editors who want to remove fundamental information on the operation of the democratic process" as if they were referring only the BNP article, when you should be fully aware that I was referring at that point to the notion of removing all election results.
   You are flogging a dead horse here, by sustained and disruptive forum-shopping, and the fact that you find it uncomfortable to have this pointed out does not alter the bad faith disruptiveness of your fixation on deleting the data. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

BHG: thank you for GROSSLY AND DISHONESTLY misrepresenting my position yet again. I am not advocating "a complete ban on the tables of data", but rather a limit on excessive data -- such as an article that is nothing but 40k of data without any text explanation other than a single sentence at the start which can be paraphrased as 'here's the data'.

Hrafn, there is no misrepresentation of your position, except by you (when it apparently suits your puzzling purposes to deny what you have been arguing along the way). You have argued here and on the BNP article's talk page at AFD for the removal of the data ... and despite assurances from editors that explanatory and introductory text will be added, you even wanted so far as to open an RFC asking editors to comment on whether to believe those assurances. And you have still not responded to my request to give time for that article to be improved by expanding the text.

I don't know what you are trying achieve either by this exercise or by denying that you have been engaged in it, but as I have said before it's so bizarre that it's funny. You were challenged elsewhere for not reading what you were replying to, but it now seems that you may not have been reading what you yourself wrote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have "argued for the removal" of an article that consisted of nothing but 35k of data (give or take the 'here's the data' sentence) -- that IS NOT advocating "a complete ban on the tables of data". Please read the definitions of wikt:excessive and wikt:all -- they do not have the same meaning. Therefore one can argue for the 'removal of excessive data' without arguing for the 'removal of all data'. I would not consider this to be a subtle difference, and would even expect my 12yo nephew to grasp it. You seem to have little to no comprehension of the subjects of data summarisation and presentation, so I'm unsurprised that you fail to understand what I'm "trying to achieve". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, the important distinction between "all" and "excessive" is not particularly relevant to this case, because you yourself have conflated them by unyieldingly labelling the data as excessive and then pursuing the removal of all of it (with no less than 20 posts to the AfD demanding its deletion, as well as all your posts here and on the article's talk page in pursuit of the same goal).

I am well familiar with techniques of data summarisation and presentation; the difference between us is that you insist that summarisation or illustration must replace the full data, regardless of the utility of the summary or illustration or even of the fact that the illustrations do not yet exist so there is no opportunity to assess their utility or whether they are misleading. As to the concept of excessive data, I hope that even your 12yo nephew would not try your trick of grossly exaggerating the quantity of data in order to label it as excessive, such as when you claimed that a listing of 650 constituencies was uninformative even though the article in question lists only a small faction of that number. I hope that your 12yo nephew would also understand the difference between the 35KB of markup and the 15KB of text which appear when that is rendered, and I am sure that he would also understand the difference between one big blob of data and an article which breaks up the data in 12 separate tables. I'm sure that your nephew would also understand that when data is organised in this way, he doesn't have to read all of it to find whichever bit would interest him -- he can use the table of contents to skip straight to section he wants, or he can just content himself with the summary table at the top

What you are trying to achieve is abundantly clear: you want the data tables in the BNP article removed and you have been forum-shopping in pursuit of that goal. When you were finally faced with the problem that the policy you were been insistently misinterpreting as a blanket ban doesn't support your position, you didn't apologise or back off, you simply set off to pursue a change in the policy to produce your desired outcome. I'm sure that even your 12yo nephew would recognise that as disruptive behaviour.

So I'll ask you yet again: if you still stand by your claim to be acting in good faith, why will you not accept a my request for a moratorium in your quest to delete this data, to give time for editors to improve the article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

BHG: your argument makes no sense whatsoever! Just because I consider 35k of unadulterated data to be "excessive" DOES NOT mean that I am conflating "excessive" and "all". Now read the definition of wikt:conflate. And no I will not accede to your moratorium demand-that-I-shut-up. I have every right to seek clarification here and I am sick to death of your attempts to shout me down. You have thoroughly disrupted and hijacked this thread by your repeated, lengthy, abusive, unfounded and illogical comments. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, bold text and capital letters are considered to be shouting, and do nothing to make your case more persuasive.

This is the second time I have needed to remind you that you have been rebuked elsewhere for not reading the post to which you are replying. Either you didn't read my previous post here before replying to it, or your talent for comedy has reappeared -- because you still claim that the article contains 35k of unadulterated data, even though the post to which you were replying pointed out that without markup it's just 15KB. If your idea of logic is to count markup as being part of the data presented to the reader, then it's inevitable that you will regard others as illogical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

BHG: I would have shouted MUCH LOUDER if I thought it would help get the message across. <stands next to BHG's ear to shout> I DID NOT advocate "a complete ban on the tables of data", and I DID NOT conflate "all" and "excessive". Your claims to the contrary are (apart from being ABF) fallacious, invalid, irrational, nonrational, unreasonable, unreasoning, unsound, weak, misleading, specious; ill-advised, unconsidered, unreasoned, inconsistent, absurd, asinine, foolish, meaningless, nonsensical, preposterous, senseless, silly, odd, peculiar, weird, nutty, wacky, disordered, unconvincing, unsatisfying, and inexplicable. Whether it is 35k of data or 15k-of-data-plus-20k-of-table-markup does not really make much difference at this stage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, all the shouting doesn't in any way alter the fact that you have been repeatedly exaggerating the quantity of data to try make whatever point you think is in there, just like you repeatedly posted at AFD about a "violation of WP:NOT#STATS" which now seem (below) to be finally admitting was not in fact the case. Piling on the abusive adjectives about me also doesn't alter the fact that you have taken the word "excessive" as some sort of absolute standard which means whatever you denounce as "excessive" (even though you exaggerate the quantity of data by several multiples), which is why I have pointed out that you have conflated it with "all".

I'm sorry that you are having such difficulty coming to terms with the fact that the policy doesn't mean what you wanted it to mean. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

BHG: I find your nit-picking over 35k vs 15k to be ridiculous. Either is an amount of data that can legitimately be described as "excessive" when unadulterated. Heck, on an article I'm a regular on we even had a request to show a table of only 5 numbers graphically. Taking an expression of 'I think 35k 15k is excessive' to mean 'I want "a complete ban on the tables of data"' is <shouts in BHG's face>a complete fabrication. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Hrafn, unadulterated means "not mingled or diluted with extraneous matter" and I'm glad you finally agree that the article in question does not contain "extraneous matter", though it's taken you a long time to get there. It's a pity would have been nice if you had also read that part of WP:NOT#STATS which recommends breaking up such data into tables, as was done with that article. And if you think that 15k is always excessive, regardless of context or the nature of the data, you'd better get to work deleting thousands of lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A follow-up question

How much raw data constitutes "Long and sprawling lists of statistics"? Assume for the sake of argument that it:

1. Is tabulated into tables.
2. Has little or no prose explanation.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that you may have lists as long and sprawling as you like but that it may be best to slice them into segments per WP:SIZE. See Asteroid 123456, etc whose existence is well-supported by consensus. But my question is: what does this have to do with Intelligent design? Colonel Warden (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• About as much as Joseph Murphy (author)‎ does. And only slightly less than Christian Evidence Society‎ society does. Now a follow-up question of my own: if 'articles' (and I use that term very loosely in this context) such as List of minor planets: 123001–124000 are permissible, then what possible meaning does WP:NOT#STATS have as a policy? WP:SIZE already provides the only size limit. Presumably WP:MOS (or subsidiary policy) tells us somewhere to format the raw data into neat&tidy tables. What does WP:NOT#STATS tell us, other than to ignore it? Far better to remove it than to leave it around to confuse poor editors such as myself, who were under the deluded impression that wikipedia is not meant to be a repository for raw primary data. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NOT is full of contradictions and falsehoods. The matter may best be understood by reference to its section WP:NOTLAW and WP:BURO which make it clear that consistent and coherent rules and laws are not to be expected or pursued. We are here to write an encyclopedia not to engage in lawyering. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• A 'policy' that is "full of contradictions and falsehoods" is worthless as policy. It's not "lawyering" to expect something at least vaguely resembling meaningful guidance on what is and is not acceptable content. And it would appear that we're not here to "write an encyclopedia" so much as write a data archive (nothing wrong with the latter o'course -- I just wish that somebody'd been up-front about it sooner). I think somebody should just come out and be open about this policy mess with a section 'WP:NOT#WIKIPEDIA' which states "Wikipedia is not Wikipedia" -- that'd clear everything up nicely. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hrfan, you want the policy to be an absolute ban on large quantities of statistics, so you can use it as weapon in your quest to delete material. The fact that the policy doesn't do what you want it to do does not make it worthless, and this one provides important guidance on how to organise and present data. As Colonel Warden helpfully points out, this fuzziness is a problem only for editors who want to use policy for wkilawyering. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• <Shouts in BHG's ear> Pay attention. If you had actually bothered to read what I said, as opposed to just prejudging ABF in it, you would have noticed that I was in fact railing against a "'policy' that is 'full of contradictions and falsehoods'" and have just advocated the removal of WP:NOT#STATS, not its rewrite/reinforcement to my taste. In spite of your ubiquitous attempts to "disrupt the usability of Wikipedia" on this thread (if you don't like that quote and the context it comes from, then I direct your attention to WP:DUCK), Colonel Warden gave me the answer I was looking for all along. I would not go so far as to say that I am satisfied by the answer (the entrenched illogic it suggests is fundamentally unsatisfying), but have no intention of pursuing this further, beyond mild advocacy of having the dysfunctional and ignored policy passage in question excised. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, it's getting increasingly hard to make sense of what you are actually trying to achieve, but I think it goes like this. First you wound yourself into a fury over the tables of election results (with 20 posts at AFD in which you insisted repeatedly that the article in question is a "violation of WP:NOT#STATS", a phrase you used 6 times) on the basis of a policy which didn't mean what you wanted it to mean. Then when you didn't get your way on that point you tried a backdoor path to deletion (by using the policy as a lever to remove the article's content), but that fell apart because you eventually realised that all your claims of a "violation of WP:NOT#STATS" were wrong. So you came here to argue for tightening it up, and when that didn't get the support you wanted you have now decided seek its removal, so that there is no longer even a warning about how to present and use data. This looks like some sort of revenge attack on the policy which left you with egg on your face when you didn't read it properly ... and yet you still manage to accuse others of ubiquitous attempts to "disrupt the usability of Wikipedia".

This isn't complicated. You didn't read a policy properly, and climbed up the wrong tree. No Big deal: we've all done that in our time. Why not just accept your mistake and move on rather than making the best the enemy of the good? As Col Warden says, we are here to write an encyclopedia not to engage in lawyering. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Warden gave me the answer I was looking for all along.

— Hrafn

it's getting increasingly hard to make sense of what you are actually trying to achieve

— BrownHairedGirl

<shouts in BHG's face>You weren't paying attention were you? <sigh> As to your ludicrous, self-serving, ABF fantasy of what you want me to have been "trying to achieve" -- it has all the evidentiary and logical validity of a bad case of flatulence. I have no expectation that you'll have a sudden attack of honesty any time soon, and shouting at you does not seem to have drawn your attention to the relevant parts of my statements, I am tired of your vituperative bile, and so will leave you to continue your ridiculous slanders unattended and unheeded. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, I have been paying close attention to your voluminous posts since you picked up this policy as a cudgel over a week ago, and I stand by my summary of your trajectory. You started off by wikilawyering over a policy which you had completely misunderstood, and when after you had made about 50 posts on the subject you finally understood that the policy does not make the election results article a "violation of WP:NOT#STATS", you switched to advocated the the policy's removal because it doesn't assist your wikilawyering.

Your shouting and abusiveness doesn't alter either the persistent wikilawyering or the persistent bad faith which you repeatedly expressed at AFD and since by rejecting all assurances from editors that the article in question would be improved.

Anyway, thanks for your assurance that you are finally going to drop this crusade. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Paraphilic pornography in Wikipedia

It must be great for perverts to have the opportunity to freely express their arts under such a shining slogan as "Wikipedia is not censored." The current situation of WP suits well its nature as a "popular" cyclopedia, as society is indeed rife with perverts. However, there is no way that pictures such as this one [1] and this one [2] be regarded as appropriate, necessary or not produced by a pervert.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.164 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2009

If you are so offended by File:Wiki-fellatio.png, then why were you reading the article fellatio, which is the only place where the picture appears? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What ever you do, don't look up nipple! You might just see a picture of, *gasp*, a nipple! Chillum 05:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What do blowjobs have to do with perverts? I'm going to need a wp:RS for that one. NJGW (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one, am ever so grateful that this image is on Wikipedia because you know its hard to find images on this subject on the net. ;-) A. Pervert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.146.94 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually if I am interested in reading about fellatio that does not mean I am interested in watching pornography while doing so. That image does not illustrate anything but the artistic gift of a pervert, no offense. 213.178.224.168 (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, not all of us are stuck with missionary position, no offense to your convictions. Anyway, the image in question is replaced with the one by a more famous and artistic "pervert", displayed in museums. - 7-bubёn >t 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a forum

Why doesn't Wikipedia have a forum? It would be nice if we could have a place for discussion.