Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:1700:8a90:ecf0:9489:316d:f2ee:4a97 (talk) at 06:17, 5 March 2023 (→‎CRYSTAL: Just a rule abiding geezer hoping to instill some hope and sunshine upon a dim, grim, inconsistent little world.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposal for a text change relating to WP:NOTTVGUIDE

Present text:

5. Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.

Proposed text:

5. Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc.. Mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable, when those programs have been broadcasted in the past.

Reason for this - proposed - change is that some people see the second part as allowing it to add future programming despite the first part disallowing it. A clarification can take away this confusion. The Banner talk 17:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "near future" planned and with little chance of being changed - for example, the next Oscar ceremony is very likely to happen at the planned time - that seems to be something to mentioned. Far future programming would fall more into the CRYSTALBALL disallowance. Masem (t) 18:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sections in question are specifically discussing the business actions of streaming and television studios – for example, noting that Netflix is developing or has ordered a specific series on the List of Netflix original programming. Documenting the fact that a television studio has ordered or is in the middle of filming a series, backed up by vetted WP:RELIABLE news sources (i.e., film and television trade publications such as Variety or The Hollywood Reporter) is, I believe, not an example of an electronic program guide nor promotional advertising and misses the intent of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, which is to avoid publishing schedule guides as referenced in Electronic program guide. Nisf (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is my interpretation of it also. This rule seems intended, for example, to make sure that the List of HBO original programming page is not cluttered with a day-by-day account of what is being on the cable channel shown. It is not to prevent general information of upcoming shows, which I think is a useful resource to have. JordanP7893 (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner I reverted one of these changes recently also. This section of the rule seems to be specifically about electronic program guides, which I think is a very sensible rule; our disagreement comes in the interpretation of it.
I would define an electronic program guide as a daily tv schedule with listings of programs with viewing times which would change everyday, with repeats of the same program multiple times for re-runs. This does not seem to conflict with showing upcoming programs for a specific tv studio/streaming company. To me this seems no different to how film studios can display upcoming releases, e.g. List of Warner Bros. films (2020–2029)#Upcoming JordanP7893 (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Electronic program guide disagrees with you. And it is my intention to focus on TV-channels, not on production companies. The Banner talk 19:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Television channels are largely also production companies (e.g., the BBC produces original content in addition to syndicated content), with the exception of channels that only broadcast third-party licensed content. How do you propose to extricate the two? Nisf (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the focus is on the TV-channels. TV-channels broadcast. As far as I know, they don't produce programs as that is done by the parent company. The Banner talk 17:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would say that Electronic program guide only gives examples of guides which are based on daily schedules by time.
It seems to me the reason for this rule in the first place was to prevent hundreds of entries for tv programs each day based on what is on each channel, and not to prevent lists of upcoming projects. Whether that is for a TV channel/streaming service or production company is a distinction I'm not sure that matters. JordanP7893 (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
should not list upcoming events clearly prohibits future programming for TV-channels and the likes. The Banner talk 17:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This all being under the subheading of 5. Electronic program guides. though I think is the key, in which case I don't think general list of in-development/upcoming productions would count as breaking it.
I'm new to editing Wikipedia but would it be possible to get some clarification from the history on what the original intention of this rule was?
I would instead propose the below clarification:
5. Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., in an EPG format. Mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. JordanP7893 (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does not solve the fact that some editors use the second part to circumvent the "prohibition" on future programming. The Banner talk 15:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This rule is all under the subheading of 5. Electronic program guides, in which case lists future programs can be allowed as long as it is not in a EPG style format. Since the upcoming program lists on the pages in question are not electronic program guides they are not in violation of this rule. JordanP7893 (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted policy is intended to address day-by-day lists of programs, which are almost never notable enough for inclusion – the only such list I recall is List of first music videos aired on MTV. However, the issue at hand is with lists of all programs broadcast by a network/service, which is a much higher level overview. I know it says upcoming events are excluded, but I interpret that as pertaining to a promotional block or something similar (something like Shark Week or Must See TV) – note that it says event, not program, show, etc. I wouldn't be opposed to requiring programs to have something more concrete than a press release announcing the show (i.e., maybe the show has to enter production like WP:NFF), but excluding all future releases is excessive to me if there is reliable coverage of those releases, and the quoted policy is the wrong place to address this issue anyway. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now. But remember WP:CREEP I would rather take down entire subsection prohobiting guides/manuals. This should be decides purely on a consensus basis. The only thing I would keep in this policy is a mandatory requirement for a discussion to be taken in order to define extends to which details of manuals/guidelines should/might stretch. Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of the proposed amendment. The more clarification there is for a policy like WP:NOT, which is often misused, the better. Lapadite (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. While "broadcasted" is sometimes included in some dictionaries, "broadcast" is the far more accepted past tense and ought to be used. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • List_of_Netflix_original_programming#Upcoming_original_programming is what started this. Some of those shows listed have their own articles. And some of the things listed as what they show now don't have articles. The list article wouldn't be complete without listing everything. I don't see what the difference is between things shown already to those going to be out soon. The rule was made before streaming services existed, and was so we don't have a TV guide listing all the channels and what's coming on that day on them, so it has nothing to do with the situation here. Dream Focus 07:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up?

The discussion has petered out. I am not sure, but I think I see support but with reservations. So, to revise the proposal:

Old proposal:

5. Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc.. Mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable, when those programs have been broadcasted in the past.

Revised proposal:

5. Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster/TV channel should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc.. Mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable, when those programs have been broadcast in the past. This refers specifically to broadcasters, TV channels and the likes. Not to production houses, as they are often different companies than the actual broadcasters.

Changes in bold.

I hope to hear soon. The Banner talk 14:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this revised proposal takes into account the comments from myself, @Nsif @RunningTiger123 and @Dream_Focus, that the issue is the interpretation of what constitutes an EPG.
I propose the below, changes in bold:
5. Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster/TV channel should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc.. Mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable, when those programs have been broadcast in the past.
Note: this specifically refers to Electronic Program Guides (EPG), such as listing the daily schedule of a traditional linear broadcaster, showing the dates and times of each episode. Listing upcoming productions of a broadcaster is allowed if it is not in an EPG format, such as the just title of the series and the premier date (if known). JordanP7893 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that bites with WP:PROMOTION. The Banner talk 15:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to clarify which part of Wikipedia:PROMOTION you believe that this proposal would violate?
I am assuming point 5 around "Advertising, marketing or public relations", but that only appears to be specifically to prevent promotion. Including a list of upcoming programs in a "objective and unbiased style, free of puffery" should be allowed it seems. JordanP7893 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your version you allow each and every program, notable or not notable, sourced or unsourced. That would be the dream of every marketing department. The Banner talk 16:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think lists of original programming are a natural place where people come to Wikipedia for a central source on such information (I know I did).
Of course the entries should be sourced, and these pages cleaned up to prevent spamming/marketing/un-notable entires, but this is no different in my view to how this works for film studios (for example List of Universal Pictures films (2020–2029)#Upcoming). If we are going by this interpretation of Wikipedia:PROMOTION then these also would be disallowed. JordanP7893 (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All announced series must be reliably sourced (usually in the form of an news article from a third-party industry publication such as Variety or The Hollywood Reporter), and in fact, those that are not sourced are regularly reverted or removed.
There was a decision at some point in the past to not source current and ended series on programming lists for reasons that precede me, but that's not what you currently have beef with anyways. Nisf (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky when it comes to upcoming shows. I can understand peeling "In development" out of "List of X programming" pages as there's no guarantee they'll see a greenlight. However, it's important in my opinion to retain "Upcoming programming" when it comes to that series being ordered/having an article. It's helpful for the reader if that's what they're looking for. Rusted AutoParts 16:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that. Especially since in development programs can often be cancelled without notice so these lists could eventually grow overtime as it is unknown if shows are still in development.
Maybe only allow shows which have officially have entered production? JordanP7893 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not limit the listings to notable programs (as in: having their own article on ENWP) that are or were broadcast? Otherwise you will be very quickly in the realm of promotion and crystal ball. The Banner talk 17:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is listing their ordered series either promotion or crystal? Any action that could be taken on a tv series list could be construed as promoting the service so I don't see that argument. I can see the crystal argument with the shows they're only in development on but ordered/filming shows just don't apply to me in that regard. Rusted AutoParts 17:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is only used as a test for whether a topic deserves its own article, not whether a reported fact warrants inclusion on a notable article.
Removing "in development" titles seems reasonable to me, as there is a high likelihood that they won't get made (although I would still prefer they remain, unless there hasn't been news in reasonably long time), but everything else should remain IMO. A list of ordered, in-production, and in-post titles should have sufficient sourcing to warrant inclusion, but that is all that should dictate inclusion. There is no promotion nor crystal ball here. Rmaloney3 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this fails to take into account any of the points brought up by the discussion. In addition to others' comments, 1) Announcing that a show has been ordered by a television network is no different than announcing a film is in production by a major film studio; 2) Broadcasters and TV streaming channels ARE usually "production houses" and saying they're not shows a basic failure to understand the television industry. The BBC is both a production studio and a broadcaster – the same is true for HBO, Netflix, Disney, etc. Many of their shows are made in-house, others are purchased from third-party production studios.
I do greatly support a greater shift away from "List of programs broadcast by [X Channel] to "List of [X Channel] original programs" to further differentiate between broadcast guides and programming lists, as I don't think it's informative to anyone looking at Wikipedia to know that, say, Comedy Central airs reruns of The Office.
I also don't see how listing series that have been ordered by a streamer or a television studio is WP:CRYSTAL or WP:PROMOTION - is 2024 Summer Olympics a promotion of the Summer Olympics?? Nisf (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) Announcing that a show has been ordered by a television network is no different than announcing a film is in production by a major film studio; That is a very curious statement. Ordering something is a few steps earlier than "in production". The Banner talk 19:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a strong difference between "this network has announced they are making this series" and "Amazon Prime is excited to announce their hot new drama series "X", coming soon." The former is a basic reporting on a fact. That's not promotion. Rusted AutoParts 19:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Series order is a specific step that a studio takes to create a series - it means that a written commitment has been made to produce a series, and that casting and hiring has begun (or is about to begin) on the production (prior to the step of principal photography). Again, no different than, say, reporting that Warner Brothers has announced a planned sequel to The Batman or a reboot of Ocean's Eleven. Reporting that a studio has committed to producing a film or television show ≠ promotion. Nisf (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With other words: Crystal ball. The Banner talk 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Series orders are verifiable, though! The series has received an order, the same way any other product is ordered or commissioned! This order has been reported on by a reliable source. I don’t see how this is WP:CRYSTALBALL?
The only solution I can see is changing the name of the section from “Upcoming series” to “Ordered series”, as that demonstrably shows that the series was ordered but that we cannot know whether it will be released. Nisf (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find the need to rename the section goofy to be honest. There is no problems or violations being committed with listing the shows the network has fully committed to. It’s not speculation, nor a rumour nor a presumption. The reader isn’t being tricked, or led astray. Rather they would be put at a massive disservice not providing that information. Rusted AutoParts 22:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

change notdirectory to clarify list of notable buildings is fine

It currently reads:

Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.

How do you define a culturally significant phenomenon? A list of buildings or businesses in a certain region, all notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, should be considered valid for a list article. We have plenty of list of people born in a certain region already. Notable enough for a category, then notable enough for a list that can provide far more information than a category so people can find what they are looking for. List of restaurants in New Jersey is currently at AFD and someone mentioned WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a reason to delete it.

Suggested change:

Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". We do however allow lists of people from a location or lists of people by ethnicity and lists of restaurants by nation or states. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.

Dream Focus 21:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't it be better to wait for some conclusion about the AfD and seeing if there is any actual concern that might affect here rather than taking one particular person's comment as anything to do something about? This policy is never going to be a complete list of everything that can or cannot be in Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is not (shortcut: WP:NOTNOT). EEng 12:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:notadatabase

I would like to propose a change in policy that specifically makes it clear that wikipedia is not a database. Articles created which can be sourced from nothing but database entries are not notable I argue. This proposal is being discussed here, it started with expand notability criteria but I've come to realize this probably isn't enough to solve the issue. EvilxFish (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, and this is the essence of our policy against primary data. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Databases may or may not be primary sources. As David Eppstein says below, databases are just a way of storing and accessing records, and we should evaluate the reliability of database like any other source. - Enos733 (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends, I think, on what you mean "sourced from nothing but database entries". Most of our articles on United States federal judges are sourced from the database of the public doman Federal Judicial Center, which contains a profile for every federal judge to have served. Most judges will have other sources, but there a few comparatively obscure ones for whom the FJC is the only readily available source. BD2412 T 23:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, we shouldn't have articles on those few based on a single source. That might be enough for a hypothetical list entry on List of US federal judges on the Nth circuit, but a single database source like that, if that's all there is, is not article material. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That wording seems to be poised to ignore the relative quality of different databases. BD2412 T 23:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of a database is not in question, the problem is if the only source is a database (and maybe the primary reference the data is pulled from) then that topic is not a notable topic. In the case you mentioned of the judges, assuming its an amazing database, those judges whose only information comes from that database are not really notable. EvilxFish (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
United States federal judges are national officials squarely meeting WP:NPOL. All of them are appointed by the President of the United States and subject to confirmation by the United States Senate, to lifetime appointments in a position that allows any one of them to interpret federal legislation and deem such legislation unconstitutional, if warranted. So, yes, they are really notable. However, the federal courts have existed for over 230 years, so records on some of the earlier ones are sketchy. Also, yes, the FJC is an amazing database. A typical entry is this one, for Benjamin Johnson. BD2412 T 02:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the type of logical that doesn't really work anymore. We want secondary information about these judges (in this case), what impact they have, etc. There are some that clearly have that meet notability guidelines, but most of these the best we have is a simple bio which is not the type of indepth, significant coverage we want to see. Masem (t) 02:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify that extent of coverage in a database is an important factor. A database with lots of information about an individual is different to one that just highlights some points about their career. I've looked in more detail at the notability criteria for people (most of my edits focus on scientific articles so I am less aware of them), these clearly state that by virtue of being a judge at the highest level, they are inherently notable. However if an article was to be created about someone who works say in a local traffic court, their entry into that same database you shared would not be proof of notability as I would argue that is not extensive coverage. This proposal would impact the traffic court guy but not the federal judge. EvilxFish (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no valid distinction between information in databases and information in other kinds of sources. Being in a database is a matter of data storage and access technology, not of what type or depth of information is being stored. For instance, all Wikipedia articles are stored in a database; that's how the Wikipedia servers keep track of article content. Probably most newspaper articles online these days are stored in a database. It would be stupid to say "articles sourced from nothing but online newspaper articles are not notable", but that's what this proposal would amount to, because those newspaper articles are database entries. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above and I added a comment on the proposal page for a tweaking of this in an attempt to reflect database quality. EvilxFish (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: add a line to WP:SOAPBOX to the effect that Wikipedia is not a place to add gratuitous vulgarity as a means to take a stand against censorship

We have had certain instances where editors have nominated hooks for WP:DYK containing vulgar terms or racial slurs, and defended these against claims of their being innappropriate on the grounds of WP:NOTCENSORED. We should have a statement upholding the opposing principal, that just because Wikipedia is not censored does not make it a vehicle to take a stand against censorship with the use of gratuitous vulgarity. BD2412 T 23:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "gratuitous" part is necessary. Like it or hate it, sometimes vulgarity is necessary, for example if a quote is included, it may contain uncomfortable references/words/ideas that should not be censored. I would refer you to WP:GRATUITOUS that covers the case you mentioned. EvilxFish (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, rules are supposed to be descriptive -- codifying accepted practice -- rather than prescriptive and passed like a law. The purpose being so that we can avoid repeated arguments over the same ground, instead just point to the rule. That is how it's supposed to work anyway.
The problem with the proposal is that Wikipedia is a place to add gratuitous vulgarity as a means to take a stand against censorship. To a lot of editors anyway, for various reasons too complicated to go into here. IMO it shouldn't be, but it is. Just be glad the rule doesn't say "In order to advance the Wikipedia's overall remit of advancing human culture generally, editors are advised to go out of their way to shock and discomfit the squares" or something, heh. Herostratus (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is either necessary or beneficial. There is already a significant amount of censorship happening on the Main Page, both before articles or files hit the Main Page or after, like when File:Waterboarding a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang.jpeg was removed while torture was on the Main Page, and I oppose making the fight against that harder by muddling the waters whether taking a stand against censorship is "soapboxing". —Kusma (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These discussions are basically worthless because we're not even speaking the same language. "There is already a significant amount of censorship happening on the Main Page" isn't true, because no government entity is at all involved with the Main Page; instead, what happens there is editorial judgement. Different thing! However, it's impossible to get most people to understand this; some can't, and the rest won't. OP complains material is "defended these against claims of their being inappropriate on the grounds of WP:NOTCENSORED", and if that's true (I'm sure it is), that's just filthy. Deploying the misleading and inflammatory word "censorship" to stand in for "editorial judgement" is basically arguing "Well, my editorial judgement is such-and-so, and if you don't agree, you're a Cossack". Not helpful to reasoned discussion. Herostratus (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CRYSTAL

Is this appropriate venue to discuss WP:CRYSTAL? I was seeking an intrepreation relating to "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." Does this text mean reliable and expert/recognized... or does it mean reliable, or expert, or recognized? I have been having a discussion with another editor here Talk:Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk#Source and I thought I would seek clarification as my thought was AND rather than or. If this is also the incorrect venue to seek clarification on policy consensus, kindly guide me to the correct one. Note I have provided the specific talk page link to provide context, and this post is not about that article specifically but rather to guide me on general CRYSTAL policy. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Doc OckI just wanted to sincerely applaud your efforts to seek opinions, clarification and answers in the correct place. The Talk page. Requesting assistance in the event you are asking in the incorrect place and requesting to be pointed in the right direction in the event you are not requesting in the correct place. Unfortunately I am applauding your effort to an empty auditorium. I do so despite this fact. Mostly because I have done the exact same thing 30 or 40 times, (no joke here) and not once time in over 15 years have I ever received a bit of help. Nope, you'll need to fill out an "official" Help form and hope to by golly you asked the correct question to the correct commandant or you shall be shunned. But I also have a sliver of good news, I seem to attract (unwanted) attention even if I just correct spelling, so perhaps someone will be irritated with me enough to offer you assistance. Best of luck to you from a former, very active, wikipedia contributer (before it all went mad.) >>Doc Ock[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=1142963471"