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 141.212.111.116 (talk) at 21:45, 24 January 2008 (→Deal with "game guide" content more directly). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Delete "plot summaries"

Is there a non-stub article on any work of fiction that does not include a plot summary? Even if there is, at least 99% of such articles in my experience have a plot summary. This is like a highway speed limit that virtually nobody obeys. Therefore I propose removing mention of plot summaries. MilesAgain (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says WP articles cannot "simply" be plot summaries. (the "simply" is way above, in the intro paragraph). This means that an article on a book that says "Bob is a farmer, Bob plants his crops, Bob dies" would not be acceptable, but that including a plot summary in a broader article is perfectly OK. The policy is fine as it currently reads. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I decided to rewrite this section to reflect our policy on fiction coverage in general, not just plot summaries. The underlying issue is a legal one; extensive description of copyrighted works have in the past been declared copyright infringements (see the Twin Peaks and Seinfeld cases mentioned here).
I hope I struck the right balance between "must contain real-world content" and "in-universe information is permitted" with my rewrite. It's possible someone will take objection with my broadening the paragraph to cover fiction in general, although such policy is already in place, and NOT#PLOT was only addressing a subset of it.--Father Goose (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a case of trying to lower the bar due to lack of enforcement. To continue on the speed limit analogy: If the speed limit is 75 and everyone drives 85, the solution is more police, not raising the speed limit to 85 (everyone would just go 95 then). Mr.Z-man 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gather you're replying to MilesAgain's comment, not mine. He's sort of right, in that policies are meant to be descriptive of existing practice, not prescriptive (see WP:POL). However, in this case we have an underlying legal concern that restricts us from being completely lassez-faire about plots and other fiction coverage, even if that's what we wanted to do.--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
to the extent this objection to plot summaries is valid, the Copyright policy covers it, and it need not be mentioned here. DGG (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you objecting to the changes I made? I need more info.--Father Goose (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Careful on the wording here, as we are dealing with our main policy regarding plot summaries. While I understand we have actual fair use concerns with plot summary, that's really not the main issue at hand, which is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia grounded in the real world. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. Let's compare the two versions side by side:
Old version New version
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. (See also: Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot) Descriptions of fictional works. Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should provide sourced information on the works' real-world context, such as development, production, distribution, and cultural reception and impact. Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article (which is a potential copyright infringement). This applies both to stand-alone works and to series. (See also Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot.)
Personally, I think the new version comes closer to community consensus and describes the legal and style issues better. The "main issue at hand" is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. However, when the notability of a fictional work is established, a summary of the plot is always necessary to properly cover the subject. Somehow, the policy needs to include the copyright issues, reference all fiction and fictional subjects, and point to the other relevant policies like notability and guidelines like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I agree that we need to be cautious in changing an official policy. I do not agree that works of fiction, fictional characters, or other fictional constructs can not meet notability guidelines or that they can only meet notability guidelines if they have "real world" information. I believe Harry Potter, as an example, has achieved some cultural relevance and is notable. You simply can not have an article about the character Harry Potter without some description of the character as described in the book series. I would not describe this information as a "plot summary." There is certainly secondary sources that speak to his cultural relevance, but I do not think that you should disclude the character description because you can not find a secondary source for it. Ursasapien (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new version sounds nice to me - the focus on preventing crap articles composed only of plot summary while encouraging the use of plot summary in ones with appropriate content and sourcing sounds like a good plan to me. Among other things, it would provide a hedge against the "PLOT = BAD" witchhunt that often times flattens good articles just as much as poor ones. This way, it puts the impetus on creating good articles, not just trashing the worthless ones, and a positive (and sourced! WP:CITE, dammit!) information flow on Wikipedia is always good. MalikCarr (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that copyright/fair-use issue applies to works not in the public domain. I'm not saying cutting down on plot stuff isn't an goal, but there's nothing preventing us legally to put the whole of Romeo and Juliet on WP. Of course, we have the interestng dichotomy of the most notable works in public domain having the most real world content, while the newest works still in copyright lack the real world notability as to strengthen the fair use inclusion of plot information. Still, it makes sense to set the bar to the most restrictive aspect. --MASEM 06:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright issue is actually a little to complicated to summarize in one sentence. I dont think the presence of non-plot content is necessarily decisive one way or the other--the interaction of the factors for fair use are quite complicated--and in fact WP has a somewhat stricter interpretation of what it allows than just the minimum necessary to satisfy US law. I think no properly written article would come near violating it, or even raise the question--I think the argument is generally a red herring by those who dont like such content. It certainly does not have consensus.
Neither does the general argument that there must be some real world content--my interpretation is that it must be clear that it is describing the fiction and not go talking about it in a confusing way as if the stuff actually happened. The revised version is not consensus as policy. I dont think it would even be acceptable as a consensus guideline. DGG (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the comment about copyright from the new version because I'm just not convinced that it's copying to describe a plot summary. Wikipedia does take a narrower view of fair use than the law, but that is only in cases where it's known that there is a copyright or that copying has taken place. If not, the content is free, and Wikipedia does not take a narrow view of free content. I think it's guideline (and might as well be policy) that a mere plot summary, without at least some additional information for context, is a useless article. For one, it would make an article speedy-able as having no claim of notability. So whether copyright is the issue or not, Wikipedia is #NOT a plot guide. With that in mind, what's the difference between the two versions? I don't see much. The proposed change is longer but a little clearer in my opinion. It should apply to non-fiction as well as fiction.Wikidemo (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the line about copyright was appropriate (though wordier than I would have liked). The law is quite clear on this issue. Plots are copyrighted and can be used here only under a fair-use rationale. There is no defensible fair-use rationale for a page which is solely or even primarily a plot summary. Having the comment in the paragraph added to its strength. Note: The comment above about public-domain works is true - we could legally have a page that's solely plot summary from Romeo and Juliet. But that's not the vast majority of our pages or our problems. Let's wordsmith the line but add it back while we work on it. Rossami (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't say the law is "quite clear" (fair use rulings in general can be somewhat unpredictable), though I agree with you that it's hard to see how we could call a page containing a long plot summary and nothing else a "fair use".
I've raised this issue in parallel over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#recent edit, and I'm willing to see how that emerges before I would push for a mention of WP:FAIRUSE on this page.--Father Goose (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG: It's not a red herring for me; I like detailed descriptions of fiction, but I've come to see that there are probable limits on what we can do, and more importantly, how we do it. Although I agree I don't want to see content purged via spurious claims of copyright enforcement, we can't pretend it isn't, on some level, a real issue.
As for there "must be real-world content", I interpret this as meaning, at an absolute minimum, that fictional subjects should be talked about in real-world terms: "this is a character that appeared in this and was depicted this way" not "this guy lives here and does this". So certainly some rewording is in order to make this clearer. However, I'm not certain that that alone is sufficient to avoid copyright problems: The Harry Potter Lexicon is getting sued for doing nothing more than documenting what was used where and how within the Harry Potter fictional universe. Specifically because of copyright issues, we're probably obliged to go beyond just describing fictional content in great detail, even if we do it in a real-world style.--Father Goose (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I interpret this as meaning, at an absolute minimum, that fictional subjects should be talked about in real-world terms" - yep this is definitely true. This is covered more in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), though, which is linked to from the "Descriptions of fictional works" section. --Stormie 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That much is uncontroversial. There remains the question of whether there are additional limitations presented by fair use issues. Further responses on that issue are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#recent edit.--Father Goose 07:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, I reviewed this some more and my skepticism was unfounded. Plot summaries are clearly a copying issue under the law because they copy the creative elements of a script, so fair use analysis is necessary. To be fair use the plot summary has to be done in a critical way, not just as an abridged mini-version of the plot. That's been thoroughly discussed on several occasions and represents consensus. So I put the copyright comment back in and reworded somewhat to emphasize this and explain the reason. I hope it's not too wordy. I comment in more detail over on the NFCC talk page linked to above. Wikidemo 16:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you're misstating copyright law here. (1) A plot summary does not have to be critical in order to be fair use. At best, criticism is one of the exemplary ways in which one of the four factors can be demonstrated. (2) Restating the plot is not necessarily even "copying" in the sense of copyright, which is reproduction. A plot summary may restate (and summarize, which is already a transformation of the original) the creative elements, but it does so for a substantially different purpose than the original -- the summary and the different purpose are both transformative aspects of the use which would tend to weigh towards fair use. A court would first examine to see if there was copying of any sort; and then look for fair use. A very significantly transformed "copy" -- such as a summary of a plot -- might not even be considered copying, and if it were considered copying, would then be a significant transformation for the first fair use factor. Other relevant doctrines include de minimis -- whether the copying is so trivial that it doesn't even amount to a legal issue -- and scenes à faire, whether the copying is of standard plots and fictional devices. (3) Consensus on Wikipedia, such as it is and to the extent it exists at all on this issue, does not reflect the state of the law of fair use in the US, but the state of wikipedia's approach to fair use. ... Lquilter 17:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is a little more involved than that. Copyright holders have, from time to time, published encyclopaedias based on their works. Most comic book companies have, as well as the Tolkien estate, Terry Pratchett and Julian May. Therefore, I think we have to use criticism to transform our plot summaries in such a way that we do not infringe the rights of the copyright holder to exploit their work. We're basically giving this stuff away, for anyone to repackage for any purpose. If we work up a number of articles on the Harry Potter universe which could then be repackaged as a Guide to Harry Potter, I should imagine Wikipedia would find itself named if a suit similar to the one now issued against The Harry Potter Lexicon. Our articles on fictional works need to have sources of substance other than the fiction itself. They need to have critical opinion cited in the text of the article, and they need to keep plot summation as brief as possible, so that articles on a fictional subject when viewed together do not become a guide to that fictional world, but rather an encyclopaedic treatment on the critical and cultural legacy of the work. All that said, I'm as happy with the new words as I am with the old. Hiding T 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for an example of what I mean, have a look at Saga of Pliocene Exile which up front states it is reproducing Julian May's A Pliocene Companion: A Guide To The Saga Of Pliocene Exile. Hiding T 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resp: The law is always more complicated than a one-paragraph summary, and the summaries that Hiding T gives are similarly subject to complexifying. However, it is not the case that a court in the US has held that "A plot summary is only fair use if criticism is included". We should be careful not to make untrue and overbroad legal statements in order to support a policy point. Far better to say "we strengthen/hurt our case for fair use if we do X" (which is, in its form, a true legal statement) than to state that "we must/must not do X for fair use" (which is almost never true in its form). Sorry to be persnickety; but I think this is important as a legal matter as well as simply to keep discussions well-informed. --Lquilter 16:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have missed my point. See Twin Peaks v. Publications Int'l, Ltd. 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).) My point is that any policy has to take into consideration Wikipedia as a whole as well as each individual article. Whatever laws and claims apply to any given article may also need to be considered with regards any group of articles. We have to consider the total effect as much as we do the individual effect. A large number of summaries aggregated together have been deemed to be copyright violation; a fair use claim was denied. A large number of small plot summaries on every character and location in a given fictional universe has been deemed to breach copyright. Hiding T 17:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with Twin Peaks and understand your read of it; I also well understand that WP wants to be on the far conservative side of these issues. Do you understand my point? "Overbroad and inaccurate statements of the law are not helpful to discussions." The original comments said that summaries had to have criticism to be fair use; no US court has made such a holding; to let that statement stand without clarification means that people will have a discussion with false understandings. --Lquilter 18:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm not sure I missed your point to start with. I was expanding on it. After that it got muddy. I was saying that what is fair use depends on who we're being sued by, so it is hard to know how to strengthen our case for fair use. What strengthens it in one instance, i.e. short plot summary which is transformational is fine on its own. Taken together with five hundred other likewise short plot summaries, it might not be. I think we're arguing the same thing at each other, which wasn't my intent. I was going further from you, not against you. Hiding T 19:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it. At any rate, I think we've bludgeoned poor Wikidemo and every other editor into silence with our legal pedantry. Like you, I'm reasonably okay with the current general tone. I made (diff) what I hope is a minor wordsmithery change to the language that reflects what I think is all of our understanding: Changed "to qualify as fair use" to "to support our fair use claim". The revised wording doesn't imply (falsely) that this is, per se, necessary for a fair use claim but does make it clear that it there are good (legal) reasons for it, i.e., that it supports a fair use claim. --Lquilter 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the case law is clear that copying occurs as a matter of course in creating a plot summary and that we're therefore in a fair use analysis. Take a look at Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Publishing, 150 F.3d 132 (2nd cir. 1998)[1]. The fact that plot details are derived from watching the work is enough to establish copying. That there are numerous details is enough to get past the de minimus threshold. Various cases do turn on the question of there being commentary versus a non-transformative use. Pputting it in a real-world rather than in-universe context is the kind of commentary we provide here, perhaps a necessary part. What other kind of transformation do you want? Parody? News reporting? Comparitive advertising? Scholarship/education is out for reasons having to do with free content. Even if one could come up with counterexamples or counterarguments, we have to assume it is copying and assume that some commentary is required. That's not so painful becaues it aligns with the actual way that good film, video, and book summaries are written: from a real-world rather than in-world POV. No reason not to make that a style guideline requirement for plot summaries and/or a prohibition here. Sometimes we have to make bright-line rules on the conservative side of a legal issue rather than encouraging editors to stumble through the legal analysis for themselves each time. Wikidemo 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lquilter's recent modification is a good idea for sure. Commentary (achieved by putting it in the real world context) doesn't make a plot summary qualify for fair use, it is just something we ought to require because it helps the case and our quality standards at the same time.Wikidemo 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems are not the reason why we have WP:NOT#PLOT. Copyright problems are an issue, but that's besides the point, because even if there was no copyright issue WP:NOT#PLOT would still exist. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, I've restored this for now because you haven't actually said what if anything is actually wrong with the new language. I don't mean to be contentious about it and if you think it's inappropriate I won't revert again, just querying what you think. If copyright risk is an issue then there are a couple of good reasons to mention it even if we would do the same for encyclopedic reasons as well. For one, mentioning the copyright concern prevents any misguided future changes to the policy. It's not unusual to do that in a policy page. Second, it helps interpret the policy. If there's any doubt about what the policy means, or if it's okay to leave naked in-world plot summaries pending article improvement (comparable to how we often leave trivia pending cleaning it up), a mention of the copyright concern should give more weight to it. The exact wording doesn't matter - I had earlier reverted the addition of a copyright myself, but put it back upon realizing that my reason for doing so was incorrect...in the process I thought I could improve the language. It's not an attempt to change policy but rather to be more specific and improve the language.Wikidemo 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the copyright issue should be mentioned here (even though I do think it is a real issue in some situations). There's also the whole "topic" vs "article" thing; The old wording was careful to say "topic" rather than getting caught up in whatever we currently define as a stand-alone document. The other reason I reverted back is because this is one of those points where some people will go after when they want to challenge the policy or guidelines, where consensus is almost always challenged. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's great (better, even) to leave them out altogether. (Although, as I said, if it's in I'm going to be very persnickety about how it's in.) Putting copyright in appears to be done more to scare people than to actually reflect the state of the law and I don't think that's productive. Actually just to be parsimonious it's also better just to keep the focus, here, on why we do it, which is frankly more because we are not IMDB or a fansite or whatever. I mean, even if there were no copyright issues, the plot summaries would need to be balanced because we're an encyclopedia -- not a plot summary-pedia. --Lquilter 13:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Okay, then I support the status quo too. Wikidemo 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's worth noting the copyright issue as long as it's done right. I feel I had the right approach with my first version of the rewrite, saying nothing more than "[it] is a potential copyright violation", which doesn't overstate the case, and leaves WP:NFC to lay out the details with the needed subtlety that cannot be done here. However, I won't push for that mention or link on this page until we can work out the right way to add a "descriptions of fiction" breakdown to NFC.--Father Goose 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The comment about copyright concerns strengthens the section. Finding a way to explain it clearly and in balance is better than merely deleting the mention. Rossami (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break for readability

  • Back to the original issue. Other than copyright, why does this point exist? This one point is being used to justify large parts of WP:FICT and (indirectly) a rather large number of AfDs. But I'm not seeing a clear justification. Is it due to copyright issues? Is it due to something related to notability? Hobit (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
because wikipedia is a real world encyclopedia that shows how things affect the real world. It's basically the difference between Readers Digest and CliffsNotes, one simply condenses the plot into a short story, the other offers only brief plot points to educate people about the importance and development and meaning of the work. Ridernyc (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't everything part of the "real world"? I've never understood this phrase as respects fiction. The important parts of the plot of Romeo and Juliet should be explained, because Romeo and Juliet is important, and understanding the plot is necessary for understanding the work. Obviously, we shouldn't pretend that the events in the story actually took place. But Romeo and Juliet's plot is as much a part of the "real world" as a painting, automobile, mathematical equation or other construction of humans. — brighterorange (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the plot is part of the real world just like an automobile but let me push your analysis a bit further. We don't have an actual automobile in the encyclopedia. We have text that talks about the automobile, explaining and describing it and, more importantly, explaining its implications within the context of the rest of the real world.
No one has said that we have to forbid all discussion of plot in an article - only that an encyclopedia article must be more than merely plot summary. If, after a reasonable period of time, no one can find anything sourcable to write about other than plot summary, that's probably a pretty good indicator that we don't have anything encyclopedic to say yet. Rossami (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll disagree here. A short plot summary can be enough to me an encyclopedia article. If someone wrote a book about dogs, a short summary of the book and links to a few reviews or sales figures should be enough. Same with fiction IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Readers Digest and CliffsNotes I agree, but current WP:PLOT is used as an argument against CliffNotes-type summaries. Red Hand of Doom has been cited as having too much plot compared to real-world content. WP:PLOT would seem to indicate that even short plot summaries aren't acceptable if "real world impact" stuff isn't included. Is that the intent? Hobit (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes even short plot summaries are bad if there is no real world context in the article. Another problem is articles that add minor bits of real world context to try to support massive plot summaries. I don't have a problem with the article you linked to, I Have a problem when 3 sentences of information about a voice actor is used to justify a 5 page character bio. Ridernyc (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than notability (which I think is covered elsewhere) why would a pure plot summary be a problem? Is this just an attempt at defining notability? Hobit (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it's defining what is considered encyclopedic, analysis of plot is, summary of plot is not. Ridernyc (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How come? If we have a biography of a real person, must we analyze the important events of that person's life, or is it acceptable to simply recount them? I think the latter. What is the difference? — brighterorange (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do i really need to point out that one is real one is a work of fiction. If you can't understand the difference, I'm not sure how to explain it. Ridernyc (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are not understanding my point. Of course we should not write about fiction as if it actually occurred, but I don't see why fiction needs "analysis" when we are otherwise willing to state facts without analysis. To say "At the side of Romeo's dead body, she stabs herself with her lover's dagger" in the synopsis of Romeo and Juliet is completely appropriate, is fiction, and needs no real-world anything or analysis in order to be encyclopedic. — brighterorange (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose: Not Features Guide

Proposed - Wikipedia is not a features guide to be used to compare the features of competing products.

The ongoing Guitar controller compatibility DRV and its associated AfD reveal a struggle to identify why articles largely composed of product feature comparison tables should not be permitted within Wikipedia. There are many, many of these product feature comparison table articles, most of which lack cites to independent reliable sources for the table contents. The information is taken directly from the product manufacturer, so it fails to meet the independent requirement for source material. While it seems that Wikipedia is not a features guide to be used to compare the features of competing products, WP:NOT does not seem to specifically cover this situation. Wp:not#sales was written to keep prices out of these product comparison table articles (see Price guide (again)), but I think that is as far as it goes. I would appreciate seeing other's comments on this proposal. -- Jreferee t/c 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you advocate deleting something like Comparison of vector graphics editors? I've used that article, and others like it, to get overviews of products in specific categories. They tend to be imperfect, but that's true of Wikipedia in general. What do we gain by deleting them?--Father Goose (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article is full of apparent original research, is mostly unreferenced, and includes prices; probably not the best example of why we should keep them. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I don't think pages that are essentially comparison shopping guides fit under that definition, even with a long stretch of WP:NOT#PAPER. Mr.Z-man 22:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I used that article as an example of something that is less than perfect, but still has some encyclopedic worth. It could be improved in many ways, which in itself is not a justification for deletion (AfD is not cleanup). I don't see the sense in proposing that any "Overview of products of type x" should be automatically declared "unencyclopedic" and banned. I marvel at how often deletion is being treated as a substitute for good editing these days.--Father Goose (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be lump-able with the price-guide part. Basically that we are not a shopping guide, and that would include both. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose any tighter restriction on product comparisons, and I believe that prices sourced to news articles should be included in articles. Far too many "feature ads" run on the Main Page, which look like they were written by the computer game's marketing staff. Wikipedia should describe commercial products more in the context of product comparisons (categories) than in terms of individual product descriptions. Any problems with WP:NOR/WP:V should be addressed on the spot, not by condemning unrelated articles without such problems. 70.15.116.59 15:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think this is a good idea. Eusebeus 15:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen a few attempts to use Wikipedia commercially, I wholeheartedly concur that feature guides and such are a bad idea. >Radiant< 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree here--I think prices are rarely relevant and can always be easily found on the web. Comparison articles are tricky because they tend to involve a certain degree of evaluation; articles specifically about notable products can be descriptive & therefore encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Not a picture book?

Take a look at St. Martin's Island, Pakistan Air Force, Independent University, Bangladesh, Haor ... there are more, many more. And, what do you see? Articles laden with images that add little or no extra information. As long as they are on the commons, no problem. But, why are we driving page sizes up, and reducing encyclopedic integrity of the project? There has been trmenedous outrage about trivia, and so little has been done about this picture book approach. Shouldn't something be done? Like, at least developing a template that says - "Unnecessary images and image galleries are not encouraged... please, put them to enhance information at appropriate places in the article, or reduce the number of images"... or something in that line. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Haor gallery now removed by AK Johnbod (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the articles Pakistan Air Force and Independent University, Bangladesh in current revisions make informative, appropriate use of images integrated with the text. They look good and they get the point across. Unfortunately the other two have "Gallery" sections with many redundant pictures. Personally, I think the "gallery" tag would be a good template for deletion, if it were a template. It pretty much always invites the proliferation of pictures without any thought for how they tie in to the text. But this is already addressed, in a more moderate way, in Image_use_policy#Photo_galleries. 70.15.116.59 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think galleries such as the one in St. Martin's Island are fine, in moderation. The Pakistan Air Force article goes a bit overboard, having 6-7 pictures of F-16s alone. They're nice pictures, though, so I'd move them to a gallery rather than get rid of them. In thumbnail form (and in moderate number), galleries load up quickly and are a good supplement to an article.--Father Goose 23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who mainly edits art articles I am always amazed by the number of people who think galleries are already banned, or that they should be shot on sight. I agree far too many articles use pictures badly, but Commons, with jumbled up pictures a very large % of which have completely inaccurate information or no information at all, is absolutely no substitute. I sometimes use quite large galleries, but only if there is a significant point made by each picture, which is made in the caption. Any knee-jerk ban on galleries would be extremely foolish. Look at recent FA Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes - do you think that has too many pictures? Johnbod 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with galleries per se. The main issues would seem to be those of relevance, redundancy, and undue weight. Are the images vital supplements to the text? Are there repetitions among those pictures used in the body of the text and those in the lower gallery? Or, as noted above, a number of images of the same thing, which can get to be, and no pun intended in the case of F-16s, overkill. And finally, as can happen with lists and other supplemental material, have they become 'imagecruft'?, i.e, does the gallery take as much space as the text? As someone who is interested in visual arts entries, I'd rather err on the side of too few, rather than too many images--the text must do its job first (I always thought that a bio on a minor artist could have one or two images, with up to ten or so for a major master, but that's an arbitrary conclusion). Short of a definitive policy, which I don't see happening, one hopes that most editors will use good aesthetic sense when it comes to page format. JNW 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes has many pictures which splendidly make a point, but it contains no "gallery" tag. The exact same number of images that would form an oversized and redundant "gallery" at the end of an article can seem moderate and well integrated when they appear beside appropriate subheadings. (It's also true that the Pakistani article could cut a few F-16s, though) Basically, every image added to an article should have some reason for being there, though it doesn't have to be a very good one; every reason involves relevance to some line(s) of text in the article; therefore, every image should be placed inline somewhere in the article near that corresponding text. Q.E.D. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a good use of pictures is important. Some of the links you posted are actually quite improved with the pictures IMO. Hobit (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Hobit, while I take the point that photo galleries are not encyclopedic, I don't find too many edit wars over their inclusion/exclusion and certainly don't want to discourage the inclusion of photos where appropriate. I will say though, an outrageous number of photos of people's cars cycle through the articles pertaining to their respective make/model. :p - CheshireKatz (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view?

Otto4711 has been quoting WP:NOT#INFO as a basis for deletion arguments (see here, here and here, as well as here, here, here and here). But, that didn't work out in the given examples, none of the explanations did fit the article he wanted to get deleted. Now he has edited the the policy itself putting in "Note that collections of information may be considered indiscriminate even if not specifically delineated here", making it more usable in similar deletion arguments. I am not sure if tweaking policy without discussion to fit my point of view is a good idea. Deletionism may be a common point of view shared by many editors, but it is not a guiding principle yet. I believe This type of policy tweaking to suit personal style poses a threat to the collaborative effort, and is subject to closer attention. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page already says that this is not and never can be an all-inclusive list. That applies to all aspects of the page. I don't think the recent change added anything to the page (or to the section, really). Rossami (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? When DGG removed that edit saying - discuss first--attempt to slant the issue - in the edit summary here, Otto4711 just reverted it saying - rv, it is not an attempt to slant anything, thanks for the assumption of good faith. it's a statement of the way things are - here. While he is quoting good faith (another piece of guideline) he is still not responding to discussion, ignoring the basics of Consensus. This may be just a beginning of a disruptive snowballing of Wikilawyering, like he and another editor tried here while accusing another editor of lwayering. I really don't think I don't think the recent change added anything to the page. With that kind of good faith in action, it's bound to bring some change or other. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the new wording. There is no consensus for WP:NOT#IINFO to apply to anything outside of the enumerated items. Prior discussion has long established that this section is meant to be a list of various exclusion criteria that don't fit under any of the other headings. If there were consensus for any other types of articles to be included under this heading, we would add those examples to the policy. I challenged Otto4711 to produce even one article which was deleted for being being an indiscriminate collection of information without violating one of the enumerated items or any other policy, and he essentially responded that he has better things to do with his time. If he's not willing to back up his assertions about policy, then he shouldn't be changing policy to conform to his point-of-view. An WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:JUSTAPOLICY argument for deletion doesn't suddenly become valid because someone uses the words "indiscirimate collection of information" and tries to edit policy to say that those words mean something other than what we say they mean, but we won't say exactly what. Editing policy in order to bolster your point-of-view in deletion debates, especially without discussing the change in order to establish consensus, or demonstrating an existing consensus, is rather poor form. DHowell (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand that "indiscriminate collection of information" is also a phrase that has meaning on it's own. The same with Wikipedia:conflict of interest. These are real world terms that we have adapted as policies. The policy specifically says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and never says "only these things can be considered an indiscriminate collection of information". Use common sense, not wikilawyering. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that link to prior discussion, I have to agree with DHowell: Past consensus appears to have been that "indiscriminate collection of information" was to be interpreted relatively narrowly. Now, personally, I think there is merit in a more general interpretation of the wording. There's an awful lot of crap out there in the world, and a lot of it ends up here.  :) But I'm not really sure how to turn that sentiment into a clear statement that wouldn't be abused. • That said, simply pointing at WP:NOT#INFO (or any other policy) in an xFD should never be acceptable, for the reasons given in WP:JUSTAPOLICY. One has to explain one's reasoning as to how and why the subject of the xFD is covered by the policy, and why the deletion is a good idea in its own right. (After all, exceptions are permitted.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion link is pretty weak when you compare it to most of the discussions on the matter. Something can be an indiscriminate collection of information without being listed on WP:NOT. The wording for the last few years about that section make it clear that what is listed on WP:NOT is simply what is widely agreed upon, nothing more, nothing less. However, I do agree with you that any comment in an XfD needs to be more than "per WP:OMGWTFNOT", and should have context to the discussion at hand. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was very reluctant to revert Otto, considering our frequent disagreements; not wanting to start another conflict, I did not follow it up immediately. But. with a full assumption of GF, slanting this policy was in effect the result of the wording. I'm glad others are are agreeing with the way I saw it. WP:NOT is a powerful and therefore dangerous page--it has status as policy, but deals with a great many things in brief phrases for which there are guideline in more detail that are not always altogether consistent with it, and the wording must therefore be watched carefully. I'd like to change some of it myself, but it will always need discussion first, and will often be difficult to obtain consensus for important changes. I think the use of a general policy page like this should be kept from being overly prescriptive and overly expansive. It's been used much too widely as if it there were no room for interpretation. I agree with Ned that we need to consider how to use it; I agree with him that just citing it is not necessarily helpful. (my personal feeling is that we might want to admit that not all of it is accepted to quite the same degree.) But that would surely be controversial. Ottos change was well intentioned but is just a little too capable of misinterpretation, as the discussion here makes clear. DGG (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone up for renaming/dispersing #INFO again? I believe there was consensus the last time it was proposed, discounting the people who didn't seem to understand the issue. Based on this discussion, most still don't understand what it really means, literally. If I am wrong, no one has ever argued against the meaning me and a few others attribute to it.

Regarding Ned Scott's edit summary here, I contest that the implied meaning is totally changed by that sentence. Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information doesn't imply that an article can't be an indiscriminate collection of information. As an analogy, Wikipedia not being a dictionary doesn't mean that an article can't be a dictionary (doesn't make sense); rather, it means each article can't be a simple dictionary definition. Go through WP:NOT, read the section titles, and try to understand that each section title refers to Wikipedia, not Wikipedia articles. What Otto added isn't even talking about the same thing as the section title.

Secondly, "indiscriminate collection of information" is not the same thing as "collection of indiscriminate information", which Otto and others take further to mean "list of loosely associated topic". "Indiscriminate collection of information" simply means that we don't include every single fact there is about the world, 5 examples of which are listed under #INFO with consensus. There is no consensus about "list of loosely associated topic", and since it doesn't logically follow from WP:NOT, WP:NOT should not be cited in justifying deletion.

It may certainly be the case that articles shouldn't be indiscriminate collections of information, but there are at least two logical leaps being made for granted that is not actually said in WP:NOT. Please seek consensus before tweaking the wording, even if you think it's stating the obvious. And if you agree with my points above, let's rename #INFO to avoid confusion. –Pomte 11:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I completely agree, and I think that this confusion leads to a lot of wasted time. I think part of the unfortunate thing is that people really do want a way to legitimately delete crappy list articles for which no specific deletion criterion applies. It never made sense to use IINFO that way, for precisely the reason you explained so clearly. But, to rephrase it to clarify what it already says will be controversial because of the way it is already used (sometimes legitimately, in my opinion). I hope that question can be answered separately.
I think "WP is also not..." is an improvement, since it is obviously clear. One downside is that this section may then become a catch-all ripe for instruction creep. I think it is usually preferable to outline principles of Wikipedia rather than a list of No-Nos; principles are great medicine for instruction creep and also a good way to make sure our policies are consistent and well-motivated. I think that this section still has a principle, which is stated in the introductory sentence:
merely being true [...] does not automatically make something suitable
Therefore I like a section title like "Wikipedia is not just a collection of information" (or not only or not simply, etc.) even better. — brighterorange (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...not a mere collection of information," is I think what you're getting at. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be satisfactory too. — brighterorange (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD shows a great many list articles deleted for having indiscriminate criteria. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And many others kept despite that reason given.; it is usually cited when trying to delete any list whatsoever. What we need is a definition of indiscriminate. I propose one: "indiscriminate" means containing items without selecting only the important ones. If a list includes all the relevant items on a topic where all the items are important, it is not indiscriminate. Importance is judged by the standards for article content: it does not necessarily have to amount to W:N notability." 18:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk)
Now define "important".--Father Goose (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
define it in any way whatsoever. If the items are all selected on the basis of any reasonable definition of notability, importance, significance, encyclopedic value, or relevance, the list is not indiscriminate. The point is that indiscriminate is not distinguishing of the basis of any applicable criterion. As long as there is one, the term does not apply. so rewording:

' "indiscriminate" means containing items without selecting only the important, relevant, or applicable ones according to some reasonable criterion. If a list includes all the relevant items on a topic where all the items are in some reasonable way important, or meet any reasonable criterion for inclusion, it is not indiscriminate. The applicability of the criterion is judged by the standards for article content: it does not necessarily have to amount to W:N notability.'DGG (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, my point is that the policy is evaluated on a per-article level. There will always be those who incorrectly cite policy or reasons in an AfD. -- Ned Scott 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's unreasonable to expect others to find and correct them at every AfD. Better to correct a cause of misinterpretation. –Pomte 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming most of them are wrong, which does not seem to be the case. For those who do misinterpret them, lets see what we can do to help stop that, but remember, there's a limit to correcting ignorance. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume a non-trivial number of them are wrong, and that a significant cause for this is the wording of the policy. "Let's see what we can do to help stop that..." How? With my suggestion! –Pomte 04:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet still a going concern?

In the propaganda and advocacy section it says 'You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views'. I question the relevance of mentioning something almost nobody uses anymore.--Nydas(Talk) 22:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still exists, its still used, certainly not at the level in the early 90s. However, point taken, maybe one would want to add "forum" as well since that's the primary alternative. --MASEM 22:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not mention 'forum' alone, since usenet is for all intents and purposes a forum, even if it isn't technically?--Nydas(Talk) 18:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good question. It has been nearly a decade or longer since I posted anything to Usenet, and even that was for a "closed" Usenet group that wasn't widely propogated. Back when Wikipedia first started, it certainly made much more sense to mention it as an alternative as blogging wasn't nearly what it has become, or as easy to get started. The reason I don't use usenet any more (and I suspect for many others as well) is mainly due to the very low S/N ratio and how it has been killed by spammers.
For "historical reasons", keeping this clause on this page wouldn't hurt, and it might just cause somebody to think for a little bit if they never heard of the idea before. I certainly don't see any pressing need to remove this one part of a sentance. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would we tolerate references to Netscape Navigator or 640x480 screen resolution in current policy pages?--Nydas(Talk) 12:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics: Fight songs

Should lyrics to fight songs be included? WP:NOT states that articles cannot consist solely of lyrics but many would argue that one excerpts from lyrics should be allowed and full lyrics be either linked to or on WikiSource. Please visit Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs. violet/riga (t) 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is getting over specific for a policy page. Details like that belong in a guideline. DGG (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly which guideline to add it to yet though and wouldn't want to create a new one. The discussion is at CENT because of this. violet/riga (t) 10:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Statistics

I'd like to see some expansion & clarification to this section. I frequently find articles on broad subjects referencing arbitrarily taken opinion polls. They are presented without context, allowing the reader to infer that the poll content is broadly representative and the careful selection of included polls can result in POV Pushing. For example, I've recently encountered a problem regarding the inclusion of opinion polls on the Anti-Arabism page. Initially presented in a section listing poll results, I rewrote the poll content in readable prose and then redistributed it to relevant sections per WP:MOS. Afterwards, I realized that such polls were included quite arbitrarily (in particular see Anti-Arabism#France). I tried to simply remove it per WP:NOT#STATS and WP:Notability, but was met with resistance for removing sourced content. The reverter argued that WP:NOT#STATS doesn't apply, because a "long and sprawling list" requiring remediation does not yet exist and that published in newspapers is sufficiently notable. That doesn't seem right to me, but I can't draw enough from the WP:NOT#Statistics section to support my intuition. What say you on the subject of opinion poll results, fellow editors? - CheshireKatz (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still really like some feedback on this. WP:NOT#Statistics seems to restrict the inclusion of polls to those where the the poll itself is analyzed in the reference and that analysis is included. This makes sense in an effort to curb original research (original synthesis in particular) but I'd really like to see it clarified to say so explicitly. - CheshireKatz (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Plot

Anyone know why the redirect of for WP:Plot was changed to direct to WP:MOSFILM? I've changed it back until someone can explain why. This change affects dozens of discussions that are linked to it. Ridernyc (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin censor negative comments towards him (and ban that person afterward)?

Resolved
 – Banned editors must use proper channels to dispute their ban. - CheshireKatz (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion initiated by banned sockpuppet removed per policy. - CheshireKatz (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do we have a What Wikipedia is article? Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these:
–Pomte 04:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy

Jimbo Wales violates section 2.2.4 of this policy on the talk page for Wesley Willis 216.164.51.162 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're picking on Jimbo for a single edit made back in 2003 - long before this policy clause existed. Congratulations, you've found evidence that the project has matured and that we are now more professional than we were years ago. I imagine you'd find the same in most of the older history pages. Rossami (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snitch!--Father Goose (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be that articles didn't even have talk pages, discussion went on the bottom. See for example some of the history here. Mr.Z-man 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He should probably be de-opped. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:52, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

To the section "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought I have added the following:

  • Reviews. Wikipedia does not review works of fiction or non-fiction, or provide digested summaries such as might be associated with reviews.

We do sometimes meet newcomers to Wikipedia who expect us to provide content similar to that provided by newspapers. This new addition is intended to support those who want to emphasize our encyclopedic mission.

Please hack up and edit mercilessly. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that addition ludicrous and I'm glad it's been removed. --Pixelface (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And your concern over content similar to newspapers is already covered by WP:NOT#NEWS --Pixelface (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if "digested summaries" means what I think I'm reading it as. We want to encourage terse(r) plot coverage in most points, and a good terse plot description could be taken as being a "digested summary". --MASEM 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's poorly stated. Please remove and I'll try to explain what I mean. I guess a first attempt would be "the kind of description you read on a DVD box or in a magazine when you're deciding whether or not to watch the movie." --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Promotional summary"? --MASEM 04:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, give us an offending example so we know just what it is you're trying to prohibit, 'cause I don't understand what this addition is aimed at.--Father Goose (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's trying to reinforce the fact that we include spoiler material in our plot synopses, by saying "We don't provide promotional reviews", promotional reviews being things that omit spoilers. This is part of Tony's ongoing campaign to make sure the decisions reached at WT:SPOILER never get overturned. Head over there for some context. Tony is also trying to get WP:SPOILER merged somewhere, and probably figures he can eventually do that here if he effectively adds the spoiler guideline in here, albeit in different words.
This addition doesn't make much sense to me, as what he's really trying to say is "We don't not include spoilers." We already have a guideline for this. Not every policy needs to be stated as one of the "not"s here. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:05, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of the history of this issue, and disgusted by it, but I'm willing to assume good faith on the chance that Tony isn't attempting to do exactly what you describe. If that is indeed what he's up to, this is a non-starter.--Father Goose (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant facts are already in the content disclaimer and have been for some years now. I agree that it isn't always necessary to put every policy point into this one, but I think there would be some value in this case.

The wording I have proposed has no bearing on Wikipedia:Spoiler, which merely determines whether we duplicate the content disclaimer in articles as an exception to our No disclaimers in articles guideline.

Another way of putting what I've proposed is simply this: Wikipedia is not a review site.

I can't even begin to understand what Equazcion says I'm doing, or what purpose I could have in doing so. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Wikipedia is not a review site" have to do with digested summaries? Wikipedia does not review works of fiction/non-fiction but it does contain citations to those reviews. If you say "Wikipedia is not a review site", that could mean the removal of all Critical reception sections. Plot summaries can only be provided under a claim of fair use and plot summaries without analysis may be construed to be a derivative work, so I really don't see any good reason why this page should contain your proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact that Wikipedia isn't a review site doesn't mean we don't want to report on the critical reception of works of fiction--rather the reverse. I haven't raised the question of non-transformative use of a copyrighted work, nor is a transformative use necessarily a review, so your comment on copyright is moot. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't mentioned what your aim is with that addition. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:10, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I could give some examples of promotional language such as "to find out what happens, read the book" or "Will Brett find true love?" which are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. However the style guide is probably adequate here. "Wikipedia includes spoilers" is already in the content disclaimer and not, as Equazcion appears to believe, the spoiler guideline. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to start arguing about spoilers here. The question is whether or not your addition belongs here, and by "the style guide" being "adequate" I'm assuming you no longer think it does, so I think we can consider the matter closed. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:30, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think such matters belong in the style guide. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which it already is. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:19, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I think what Tony is aiming for is already covered by WP:NOR, unless I'm missing something. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content ratings

I've posted a policy question regarding "Wikipedia is not censored" and content ratings to the Village pump. Morphh (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not perfect

I'm proposing to add a new section to the project page. Anyone who has been contributing to the Wikipedia project for a few years, as I have, comes across a steady stream of disillusioned users. Whether it is inability to agree on article content, reaction to perceived arbitrary Admin action or a paranoid clique defending their patch, or just good people being worn down by the vast number of defects to fix and lack of support in carrying out their work, the loss of valuable contributors all comes down to one thing: disillusionment at the realisation that Wikipedia is not perfect. Much better to learn this at the beginning. Wikipedia is not perfect, and it is not possible to fix everything all at once. But rather than give up and leave, it is more rewarding to make friends and/or move on to other areas of this vast project where your talents are appreciated and welcomed. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good content but does it really fit on this page? You can already refer them to meta:Eventualism, WP:REPLIES, WP:DEADLINE and WP:INSPECTOR (to name a few) which discuss aspects of what you're trying to say. Rossami (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned below, the page is getting quite long. This idea is of a different type from those already listed here. And of course the problem with listing it in all the other areas you suggest is that no one will find them until it's too late! Perhaps this idea would be more suitable in a how-to introduction page. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Nomic

There's a bunch of people who seem to think it is a nomic. (and no, it's not calvinball either :-P )

Would the page get too cluttered if that is added? Or do we have a whole "what else wikipedia is also not" page someplace? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have a section by that title on the page. Back in 2005-ish if I remember right. I'm not sure why or when it was removed from the page. My only concern about adding it back would be instruction creep. This page is already quite a bit longer than ideal. Rossami (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's kinda important. We have new people around again, who think that editing a policy page changes the rules.--Kim Bruning (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, people read policy pages so that they can understand the rules. When you change the description of a rule, then you change people's understanding of the rule and thus modify how it is applied. If you change how it is applied, then you have changed the rule. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia actually doesn't have rules, even though some people call them that. Pages in the project namespace summarize consensus reached across large parts of the wiki. Consensus can change long before someone finally decides to document what the consensus is. Like I said, wikipedia is not a nomic. (and this has in fact been policy for a long time, and likely still is, even though it isn't currently documented, for some reason :-P ). I know this to be true, and I am somewhat (in)famous for organizing calvinball matches at wikimania (calvinball is a kind of nomic) to illustrate how dangerous playing nomic can be to an organization. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Will you be in egypt, this year? Come play! :-)[reply]
Kim, you used the word "rules" and I responded in kind, now you switch the discussion to that nomenclature here and at my talk page, and are trying to lecture me on off-topic issues. You are being semi-clever, but not convincing. If you seek to persuade me you fail. If you seek to ridicule me, I don't think that anyone will be impressed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an easy trap to fall into. My apologies. I notice that I have actually used the word "rules" incorrectly on talk:Consensus. Let me fix that. After that my nomenclature should be consistent. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, Thanks. I do think that you are trying to move to a positive conclusion, and I appreciate that. The nomenclature is not important. Too much time is spent on euphemisms at WP. We don’t' have rules, we don't vote, we don't push POV. And if you really believe that .... OK, let's stop splitting hairs and get some meaningful issues on the table. --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have surprised many people who thought that those things were mere ideals. Wikipedia guidance is based on 7 years of experience. If you pay attention and apply things correctly, you can attain extremely good results in very short time frames. --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, you’re in fantasy land. You need to spend some time in the trenches and not in the ivory towers telling people how it should be. Go volunteer at Third opinion, try to save some articles nominated for AfD, or try to do some cleanup in a moderately controversial topic, and watch how people interact. --Kevin Murray (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a word of caution. You're not going to win many other opinions by casting aspersions against one of the project's most experienced editors. I may frequently disagree with Kim but credentials are not an issue. Rossami (talk)
I agree with kim, and I am in the trenchs that Kevin invited kim to. Kevin, Ive got 60,000+ edits and most of those are doing "trech" work, Ive been there done that. and Ive got the scars to prove it. instead of making attacks that have zero ground, try having a reasonable content based discussion. βcommand 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I respect your opinion and maybe I'm wrong, but at a minimum I would like to see broader comment from people before significant changes are made at our policy pages. I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong if people come forward to support Kim. But I am very concerned when I see a lot of activity by one editor at many policy pages without demonstrated consensus. If WP really worked in accordance with Kim's vision it would be a much better place, and you and I would have fewer scars. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else recently said something similar, about how wikipedia would be a better place. So then, I went ahead and just showed him.
Let's do the same here. What's a particularly tricky 3O case that you're worried about? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I'm encountering more and more people who I need to explain to that wikipedia is not a nomic. If someone has time, can they look why the Wikipedia is not a Nomic was removed in the first place? If there is no real reason other than to keep the page short, it would be nice if we could put it back, it's getting really necessary. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Nomic. Found the original addition, at least! I'll look to see why it was removed, later. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, I suppose it was redundant with "not a bureaucracy". I guess we can merge the text in there. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomic seems to have had some influence on Wikipedia culture, even if Wikipedia isn't one. The mere fact that this fairly obscure game, which appeared in a 25-year-old Scientific American column and in a little-known academic book on self-reference in law, is familiar enough to Wikipedians that it can be used and debated as an example of what Wikipedia is or isn't, or should or shouldn't, be like, is evidence that the meme of Nomic is particularly catchy among the sort of people who are also attracted to Wikipedia. Ask out on the street and you probably won't find a person in a hundred who's heard of Nomic, but among active Wikipedians the proportion is much higher. What exactly this indicates I'm not sure. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not objective.

See the claim put forth at WP:NPOV/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity and my edit that was reverted [3]. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Wikipedia does not consider objectivity. Rather, we consider neutrality and verifiability. Thus it is unecessary to use the term "objective" and possibly unwise given the irrelevant philosophical can of worms you open by doing so. Hyacinth (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do, however, feel that it in no way makes Wikipedia look bad to claim it is not objective any more than it makes Wikipedia look bad to claim that it is not omniscient. Hyacinth (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement, not policy

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

this is a policy. you dont need procedures or instructions to be a policy. βcommand 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you need more than an assertion.
Policy: 2 a: a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions b: a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body
Hyacinth (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures covers it, it says what is not acceptable. βcommand 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does one do with that information? Hyacinth (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discussion pages

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

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

Notability

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

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

to this:

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

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

I know its a guideline, but would it not make sense to suggest that these exist in not-so-strong language for reference?. For example, from the original version, I would add after the 3rd sentence and before the last. "Notability guidelines are available to assist in judging the appropriateness of the inclusion of a biography." (note BIO which is specific to people. I would recommend a similar change (not a strong assertion that notability guidelines are perfect) in the IINFO section. --MASEM 12:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think something like that might work. --Tony Sidaway 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deal with "game guide" content more directly

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

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

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

I agree with the split, and new proposed section. I've personally cleaned many articles up, and seen some reverted because they don't think it's game guide content. If a better section was made, this problem wouldn't be around as much. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the split also, though not necessarily the proposed language. This does need separate treatment. Given that NOT is policy, the actual wording will need a much more general discussion than just here. The discussion should involve at least the relevant WikiProjects, and probably should be announced at the VP. In thinking about what is appropriate, consider the articles on chess, many of which are very strongly supported by reliable published sources, and also very detailed. DGG (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, something about easter eggs and secrets should be listed in it. I've seen many "secrets" and "easter egg" sections on video game articles. Nothing out of control (that I've seen at least), but I think it's right to put it in this proposed section as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe. Certainly DGG is right that this needs more discussion to develop consensus. Although the example of monster hit point data is a good one (and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia), it is already covered with WP:NOT#STATS (and probably other things). Since "game guide" is used so frequently as a reason for deletion, it probably makes sense to spell out what we mean by that, but it is also a sometimes contentious claim—so I'm not sure we're justified in expanding its scope. For example, I would disagree with a prohibition on descriptions of strategies or easter eggs; both are things that are sometimes notable and widely written about. From my perspective, the reason that "game guide" appears here in WP:NOT is more of a stylistic issue than a content one: We must write about things in an NPOV, external manner, not by walking the reader through a tutorial or giving advice. Still, we can write about games and their noteworthy aspects (which might include easter eggs and bugs and strategies), as long as we do so using an encyclopedic style and employing our other various policies of neutrality and verifiability. — brighterorange (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should this statement by Jimbo be referenced or linked to? It is relevant to what Wikipedia is not (especially pertaining to game materials). Jappalang (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A NPOV manner is not incompatible with giving instructions on how to play a game, unless you mean we should also give instructions on how to play it poorly. NPOV doesnt seem to apply here at all, except as we would list the available sources in an even handed manner. Other things do, of course, but the only way to intelligently talk about a game to someone who doesn't know it is to explain at least in summary how to play it. actually this is the same as fiction: you have to explain the plot in order to know what you are talking about even at the very most basic level. On this I dont think Burtorange and I disagree in practice. There are articles with too much detail. where I think people differ, based on AfD discussions, is whether a list of the game objects is appropriate: I think that';s how a game is defined: the rules, and the objects, like the plot and the characters. Obviously again, we dont want to give all the detail--but there are not all that many articles here that give the detail to the extent I would expect in an actual guide to playing the game. DGG (talk)

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

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

  • I suspect my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons) helped to bring this discussion up. And I want to be sure that we don't see articles like the one debated there be considered a "game guide". I 100% agree that things like stats (hit points, AC, etc.) don't generally belong in a write-up (though something like Lloth's AC and hitpoints in Q1 might be relevant as showing how the D&D game has changed). But I don't want this to become "notable information that is part of a game doesn't belong here". I'd also like an explanation as to why Ruy lopez does belong here (which I think it does) even in the face of WP:NOT as it stands. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this proposal. I think it could be solved with a reword - remove the "how-to" implication and just make it a bit more broad. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with the proposal. As Hyacinth suggested, perhaps a lot of the confusion over this comes from terminology as well: "game-guide" can imply an actual guide to playing games (like a walkthrough or strategies), whereas "guide to games" can cover the broader elements such as in-game statistics, unit and weapon lists, Easter eggs, and all the other undesirable unencyclopedic information. I'd recommend using the latter in any new versions. -- Sabre (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(To Hobit) That's an example of the type of response I'm discussing, although I agree that the actual article in question there does go beyond game guide material. For the sake of argument, consider this old revision of an article about dragons Dungeons & Dragons. If I called that game guide material (which I do, and I think you might agree) and someone were to give the response you cite above, how should I reply? The response is somewhat correct—it's not instructional and it's hard to fit it into one of the four currently listed types (instruction manual, travel guide, internet guide, textbook) but I would definitely call it game guide content. That's why I'm proposing this change. Pagrashtak 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I view that article as a stub currently looking a bit like a game guide. I'm not being sarcastic. What I mean is that if someone had a list of characters from a show, or list of "minor" theories and only listed the roughest of details about each, it would be a worthwhile stub for people to fill in. I think the same thing is trying to happen there. The topic need not be a game guide, and once filled in (if it ever were) would not be. It may not be notable, but that's a different (and I'd claim the right argument. Again, I'm opposed to topics being off limits if they are notable. Ruy lopez should be in wikipedia because it is a notable strategy, even though WP:NOT might (I'd say _does_) imply otherwise... Hobit (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the AFD for that article, you'll see that notability was in fact the reason I gave for deletion. I mentioned game guide content secondly, since the article was entirely composed of such. I think we're getting a little off-topic, though, as this discussion shouldn't have anything to do with notability—that's for Wikipedia:Notability and its subpages to handle. This is about article content. Pagrashtak 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a fan site

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

Forum

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=186674416"