Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:NOT)
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

We are social[edit]

People sometimes quote wp:not as to pretend there is not a single social aspect to Wikipedia. We are not a social network, but I'd sure hope that we are not anti social. I tend to talk to people, and I like to tell people what I work on, which is based on my motivation to collaborate with other people. Out of those experiences I've even found a group of real life friends that I meet with regularly (you could call it a 'social network').

I was thinking of the following change:

The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective and social collaboration.

To me this is natural (implied by collaboration) and the 4th pillar supports this social aspect of the Wikipedia in my opinion.

However the amount of times people try to use this part of the policy to imply that we should all be some sort of robots makes me think we should make this balance more explicit. It is about the difference between a social network site and a collaboration site, not social vs anti-social. Both websites types have plenty of both social and anti-social interactions. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That would insert "and social" in the second-last sentence of the first point at not...social networking service? While I agree with what you say, that change seems a bit subtle, and I doubt its meaning would be understood by those who can't already grasp the difference between sociable collaboration and automated editing. The end of that section points to WP:User pages—that might be the page to spell out anything needed? Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. It'd be more helpful if you actually gave us an example of those people. But we actually have a policy that says Wikipedians are very social creatures: Wikipedia:Civility. It demands observing rules of social conduct and resolving the disputes in a social fashion: through consensus. People should not come here to socialize. But people who come here to edit article are required to be sociable.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I have actually noticed that some editors tend to form groups that always agree with each other in discussions. This is fine if they are correct, but often times it tilts the balance when trying to find a real consensus. I came to WP:NOT to find if there was something like Wikipedia is not a club, but found nothing. The closest I found was WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK but it doesn't really address this problem. I came to the talk page and this post actually seemed like the opposite of what I was expecting. I absolutely don't believe that this editor is purposefully trying to promote this kind of behavior, but I just want to point it out as a potential consequence of making Wikipedia closer to a social network. I'm just worried about this. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a very good point and should have its own section in the talk page. I think a new page should be made just to address this problem brought up by Hamsterlopithecus.Kswikiaccount (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
not a club? I'm not sure that's a very good motto for the behavior you're pointing at. I remember there are some policies which talk about getting input from independent, uninvolved Wikipedians when attempting to build consensus; maybe some clarification is needed in those policies or elsewhere, that the independent, uninvolved person shouldn't be someone with a history of working with one side or the other. 64.186.47.170 (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Admittedly I am/have only made use of Wikipedia as a reference tool, never "social" or for "social media", but it sure would be nice if folks on here were a whole lot nicer than they are. For instance I made some minor edits to the Mahalia Jackson and to the [Broken Trust ] wiki pages, additionally to the [Presley ]page. Well. You'd a thought I was committing cyber space heresy or something. 'Cite your source.' 'Cite your source.' Dude! I've cited my source. "Removed for failure to cite your source." What the heck? Anyway social or social networking Wikipedia sure ain't, BUT it would be a site nicer if people were nicer. You know what I'm saying? User:Forthe1789usconstitution —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Could someone start adding lists of x-rays? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.32.131.177 (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
IP 97.32.131.77, I think this is on the wrong page, and it is unclear what you are referring to. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Issue with "Wikipedia is not censored"[edit]

I am a new user who was reading through this page, and when I came to the end of the "Wikipedia is not censored section" I saw that "Wikipedia will not remove information or images concerning an organization merely because that organization's rules or traditions forbid display of such information online." To me it seems that this is potentially inviting users to post private information about individuals or organizations when those organizations or individuals would prefer for it not to be posted, such as when the organization could face legal action due to the disclosure. Thanks for considering this, Gluons12 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

That sort of thing falls under WP:OUTING, part of Wikipedia's harassment policy. The wording on this page is more about, say, Freemasons or Scientologists wanting to keep their rituals and traditions secret. clpo13(talk) 18:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
This is usually countered by two other policies: WP:BLP and WP:V. Any private personal information must be of the type that meets BLP policy, so if the organization doesn't provide it readily, and it's not documented anywhere else, we don't include it. And even when the information is not related to persons, verifyability requires us to be able to source this information, so if the organization doesn't publish it, we can't use insider knowledge for retaining the information. (And as Clpo13 gives, OUTING is further on this point) --MASEM (t) 18:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
However, the policy Wikipedia is not censored, while clear, is far more often referred to blatantly incorrectly than it is correctly, in that POV-pushers often yell "Censorship!" to "win" a content dispute about posting something that consensus thinks is undue weight. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Should bio sections be dedicated to Rumors?[edit]

I come across bios which have large sections of commentary supported entirely by rumors or gossip. See Cary_Grant#Rumors_about_sexual_orientation for instance, or Randolph_Scott#Personal_life, "Rumors" subsection. Should WP be a platform for such tabloidist commentary? There's been some debate about the question at Talk:Cary_Grant#A_massive_Sexion, and other issues related to adding photos to support the gossip. It seems to undermine the validity of many bios of famous people.--Light show (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not, unless such rumors are serious discussion of notable academic studies that generally give point/counterpoint if these rumors were true or not. While BLP does not apply to those long since dead, we still should absolutely respect their legacy and avoid such gossip/rumors. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "academic" here. We would be generally talking about biographies published by publishing houses, wouldn't we? Now, on occasion, an academic publisher might publish a biography of usually an academic but for others it would be a non-academic publisher (and most any modern biography, whether published by an academic house or not will likely dealve into the private life of a subject). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC) See also, [1] and [2], and [3] there are undoubtedly other examples. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, by "academic" I don't necessarily mean published journals, but that the work is done from more a scholarship, historian standpoint, being a secondary source, critical overview of the person's life, like a biography, rather than a journalistic source which typically just reports what has been said without transformation (aka primary sources). Rumors nearly always are primary sources. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that I linked to this issue at Cary_Grant#Rumors_about_sexual_orientation section. --Light show (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • There should absolutely no section titled "Rumors". There should absolutely no assertive statements based solely on rumors. Rumors themselves may be discussed in encyclopedic manner if they had a significant impact, e.g., ruined person's life (or something less drastic). "There are rumors that rapper Badass Bro humps Kitty Sue" is out regardless how many refs we can find. On the other hand "Goodass Sys dumped Badass Bro because of rumors he was humping Kitty Sue" is most probably OK. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't name the section "rumors". But the Grant and Scott relationship is heavily discussed by most of the major biographers on Grant and reputable publications. It's more than just the odd rumor, there's chapters in books devoted to it. We report here what reputable sources choose to place weight on, and I've done that with a decent paragraph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the title is "Rumors about sexual orientation"; it is not the same as "Rumors", the latter being rumor magnet. And I agree your text is to the point. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
What you did do however is again threaten a GF editor with being banned from WP or at least another article if they legitimately try to improve it. I had wrongly assumed ownership referred only to articles.--Light show (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This talk has an ambiguous title: "Should bio sections be dedicated to Rumors?", hence the confused answers. The phrase "commentary supported entirely by rumors or gossip" is inapplicable to Dr. Blofeld's: it is not supported by a single rumor or gossip. It writes about rumor and supported by solid evidence. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. And I've only discussed what has been extensively documented in reputable books and sources, not just reiterating one rumor written by Higham. Any decent article would document what multiple authors decide to write about. That's what we're here for, to compile the world's information and report what is widely reported elsewhere. I've condensed the article, but given the level of coverage the Grant-Scott relationship has had a sub section on it I don't think would be that unreasonable, it was balanced anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I found Higham's obit a tad pertinent to the case at hand

"That his motives were probably financial is suggested by his admission in an interview that there was “certainly a difference of an enormous number of sales” between his poetry books and his biographies. His Duchess of Windsor: The Secret Life (1988) might have been more aptly titled “Fascist, Lesbian Harlots at the Court of St James”, suggested one reviewer, who went on to observe that for the Duchess to have been guilty of even half the peccadilloes attributed to her, “early on she would have succumbed to exhaustion”. and
"In his unashamedly self-promoting memoir, In and Out of Hollywood (2009), Higham presented himself as a sort of Chandleresque figure, dedicated to sniffing out other people’s darkest secrets. Yet as he admitted, he hated interviewing people for his books, and critics remarked on how much of his work was based on the testimony of anonymous witnesses "The Daily Telegraph . Collect (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that given the reputation of the Higham source it should probably not be used. The problem is that there's a lot of details in it which I strongly doubt were made up, and I've proved that a few dozen sources from it actually check out and were accurate, so it's difficult to discredit entirely, unless you can prove at least a dozen inaccuracies in it beyond "Grant da gay". The article I think would be worse off without any of the Higham material, but then you could argue that it's probably best to avoid a controversial source so not be worse off. Accuracy and reliability is very important as well as the integrity of sources so perhaps it would be best to remove it. If the article was to proceed to FAC I'm sure somebody else would bring it up anyway. Believe me, if I'd known more about his biographies when I'd started I'd not have used the Higham source to start! I still think it's one of the best biographies on him overall when you actually read it though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Not a place to own your own quote farms[edit]

An editor finds an article with a large quote farm and posts intent on the talk page to clean it up. The farmer accuses the other editor of having "ownership issues" because of the post about intending to clean up the quote farm. The farmer has many other quote farms in the wiki-dell which apparently keep growing because of this attitude. If the farmer continues to put off those willing to do this work, how does the issue of the quote farms get solved? We hope (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

this version does not strike me as a quote farm. Please explain what is "quote farm" in your view. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Although the section "Confrontation with Erich von Stroheim" there does read as a poetry rather than encyclopedic discourse and may be replaced with 2-3 phrases. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeing 13 quotes in the Thalberg article along with ownership issues elsewhere as to "drive-by" editors removing them.We hope (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Having encountered Light Show's quote farms before, the situation is that there is an excessive use of quotes for things that do not need to be quoted, statements of fact that still need attribution but can be paraphrased because of the lack of subjective content. Taking the Irving Thalberg link, there's an unneeded quote in the lede (the Roosevelt quote), and in the Early Life section there's no need to quote "pragmatism" and "abstraction", nor need to spell out the exact text of the want ad. Several parts of the next section have what look like extended dialogs between two or more people, where that could easily be summarized by paraphrasing. That's just the first third of the article. Quotes should be used to support subjective statements but not used as a biographer might to liven up the text. One can achieve engaging prose without leaning so much on quotes, which can actually weaken text for need to introduce them, and of course too many start creeping into copyvio territory. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Masem, there are a lot more just like these. For lack of a better description think of King Midas and everything turning to gold, but in this case, turning to quote. :) People like Moxy want to clear up the quote farms, but are getting a lot of resistance. How can it be done with the least amount of trouble, other than just leaving them in place? We hope (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Coming to an article saying "This reads like a quote farm, I plan to clean it up" is not itself a sign of ownership; that's being BOLD (heck, one could do the cleanup without announcement). Ownership would only happen if there was significant editor backlash, either in response to the comments or in reverting the BOLD edits, and the editor doing the cleanup ignored these and continued on. That doesn't appear to be the case here - Moxy's actions linked above show no sign of ownership as they immediately backed off that plan when Light Show disagreed. That said, that means there should be discussion on those various talk pages if there is quote farm problems and a plan developed to clean those up if that's the case; editors refusing to access consensus that there is a problem and refuse to allow clean up to proceed themselves become the ownership problem. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG, you mean. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that to quote subjective statements is OK, and at my cursory eye most of them in Thalberg seem to be something subjective, although excessive. From my experience here, paraphrasing of subjective statements is a danger of unwitting POV spin, I fixed this many a time, by comparing with sources. Therefore "quite farm" cleanup requires "love and care". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what compelled We Hope to start a section unrelated to this Not page. It strikes me as a red herring digression from the "rumors" topic discussed above. In any case, as can be seen in my replies on Douglas's talk, my main complaint to the tagging was about a non-editor to this article simply driving by and announcing that they plan on "removing most quotes," which would be "extreme." When excessive quotations are based on a reasonable discussion, as for Irving Berlin, I went through the article and dealt with it.
The criteria I try to use when including a quote comes from a document Moxy relies on: "To present a particularly well-stated passage whose meaning would be lost or changed if paraphrased or summarized." I used that criteria, for instance, when adding this quote to Paul McCartney's article. Moxy deleted it although another editor restored it as being relevant. I realize that deciding when, where, or if a quote is useful is subjective, therefore disagreements are reasonable. That's where I assumed talk pages are of use. --Light show (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
An issue with a quote like the McCartney one is that it is just there for flavor. There is no aspect of that bio page that understanding McCartney's appreciation for Liverpool in his own glowing words is required. That's excessive quoting that isn't needed for an encyclopedic article. In a larger biography, it's great, but not here. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM seems to link to top of page instead of proper FORUM anchor[edit]

Solved: I thought I had javascript enabled but I had it disabled. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it just my system or does WP:NOTFORUM redirect to the top of the "What Wikipedia is not" page instead of paragraph "4. Discussion Forums" of the "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" section? The first time I followed WP:NOTFORUM I missed "4. Discussion Forums" because it was so far down and not in the table of contents and I didn't have time to carefully read the entire large page right then. The source shows that paragraph 4. has an anchor named FORUM, and the source of the redirect page for WP:NOTFORUM seems to point correctly to the FORUM anchor. When you click WP:NOTFORUM does it take you to the top of the page or to the proper paragraph "4. Discussion Forums"? Is it supposed to take you to the top of the page? Mindbuilder (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Takes me to "4. Discussion Forums" (Chrome on Windows 10). EEng 05:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had javascript enabled, but I realized that I didn't, and when I enabled it, it properly redirected to "4. Discussion Forums". Mindbuilder (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to work even for the disabled. EEng 19:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Should "excessive examples" be added to WP:INDISCRIMINATE[edit]

This RfC was closed because the proposer wishes to amend the RfC. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is consensus on WT:V that "self-sourcing" examples are excessive and should be removed. Uncited examples, examples cited to primary sources, or examples cited to sources that verify the example exists but do not discuss its significance should be challenged or removed. Should the following fifth category be added to WP:INDISCRIMINATE?

5. Excessive listings of examples. Articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put examples within the article in their proper context for a general reader. An example in an article should have secondary or tertiary sources that not only establish its verifiability, but also its significance in the context of the article.

BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose, not by near a correct summary of the RfC outcome (the RfC was about "pop culture references", not about "examples" in general – which would make it possible to add the RfC outcome to "trivia" related guidance, most of that guidance being essay or guideline level – there's no agreement to extrapolate that to "examples" in general, and certainly not at policy level) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should "self sourcing" examples-in-popular-culture consensus be expanded to any type of examples?[edit]

Early close because of immediately apparent consensus against the chagne. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is consensus on WT:V that "self-sourcing" examples in popular culture are excessive and should be challenged or removed. Should this "self-sourcing" condition be applied outside of in popular culture material, to any type of example? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, my misinterpretation of the previous consensus (see RfC above) puts a whole lot of edits I made into question. Please be merciful. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • No. What makes content encyclopedic or unencyclopedic is the context and purpose of how it is used, and an outright ban of all primary references ("self sourcing") of all kinds of examples in any context and for any purpose is outside the scope of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Diego (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Rule creep because even in the "in popular culture" situation, the need for sourcing is only an application — and an apparent application, at that — of WP:V (and if you read the closing of the RFC, all it really does and says is to repeat what V says). No special rule is needed for either situation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: "self-sourcing" also refers to secondary sources that don't discuss the example's importance in the context of the Wikipedia article. It's like WP:ONUS, (paraphrased) "this is verifiable, but merely pointing out it's verifiable/notable doesn't make it a good/significant example to be included." BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • No It's not clear to me which windmill you're tilting at but I see no need to change the current guidance. Over-reliance on primary sources is often addressed on the respective talkpages, which is sufficient. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment: Windmills like § In popular culture. The current consensus is adequate for removing those trivial examples, but the title of the section can be anything, hence the RfC. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

In that case you should argue against "sections which consist solely of examples", not against "any type of example", which is what you created this RfC for. And you'd then have to explain how that proposal is compatible with WP:LISTN and WP:Source list, which happen to allow such sections when the topic of the list is itself subject of independent commentary. In those cases, self-verifiable individual entries in the list are allowed, so you're arguing for a change in our list inclusion criteria. Good luck with that. Diego (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
By the way, the section you've used to justify this proposal is a terrible example for that. Most or all items in that list are high-profile commercial products distributed world-wide, and their backward compatibility has been largely discussed in specialized media (in particular for software, consoles and hardware peripherals). That section should be fixed by adding references, not with deletion. Diego (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Further discussion on Talk:Backward compatibility#Examples. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of commercial weblinks in text of an article[edit]

The article Phone sex includes "Big platforms as of 2016 are Niteflirt (http://www.niteflirt.com), TalktoMe (http://talktome.com), and My Phone Site (http://www.myphonesite.com);" with active click links to take the reader to the sites. This seems contrary to WP:NOT. But it seems appropriate to list the major sites by name if reliable sources say they are the main sites. If they were listed by name in the article text, would it then be appropriate to include them anywhere in the article? Edison (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, the guideline says " External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article." So the site would have to be "notable" by Wikipedia standards. If so should the link be embedded or should it be an "External link?" Edison (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(EC)There are 2 problems here:
  • inclusion of the name in the text. This would be against WP:NOADS unless there is an over-riding reason to put it into the article. Presumably "Apple" should be put into an article about computers, but a phone sex provider? I doubt it.
  • Any links to external sites like this should probably be in the external link section and subject to our external links policy.
    • So in general there are usually 2 reasons not to include these links.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A few things to consider: active URLs should not be visible in the text; mention should not occur if it's not sourced; content does not have to be notable, since notability is a criterion for article creation. Whether one wishes to then provide a url in the ref for convenience sake is a matter of editorial discretion. If each item mentioned is notable enough for their own article here, then a wikilink is sufficient, because the url should be available at the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the guide I quoted says " External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article." (emphasis added). "Content does not have to be notable" as you said, but it has to be verifiable and its inclusion must not give it undue weight. But to have an external link, it has to be notable. I assume this means "notable" per WP:N and not just "Notable as in common English usage." Edison (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
In the context, notable here means sufficient sourcing to provide a stand-alone article (per WP:N). If you can't support a standalone article for the company, then there should not be the link to it. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
On the NOADS aspect, if an independent RS (say the NYTimes) was doing an article on phone sex and stated those names as the largest of such providers, there's no reason not to include the names since that helps identify the major players. That said, the URL links are likely not needed as that is where NOADS starts tipping; if these services are notable, those companies will be blue-linked and their URL listed there, otherwise, we shouldn't include them. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with all the above, and removed the links per WP:EL. The lack of a good independent source is probably the most pressing issue for now. If these platforms are Wiki-notable themselves, they should have their own article where an "official" link can be added. GermanJoe (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I too agree with all of the above. The problem is solved. Good work everyone. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed[edit]

Wikipedia is not a page for promoting gender violence, abusive relationships and abuse; neither is it a how-to guide on how to torture abuse and exert violence on other people. In consequence with this articles who do fit this criteria will be erased and eliminated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.47.59.120 (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this is based on the editors opinion of BDSM themed articles, given their edits here and here, and here, amongst others. I'll also point out (to the IP editor) that ironically WP is not a soapbox either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
We are not going to delete articles in Notable topics just because you dislike them. Wikipedia is Not Censored. It includes articles on any topic shown to be Notable based on significant coverage in Reliable Sources. Our Neutrality policy is to accurately summarize what most Reliable Sources say about a subject. Please do not mangle image file names. Please do not tag articles with "mental illness" when the topic is generally not recognized as a mental illness by the medical profession. Please do not tag articles on consensual sexual topics as "rape". Please do not tag consensual BDSM as "violence against women", particularly when it is well established that the gender roles are interchangeable. You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, but it would probably be a good idea to get some experience editing other topics first. Alsee (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

The line following line in WP:NOTGUIDE appears to contradict WP:NNC: "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right " Also, it appears that, along with "internet content", the only type of content that is specifically prohibited is video game content. Sound like WP:IDONTLIKE applied on a systematic level to me.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Prisencolin, for all articles we give an "encyclopedic overview" of a topic, summarizing what Reliable Sources have published about it. For videogames, it's very easy and very tempting for enthusiastic people to add vast quantities of detailed information. We don't include that level of detail in other articles. Wikipedia is not a Game Guide for players. There are other, much better places dedicated a players looking for that sort of information. Including excessive detail makes it hard for a non-player to wade through trying to get a non-player overview of the subject.
I see you added a {clarification needed} tag to the text. I think the sentences after that tag, and the link to WP:VGSCOPE, do a reasonable job answering what sort of content should or should not be included. Do you have any objection to removing it? Alsee (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)