Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Aagh! UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!

I know that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be censored or anything, but a few pages contain pictures and other content that may be, to put it lightly, inappropriate for younger viewers. I'm not suggesting that the pictures be removed or anything, but can't we make some sort of "mature content warning" template, or something else of the sort, in order to prevent people from stumbling upon inappropriate content? (In particular, erotic, sexual, and/or violent content would require some sort of warning.) --Luigifan 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A warning is at Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Sancho 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. It's an inherently subjective and culturally biased distinction, and I don't think we should be introducing that into the encyclopedia deliberately. --Eyrian 17:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
If the content is appropriate to the page, I don't see the point. If you go to the page Breast and see a breast... I mean, what were you expecting? -Chunky Rice 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
See also WP:PEREN and WP:NDT. >Radiant< 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just want to do it to make sure someone else of given authority doesn't come in and do it for us, and then it would be much worse, like outright censorship. I think its important people put up images of relevance to articles like this one for Penny Arcade's "Legal Troubles" section [1] sorry I'm not sure how to link yet... it's important to see the picture but, well, that picture shouldn't be seen by everyone. TeH angRy nIgHtDescends 15:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an important point. Thought Police are found often these days, especially in America, if a specific disclaimer isn't put rather BOLDLY front and center of a website, where people can't miss it without being blatantly stupid. --Chr.K. 12:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Statistics and Wikisource

WP:NOT#STATS says

  • Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. (emphasis added)

However, as has been pointed out at some recent AfDs (eg here and here), Wikisource policy actually precludes lists of statistics or data. [2] [3]. While I agree with the rest of the paragraph, it seems to me that the sentence about Wikisource should be removed - unless anyone can think of another place to send primarily statistical articles...? Iain99 22:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody's objected yet, so I'm going to be bold and remove it. Iain99 11:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CRYSTAL addition

I've recently been involved in cleaning up rugby league articles of the form [[Team Name 2007]] where editors are adding a "Possible Run-On Team" - i.e. a prediction of which players may or may not take the field in an upcoming game. This seems fairly rife within rugby league articles, and may be or may become a wider issue if not dealt with. In most cases these line-ups are entirely unverified, sometimes there is a (often out of date) news report cited which, in turn, makes a prediction about the possible starting line-up. While we all appreciate the efforts of editors to keep Wikipedia current, making predictions about weekly future sporting line-ups contravenes Wikipedia:Original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOT and Wikipedia:News articles. In order to make this clearer, I have made the following addition to WP:NOT#CRYSTAL:

"Predicted line-ups of sporting teams or events on a week-by-week basis are inherently unverifiable, speculative and not individually notable. The line-up of a given team in a notable match may be reported after the match has taken place."

Deiz talk 10:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

While I think your addition is true, I think that it unnecessary to add to the list. It's overly specific. The general "crystal ballery" clause ought to be sufficient in this case. When we allow this page to get too long, people stop reading it and it becomes less useful rather than more. I recommend pulling the clause back out - but maybe tweaking the wording of an existing section. Rossami (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree about instruction creep, but its hard to find a balance between specific and general, if editors can too easily say "that doesn't apply to my edits.." then it defeats the purpose.. I looked at adding it to point #1, in retrospect that makes sense so I've given it a go. I also agree about the undesirability of policy pages getting long, although with :NOT editors are often directed to a specific section, hence the overall length of this particular page is perhaps not such a big issue. Deiz talk 15:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Way too specific. I think it should be removed. -Chunky Rice 17:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both sides: While I think the specific phrasing of the addition (sports team lineups) is way too specific, it might be good to add a fourth numbered item addressing this general pattern. I see this undesirable pattern in articles on TV shows, books, sports, companies, technologies, etc. Maybe something along the lines of "Speculation on details of future happenings is considered original research unless multiple reliable sources are cited"? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That's really covered by point 1 already - the sporting team thing is a little different to TV shows, I guess because it's "real world", and there is no definitive way to accurately predict it in even the most authoritative source - a journalist can receive an advance copy of a movie, show, product etc. and be quite certain about its contents or functions. Also, notable newspapers and websites make predictions about sporting line-ups and events, but while WP should present encyclopedic information from solid sources, publication in a notable source does not make speculation encyclopedic. Deiz talk 00:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
While I do think there is similarity to point 1, the present wording in point 1 seems to imply it's about events as a whole, rather than specific details of an event. Maybe we should adjust the wording to point 1, then? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been streamlined into #1, seems to flow pretty well. Deiz talk 03:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an Appeals Court nor a Venue for Academic Discussions

That pretty well sums it up. Whether or not this is a new distinction or is simply a restatement of the existing "nots" (or some of them) it would be helpful to have these concepts (or result of the existing concepts) stated explicitly. They speak directly to an issue that has kept NOR tied up in discussion for years. --Minasbeede 10:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure... most of WP:NOT applies mainly to article space... I assume that this is to address the "primary/secondary" source issue that's an ongoing matter of intellectual horn-locking (myself included). As long as it goes to TPG as well, it might be worthwhile. SamBC(talk) 10:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Falls under WP:NOR. >Radiant< 11:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Radiant, I think the intent was to apply this to policy/talk rather than article space. As such, it may not belong here, but it is more general than any specific NOR debate, and could be seen as going to the root of the current chaos (for want of a better word) at WT:NOR. I'm not saying I agree with it, but if NOT doesn't cover non-article stuff, then what does? SamBC(talk) 12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It's meant to be part of/consistent with the existing list of enumerations of what Wikipedia is not and the underlying intent is for it to illuminate the actual issue that has been contended at WP:NOR for so long, with no actual resolution or consensus. (The discussion of sources isn't just more than a year old, it's several years old. The source typing hasn't flown, there is no consensus - else the discussion wouldn't keep restarting.) The issue that source typing is intended to address is real enough and it is fully appropriate for the policy to take a stand against the behaviors that create the issue.
It might have been better to use the word "scholarly" than "academic" above: the arguments that cause a problem when brought into Wikipedia seem to be scholarly arguments (without my meaning to imply that the one bringing it in is or is acting like a scholar.) I can appreciate that someone could have a better grasp on the meaning of something than all those who have analyzed that something in the past. When accepted by the appropriate body of scholars that better grasp could and should appear in Wikipedia, if it meets the notability criterion. Until then Wikipedia isn't the place for it to be introduced. I am, as far as I can tell, agreeing with the desires and motives of those who would have the source-type language in WP:NOR but as that has not worked (else there'd not be such a long-running discussion about source typing) I prefer to pick a different place and way to get the idea expressed as policy.
There might occasionally be exceptions, this may not need to be an absolute ban. In general, if it isn't pretty clear that something is an exception then it isn't one, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Part of the situation is that a new interpretation could be accepted and embraced by the appropriate scholarly community yet actually be, as subsequent future scholarship demonstrates, wrong - the original interpretation was better. The purpose of this paragraph is to indicate where Wikipedia sits in relationship to such matters. Wikipedia follows rather than leads - other than in the rare exceptional case that can be seen to be a rare exceptional case. In such a circumstance Wikipedia would follow the (assumed for the sake of argument) incorrect interpretation. Too bad, everyone lost on that one. Wikipedia is also not the venue for rearguard defenses of scholarly ideas. (It's also my hunch that such cases would be so rare that there's little need to be concerned about whether or not Wikipedia backs the "right" interpretation. The combination of rarity and probable minuscule impact for most such scholarly issues serves to reduce the overall significance of such debates, as they interact with Wikipedia, to almost zero. The appropriate scholarly community will decide soon enough, with "soon" being on the scholarly time scale. It's not Wikipedia's function to accelerate the operation of the scholarly community. It might happen, but Wikipedia can be firm in following its policies, one of which, real or implied, is that Wikipedia isn't designed to be and is not the place to hasten scholarly acceptance of anything (nor to preserve anything.) You guys - that is, some community of scholars - got a problem? You guys go fix it, and then let us know. Scholars, take care of your disputes among yourselves and don't try to enlist Wikipedia as your advocate nor use Wikipedia as an outlet for your frustration..) --Minasbeede 15:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, especially with your clarification of your reasons, I don't think it's wise to get it shoe-horned into WP:NOT. Try working on a way to describe what we think is the underlying issue that can then be posted as a new section to WT:NOR. I'll work on it with you if you like (feel free to email me). SamBC(talk) 15:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


I appreciate that and also the notion behind it. (Here it comes.) But I think that the problem is that what is happening currently is a distortion in the other direction. The real issue that has dragged on so long in WP:NOR is a WP:NOT issue: Wikipedia isn't the place for such things to first appear, period. If you were to contend that this notion is already implicit in WP:NOT I fully agree, but that hasn't sufficed, leading to a spill-over into WP:NOR, where the attempt is being made to use a classification of sources approach to handle a behavioral problem: people trying to push their interpretations in Wikipedia for matters that are, at heart, scholarly issues.
As I indicated above I'm not lobbying for this to be another of the enumerated things that Wikipedia is not, I'm only suggesting that this further specification of what Wikipedia is not appear somewhere in the WP:NOT page. As originally expressed above the ideas is quite succinct (a tremendous virtue.) That, or something like that, could possibly be put into WP:NOT. All this extended discussion would end up in the archives. The number of words needed to discuss is far greater than the number of words needed to express.
If the words appeared (in some form) in WP:NOT then WP:NOR could say that "as expressed in WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not the place for novel interpretations of seminal texts to first appear. These are proscribed original research. Wikipedia isn't the venue for scholarly conflict; don't attempt to make it be that. It won't work." --Minasbeede 15:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know if there's an official policy (or relevant discussion) about linking to thematic Flickr groups in the external links section of an article. I see many removals of links to flickr groups covering important events/topics per WP:NOT#SOCIAL. Whereas I understand the point of avoiding links to social networking sites in general or to individual photo streams with the sole aim of showing off, I don't see why links to selected flickr groups should be less worth than someone's website documenting an event/topic. Flickr groups are in many cases the richest source of images (often Common Content-licensed) available on the net on a given topic. Feedback appreciated --DarTar 11:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Flickr is an image host. However, Commons is also an image host. If images are appropriate to an article, why not put them on Commons (or on enwiki) and display them in the article? If images are not appropriate to an article, linking to them on Flickr isn't appropriate either. >Radiant< 12:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the quick reply, Radiant. I agree about the Commons option as a general rule, but sometimes one or two images are enough to illustrate a Wikipedia article while it may be nice for users to have access to external resources with a large number of relevant pictures on the topic. Two cases I bumped into recently: an article about a recent lunar eclipse and an article about the old Smithfield market in London. Both topics have groups with extensive coverage in Flickr but the link to the Flickr Smithfield group was recently deleted as inappropriate. That's why I'm asking whether Flickr qualifies as one of the sites that should always be banned by WP:NOT#SOCIAL no matter what, which I find a bit difficult to understand. --DarTar 12:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Troubleshooting guide

We need to add that wikipedia is not this as we've just had this occur: [4] and it seems we have to make sure its spelled out.--Crossmr 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to put every single possible "not" scenario here. Just argue using the already existing "not an instruction manual" section. -Chunky Rice 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Zoosexuality ilegal?

The page says sex with animals is illegal. I don't think thats true can anyone verify that? -Icewedge 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on where you live. I'm confident that there are jurisdictions were it is and ones where it is not.-Chunky Rice 00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
alt.sex.beastiality supposedly has/had a compliation listing legality by state. Don't subscribe, so can't verify. One easily found website http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/beastlaw.html displays the compliation, but appears to be outdated (last revision 1997). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthastjames (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the complaints department?

I've got an article where people are repeatedly violating WP:SOAP but have no idea who to complain to? It's just a never ending edit war with certain editors who, and I'm sorry for the personal attack, can not have any sense talked into them. Reply here or on my talk page, thanks -- 146.115.58.152 08:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So, I get what Wikipedia is NOT. How about a what it IS article since that's a bit like trying to describe an orange by saying "an orange is NOT a horse. an orange is NOT a pool cue. an orange is NOT a watermelon." etc..

65.28.7.101 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Richard

What it is is NOT

So, I get what Wikipedia is NOT. How about a what it IS article since that's a bit like trying to describe an orange by saying "an orange is NOT a horse. an orange is NOT a pool cue. an orange is NOT a watermelon." etc..

65.28.7.101 05:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Richard

Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The caveats make more sense by highlighting what it is not. Deiz talk 05:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
A basic summary of what Wikipedia is can be found here. Useight 02:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Censorship and footnotes

There is currently a dispute (here) on whether footnotes are considered as "censorship".

Generally I prefer that all externally linked sources should go as footnotes in the "Notes" section. Thus this is what I have done. [5]

However, other users respectfully disagree, suggesting that putting such sources in the <ref> </ref> format amounts to censorship. The argument is that as footnotes in the Notes section, references are "less visible to our readers".

What do you guys think?Bless sins 04:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I think that's probably the worst argument I've ever heard. Have you tried showing them the MoS? --tjstrf talk 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an quotes are not sources. They are part of the content of the article. We have a general guideline about not using the qur'an as a primary source, and as such, qur'an quotes are part of the article content, as the secondary sources give the verses as part of the content. Thus it really isn't a reference. This content shouldn't be hidden as if it were references when it isn't.--SefringleTalk 01:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not the verses that are in question but the verse numbers. So it is things like "3:13" or "2:22" or "114:4". These provide the reader with no useful information. The only time the user will want to know this is when he/she is interested in considering the sources used. At that point the user can simply click on a ref and the reference will be there in the notes/references section.Bless sins 02:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
so you admit the purpose is to hide the verses so that they no longer are part of the article content, and are thus treated as references, only of intrest to a person checking the sources. Sounds like censorship to remove the verses from the content.--SefringleTalk 02:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
How is it censorship if the content is still in the article? Please read the applicable policy (WP:NOT#CENSOR). Are they being put into footnotes because they are somehow offensive? Mr.Z-man 20:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. They are put there to hide the verses. SefringleTalk 22:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet the verses are never actually "hidden". They are simply in a different section.Bless sins 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I rememember an article, Sefringle, where listing Dylan's former status as a Christian was likewise a part of some anti-Semitic conspiracy. ;) I see no problem with listing the surahs in the references. Everything else goes there. I can't see why a sacred book should be any sort've exception. Drumpler 06:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion concerning WP:NOT occuring on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans

A discussion concerning the intepretation and application of WP:NOT#DIR subsection 5 (cross categorization) is occurring on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans. All those interested are invited to join the discussion. Leuko 17:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I have archived all the threads completed by August 31, with the exception of the discussion on Not#Trivia. Although the early threads are no longer active, there is still debate about this and it seems useful to keep the whole discussion here for now. The whole discussion of this topic can be moved to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Trivia when it is complete. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles on notable subjects that inevitably include some "how-to"-ish information

There seem to be some subjects that just lend themselves to including "how-to"-ish information. See, e.g., Dog#Dangerous_substances, which includes statements such as "cooked bones should never be given to dogs". Or cover letter, which is almost completely given over to advice/tips. Where do we draw the line as to what is OK and what is an unacceptable how-to that Wikipedia is not? Basically what I'm asking is, Is there a way that a Wikipedian can know the standard prior to investing time in writing an article, as opposed to just hoping that people will agree with him on the AfD page that it's OK to include? Because as far as I can tell, it's just a subjective call that seems to be unevenly enforced. Captain Zyrain 20:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is almost always with the wording rather than the content. Whenever there is an article that states, "You shouldn't do something", the best way to handle it is to ask, "Why shouldn't this be done?" The answer is usually what the "you shouldn't" should be replaced with. Maybe we should set up a template "Why?", like {{fact}}, to mark these sentences with - as in, "You should never let a dog lick antifreeze."[Why?] Chubbles 21:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Sometimes it's as simple as changing imperative (do this, do that) and eliminating "should" statements. Other times you have to remove details that are only useful as a matter of giving how-to advice. Sometimes things written from a "how to" perspective don't give all the possibilities or context, they just give step by step instructions. So you have to generalize sometimes. As an illustration, I've cleaned up both of those examples, cover letters and dangerous substances for dogs. I can't pretend I did a great job, but at least it gets rid of that problem and (I hope) improves the article. Often, when you start editing like this it's like shaving a cat. You take more and more fluff off and when you're done you see there's almost nothing inside there. The cover letter article is like that - I'm not sure there's enough there for an article. Food articles are susceptible to this problem because they often read like recipes. Eliminate the recipe and there may be no article left. Out of respect I try not to delete any of the ingredients or steps, but I do try to write it as a factual description of how the food is cooked rather than an instruction on cooking. Wikidemo 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that recasting "how-to" content is the proper way to handle this issue, and the clean-up is an improvement. But it still leaves NOR issues, because issues of what "should" be done are POV, and need to be attributed to a person or group qualified to give this advice. For example, who says cooked bones should not be given to dogs, and is there a counter POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 12:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tabloid news

Forgive me if I missed the discussion of this, but I could not find anything in the recent archives. Two problems with this: 1) WP:CREEPWP:NOT#NEWS in a section that is already widely misinterpreted, and 2) tabloid is technically a physical format, although it is also associated with a journalistic style. I can see this leading to people saying that the way a newspaper is folded makes it an unreliable source--absurd of course, but there's lots of absurd interpretations of this policy. If the intent is to depreciate gossip or something specific like that, I would not object to a separate entry for this. But I think we need to be very careful about unintended consequences of changes to policy. Dhaluza 20:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another wording, or a link to the article about tabloids (the gossipy crap magazines). I do think it needs to be mentioned. Garion96 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If it needs to be mentioned, it also needs to be balanced to avoid making this even more one sided than it already is. Also the issue is tabloid journalism, as opposed to competent journalism, not tabloid news, which is too broad. How about this:
Routine and insubstantial news coverage, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalism, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial.
-- Dhaluza 00:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Tabloids are too broad? What do you want, microfiche? That is a joke.--Father Goose 03:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "Wikipedia is not the newspaper. If you want to write about items in the news, do it here." Pretty hard to misunderstand that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to write news items, then you should contribute to Wikinews. But a timely topic can appear in both--they are not mutually exclusive. We do have an "In the news" section on the main page for example. So the point is to give reasonable guidance on what goes where. Dhaluza 10:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Any news event that is likely to have historical significance belongs in Wikipedia, although often it can just be added to an existing article.--Father Goose 18:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree very strongly with the first part of that opinion. Some news events may belong in Wikipedia but only after their historical significance is apparent. We can not be in the business of guessing the likelihood of future significance. Remember that we have no need to scoop anybody. We are an encyclopedia. We can afford to wait.
News stories belong in WikiNews. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree - significant coverage in reliable outside sources is required of articles, but it is not a sufficient condition - there are plenty of news stories (esp. local news, human interest pieces, etc) that would clearly never merit an article here. --Cheeser1 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Those pieces are easy to identify as not having historical significance. I scanned Google News quickly just now and saw three stories that, sure enough, have been added to Wikipedia, and rightfully so: the launching of Dawn; the 2007 Burmese anti-government protests, and the mistrial of Phil Spector. The Phil Spector coverage is more detailed than what will remain in Wikipedia in the long term, but it's exactly the right amount of detail for someone wanting to research Spector at this moment in time.
Wikipedia has received quite a bit of favorable press over its ability to consolidate information regarding high-profile current events -- for instance, "The Latest on Virginia Tech, From Wikipedia". This is a strength of ours, and we should play to it. Does that mean we should ever cover "Mrs. Jones' Kitten Rescued from Tree"? Obviously not. It's clear there are plenty of people out there who don't have a clue of what does and does not belong in Wikipedia. But I don't think any of us discussing this issue right here would have trouble correctly identifying which current news items could be constructively added somewhere within Wikipedia and which couldn't. It doesn't take a crystal ball, just a brain.--Father Goose 05:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If it were as easy as that, we wouldn't have all the problems we do with the non-notable stories being included and then deleted. It's easy to cherry-pick the stories at the extreme obvious edges of the spectrum but the policy has to work and provide actual guidance in the gray middle ground. And the evidence shows that as a community, we do a really poor job there. I do not consider this a strength of Wikipedia. We get lucky occasionally but more often we only frustrate authors, confuse readers and waste resources. I still believe very strongly that we need to move all those stories over to WikiNews. (By the way, that's where NYTimes should have gone for their content in the first place.) The story can come back to Wikipedia after the encyclopedic content truly is obvious. Rossami (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Wikinews and Wikipedia are not mutually exclusive, but it takes some judgment to set the line between what is encyclopedic and what is not. Just because some editors use bad judgment, that does not mean that we must wait until every subject is old news before writing about it here. There is good reason to collect the facts while they are timely, and then edit the article over time to provide more historical perspective. Many online news articles disappear behind pay-walls after a short time, and become more difficult to find later. By capturing them when they are current, and especially archiving them while still avaialble online, we make a better encyclopedia, which is what we are supposed to be doing. Dhaluza 10:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, you can't legislate against bad judgement, and you certainly don't want to ban good content, by accident or otherwise, in the process.--Father Goose 05:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
For some important perspective here, look at the original formulation of this section. It was only added recently by Jimbo Wales, specifically in reference to BLP issues related to an arbitration case. In the few short months it has been here, it has been taken completely out of context to support a crusade to delete articles with timely subjects, even where there are no BLP issues. Dhaluza 10:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I find what it says at the present time reasonable, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were some people interpreting it as "delete all news".--Father Goose 05:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The section should really be modified as it is somewhat confusing. To be honest, actual news articles with no lasting significance should be on Wikinews (such as a shooting that, while on CNN or FOX for a day as "breaking news", disappears after three days), but a shooting which is on the scale of Virginia Tech which has lasting significance will most likely be encyclopedic and should be on Wikipedia. Will (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Diverting Misguided Participants to Wikiversity

Wikiversity is (or will be) some of the things Wikipedia is Not. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:What_is_Wikiversity%3F Discussions intended to educate or influence people could easily exist there and take a lot of pressure off of some of the more controversial talk page. Accurately labeled POV and pro and con analysis too detailed for a general encyclopedia might add value there. Is it appropriate to place a couple of links to Wikiversity within this policy to help Wikipedia participants take unwelcome activity off of Wikipedia and add value with it at Wikiversity or should these kind of links be on individual talk pages or within the template/boxes/placars that some Wikipedia users paste all over lengthy talk pages? Lazyquasar 10:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiversity is GFDL-compatible and is a sister project under WikiMedia. Seems like it would be fine to me. Rossami (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A problem?

Hi.

I saw this:

"Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etcetera. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge."

But even things that are part of "rejected knowledge" may be fair game for Wikipedia. For example, various discredited and outright false scientific theories like N-rays may be fair game. Hoaxes may be too. None of those things are "accepted", they are rejected.

If it means "the existence of the idea is well-known", this has less to do with original research and more to do with notability, significance, or importance (see also WP:FAME.). Original research does not have to do with attention, it has to do with the origin of the "research" or information in question, namely that it must not come from Wikipedia. If one publishes their crazy idea for a machine called a "Zarbler" on Wikipedia that is original research and not permitted since the user who put it there is considered part of the "entity" called "Wikipedia". If, on the other hand, one submits the idea to some respected publisher or other third-party source and it gets published, then that is it's source, not Wikipedia. However, whether or not it is game for inclusion then is then indeed contingent upon attention drawn to the subject, but this is beyond the scope of the no original research policy, and is instead an issue of notability. In addition third-party attention may be required to generate independent points of view so a neutral point of view article may be written that is also verifiable, however once again we've tread beyond the scope of the no original research policy. Hence this does not make sense in a section referring to original research concerns. mike4ty4 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You're missed it though: If a hoax or failed scientific theory is well documented, then we're still reporting on its existence, which is established by outside sources. The article on N-rays has references. If I were to insert "N-rays cause death by destroying the brain" that would be original research (I just made it up). But information about hoaxes or other falsities is still relevant and encyclopdic if it can be sourced. N-rays themselves are not accepted as being real, but they are an accepted part of scientific lore. --Cheeser1 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble... Animal artists?

I'm sorry, but, I'm new here, and cen someone help me find an animal artist...--Jessie caa S 02:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#TRIVIA

"Trivia collections. Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility." There needs to be a consensus on the definition of "trivia" or I'm going to remove this sentence. Saying "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" is very different than "Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided." Also, there needs to be a consensus on the definition of "indirectly-related" or I'm going to remove this sentence. And why is it in the WP:NOT#INFO section? Policy flows from consensus, not the other way around. If this section has been included in WP:NOT because Jimmy Wales made a declaration[6], it needs to be ascertained whether that statement was descriptive or prescriptive. And, there needs to be a consensus here on the definition of "trivia." I have also asked the following question on WP:TRIVIA if anyone is interested: What's the definition of "trivia"? --Pixelface 18:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I just changed that from "Trivia collections" to "Trivia sections", since "Not a trivia collection" is being used in AfDs to justify the deletion of things that aren't trivia sections, and there is no consensus on Wikipedia for a position broader than "avoid trivia sections" at this time.--Father Goose 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
and even so, its' "avoid" not "eliminate." DGG (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Considering the intense traffic at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_trivia_sections since at least several months, I would claim that not even "avoid trivia sections" is consensus. Mlewan 12:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Any general encyclopedia is different things to different people. It's as though a physical science encyclopedia has been merged with a philosophical encyclopedia has been merged with a historical encyclopedia etc. It appears that Wikipedia merges an encyclopedia on serious subjects with an encyclopedia on non-serious subjects. If the conflict over trivia arises because some cannot tolerate the non-serious intermixed with the serious then it will go on forever. I suggest that readers can generally distinguish the less serious stuff from the more serious stuff and are aided in making this distinction if the less serious stuff appears under the heading "trivia." That seems to work so leaving trivia in (and not trying to exclude it) passes the pragmatic test. Wikipedia isn't like the EB. One of the differences can be that Wikipedia has trivia sections that are recognizably non-serious. Why not? --Minasbeede 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of seriousness, it's a question of organization. Trivia sections are inherently disorganized. They end up attracting facts that are already in the article, facts that ought to have been put in a more prominent place in the article, facts that ought to be in other articles, and facts that are pretty much useless ("so-and-so once visited Iceland"... and?).--Father Goose 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you seriously claim that it would be impossible to write a good easy to read well organised list of bullet points with facts that only indirectly touch the topic in the main text of an article? Mlewan 11:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, they attract all those things, but they also attract interesting, verifiable content that wouldn't fit into the article anywhere else.--P4k 04:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
More often, they attract "I saw a corset in a video, so I'll put it in the Corset article" pervcruft. --Orange Mike 13:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There is value in documenting prominent appearances of a subject. Removing non-prominent mentions is a no-brainer; removing prominent mentions is an overreaction.--Father Goose 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sections vs. collections

Note: let's call a spade a spade, shall we? This whole discussion is about the remove of the trivia section of this policy. Therefore, I have renamed this talk section. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it just needed a new heading when the subject changed. I added that heading below.--Father Goose 22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"No trivia collections" is too open-ended, and can be used to slaughter anything deemed trivial. Articles containing nothing but trivia lists are covered under WP:TRIVIA, since they're nothing but trivia sections. I have witnessed no consensus for any position stronger than this -- establish that one exists first.--Father Goose 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, I'm sure there was a consensus at some point, otherwise it wouldn't be in WP:NOT. For another, the text doesn't just say "no trivia collections", it explains what that means quite specifically. Anyone saying, in an AfD, nothing more than "this is trivia, get rid of it" should actually be referring back to the actual text of the point in WP:NOT and explaining how it's trivia in those terms, and even then that's not an automatic deal-breaker. SamBC(talk) 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If "trivia collections" is qualified as meaning "trivia sections", then "trivia sections" is all it should say. If the text in WP:NOT is "[Wikipedia is not] trivia collections", that opens the door to saying "this is a trivia collection" towards things that aren't trivia sections. Maybe a true trivia policy will emerge some day (perhaps Wikipedia:Relevance of content), but for now, there is a very limited consensus on Wikipedia against trivia sections only.--Father Goose 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

+

Yes, WP is not a trivia collection only means that WP as a whole is not predominantly or in large part devoted to trivia--and any extension beyond that is unjustified. "Trivia collection" has too many possible meanings--it could be used to eliminate any item of information--personally, I can and do regard all of pokemon as utter trivia; I can understand that someone might regard the early medieval popes similarly--but neither of us represents the consensus there. For a guideline to be accepted it has to have general agreement, not represent a POV. DGG (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with DGG's point that "trivia" is a subjective term; there's simply no definition of what constitutes "trivial" information. To some extent, trivia is anything that isn't directly relevant to the subject's notability; however, by this standard, info about the childhood and family of a notable person would be regarded as "trivia", yet this info is standard (and rightly so) in encyclopedia articles. Certainly, we should avoid arbitrary "trivia sections"; any information that is sufficiently relevant to be in the article can be moved into the main body of the text, and we can break down this false distinction between "trivia" and "non-trivia". An example could be what I did today here on Chief Justice Murray Gleeson's article. Of the three facts in the "trivia" section, two were sufficiently relevant to be moved into the main text of the article (which I did), and the other was sufficiently unimportant that I removed it. WaltonOne 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of trivia criteria

I say we eliminate the blurb on trivia sections. It's misleading, with the implication that WP:TRIVIA is official policy. Also, per the TFD for Template:Trivia, there's no consensus that "trivia sections" are inherently bad, though I personally don't like them. I won't remove the passage now, in the interest of further discussion. szyslak 11:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd remove it. It's effectively turned WP:TRIVIA from guideline into policy, and it's a disputed guideline as it is.--Father Goose 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Per the discussion above and here, I believe there is a consensus to remove this, so I'm being bold and removing it. DHowell 02:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there is also a lot of discussion about this at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Trivia. Many people would like this kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but WP:TRIVIA clearly states that it's a guideline, and like any guideline, it attempts to present an interpretation of policy (specifically, WP:NOT#TRIVIA). Trivia sections are presented in an unencyclopedic fashion, essentially a list of indiscriminate information (the only qualification: some relation to the article's subject). This is absolutely natural to include in WP:NOT, and makes perfect sense. While there is "no consensus" that trivia sections are bad, we could easily find no consensus for the fact that indiscriminate lists aren't so bad either - after all, information is useful (I've seen votes on AfDs saying "This is information, and Wikipedia needs as much information as possible" in spite of WP:N and WP:NOT#INFO). If you want a collection of all the information in the world, in bullet-point form, wait 10 years for Google to index everything. Until then, Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a collection of encyclopedia articles with laundry-lists of trivia tacked onto them. The information is presented in an unencyclopedic way, it's not necessarily connected to the article appropriately, and any information could be integrated into the article to create something that is decidedly better. Trivia sections do nothing but take away from Wikipedia. Policy reflects this fact, and does so pretty explicitly and fairly. --Cheeser1 09:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser has said all I would like to have said. Trivialism, in its various forms such as "popular cultural references to TOPIC" (A/K/A "Spot the TOPIC") is one of the most embarassing aspects of Wikipedia in its present form. --Orange Mike 13:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
"Trivia sections" might need to be discussed as two different problems, one being the enthusiasm for loosely organized bullet lists (which several editors seem to consider a superior form of organization), the other being the perceived notability of "In pop culture" topics in every article, which seems to be what you're calling "Trivialism". Both are bad in my opinion, but when talk about one gets conflated with the other, I think it confuses the issue for some editors, increasing opposition to the policy.
Sign me up as a Cheeserist. Long live Cheeserism. / edg ☺ ★ 14:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you aware of the history of the Trivia section here at WP:NOT, but it actually derived from the guideline, not the other way around. As far as there not being enough discussion to merit removal, to be fair, it's about the same amount of discussion that took place before it was added. -Chunky Rice 14:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do people keep defending rubbish? There have been attempts to remove from WP:WAF the good and fully NPOV-based advice against succession boxes in fiction articles, there's the awful rewrite proposal at WP:FICT, and now likeminded individuals go on a rampage for their beloved trivia sections. Honestly folks, what's the matter? This is not a fansite. There are thousands of other, more appropriate outlets. Wikipedia has editorial standards, which it needs to distinguish itself as an encyclopedia. You should either embrace those standards and work on improving yourselves as editors, or you should leave. You should not however try to undermine the very basis of what Wikipedia is (and, not incidentally, is not) in order to turn it into something other than an encyclopedia. Sorry for the rant-like comment, but this kind of thing gets to me at times. — [ aldebaer⁠] 14:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Especially with entertainment topics, a number of editors feel a lot of WP:OWNership of their subject articles of interest. They do consider this free web space, and they don't recognize any reason this is not a fan site. All they have to do is change the rules, and they are doing it. / edg ☺ ★ 15:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This is kind of obnoxious. I've deleted a lot of trivia and excess in fan articles. This seems like a huge failure of WP:AGF on both your parts. But, sure, because I want well written, objective criteria, I'm trying to destroy Wikipedia, sure. -Chunky Rice 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if it came across like that, that was not intended. I'm really just concerned about editorial standards and (as perceived by myself and some others) their partly considerable underappreciation among some folks. I myself have been cleaning up trivia sections without simply removing them, which of course is the preferred action. [7], [8], [9] — [ aldebaer⁠] 15:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see your point, other than I've been scolded and you're not trying to destroy Wikipedia, and yet you disagree with me on something. Are you saying that there isn't a problem with editors like I just described? Or is your sole point that you are not such an editor yourself? / edg ☺ ★ 15:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
My point is that this kind of discussion is not productive. You made an assertion about the editors who have attempted to hold back instruction creep and fight for well written policy by making an ad-hominem attack about them and their motives. The people here are trying to come up with a workable policy. Acting like anybody who doesn't agree with you is trying to "change the rules" to keep their "fancruft," is not useful and probably counter-productive. Why don't we focus on the issue at hand instead of name calling? If you have a suggestion as to an objective definition of "trivia" that we can apply across all articles, I'd love to hear it. -Chunky Rice 16:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should not degrade into name-calling and the like. I would say that "trivia" as defined in the policy was, essentially, lists of more-or-less unrelated facts (although, please note, that a list of unrelated facts could go by "trivia" or "miscellanea" or any number of monikers). I think this is a perfectly good and universally applicable definition of "trivia." It's information that is unnecessary, or that is presented as if it were unnecessary. This stems from the primary definition of the word "trivia." --Cheeser1 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
My concern here is what constitutes "unrelated"? If I make of list of everything that has the color red on it, those things are related by the fact that they're red. I'll grant you that this is a trivial connection, but where do you draw the line? What sorts of relations are trivial and which are not? Obviously a list of Presidents of the U.S. is not trivial, though they have nothing in common aside from that one occupation. What about a list of notable CEOs? Is that common occupation trivial or not? Secretaries? Without objective criteria, I don't think that this policy is workable. -Chunky Rice 19:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes rules (and even real-life laws) have to be purposely vague. Wikipedia is huge. What qualifies as "unrelated facts" in Pokemon article might be different than what qualifies for an article on George W Bush's foreign policy. The fact that there might be room for varied application of a policy, depending on the context/article in question is not reason to dismiss it out-of-hand. There should still be a need to regulate which "facts" get included on Wikipedia and which don't. We cannot and should not burden ourselves with the task of listing every single fact ever. --Cheeser1 00:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
We already have the general principle that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think we can all agree on that. What does adding a vague definition of trivia add to that policy other than a lot of misinterpretation? -Chunky Rice 20:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears that someone made a similar argument to remove that general principle (maybe I missed it, but it looks to be gone). There was no "vague definition." Lists of unrelated information. "Vague" meaning "open to appropriate interpretation" is not a bad thing. Just because it doesn't give you a Perl script to determine if a list should be integrated/deleted or not, that does not mean the policy is too vague. Wikipedia is not a uniform endeavor - we are not the Borg. Some articles will have different standards than others, but if the people who are editing each individual article work together, they will develop their own consensus of what qualifies as "trivia" or "lists of unrelated information" and will do their best to make sure that articles are instead written properly. Or we could purge Wikipedia of all non-indeterministic policies (and be left with no rules at all). And then we'd be left with articles whose content is over 50% lists of random factoids, trivia, and other tidbits. I'm not saying this information is not be important (although, it might not be), but it needs to be written in an encyclopedic fashion to ensure that it is, and to present it appropriately. --Cheeser1 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anybody disagrees with that general principle, but why do we need this trivia section to do it? To me, it's just more instruction creep, creating more potential confusion when our core principles already cover the issue at hand. What is it that you can do with this NOT provision that you can't do without it? -Chunky Rice 01:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
A perfect point: it's simply unnecessary to include this provision in NOT, as it is fully covered by existing rules.--Father Goose 05:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I will defend the rubbish. I think the only embarrassing thing about "in popular culture" sections is that there are regular Wikipedia editors who deny their import, value, and frequent use by non-regular Wikipedia editors. I think well-written, well-sourced "fancruft" isn't really fancruft at all. (Really, fancruft is all anybody writes.) I will here repost something I said on a user's talk page:
My main objection to the trivia template came as a result of my experiences seeing "in popular culture" sections and articles deleted left and right. The equation of "popular culture" with "trivia" is a shame. It's an extension of an Arnoldian conception of culture as dividing into "high" and "low", with corresponding absolute values. Popular culture is not "trivial". It is utterly relevant, important, and interesting, and is a huge reason why Wikipedia is as frequently used as it is. "in popular culture" sections (which are often misnamed "trivia" or "miscellanea") are wonderful collections of material that will not fit into a narrative article, or which speak to intertextuality or the reception history of a piece of culture - the last of which is critically important to understanding it and which is the subject of a huge amount of current scholarly inquiry.
In the end, DGG nails it; I don't trust anyone else to judge for me what is trivial. Take two articles I have written recently, like Philipoctus de Caserta and Jump 'N the Saddle Band. Taken from one side or the other, both of these articles discuss utterly trivial matters. Who cares? Who should care? The fact that one is the subject of enormous scholarly research and the other is the subject of none at all really changes nothing; they're both forgotten musicians that nobody listens to anymore. But I'd fight to the death, literally, anyone who wants to have them deleted.
What is trivia? There is no consensus, and I do not foresee one; it remains a ghost, like Potter Stewart's pornography ("I know it when I see it"). The trivia template makes it sound like there is a consensus, and that policy dictates that it should be removed. Neither is true, and so that template just frightens newcomers and makes people mad. But nothing will change unless there is a cultural shift - a recognition that popular culture, and "minor" facts about major things, are inherently encyclopedic. Chubbles 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally support WP:TRIVIA; for the most part; trivia sections that amount to "lists of random facts" are just a poor form of writing. However, I do not support keeping WP:NOT#TRIVIA; it's a new addition to WP:NOT which at best had a temporal, local, and partial consensus at the time of its addition. It does nothing more than excerpt WP:TRIVIA and turn that guideline -- which has a shaky consensus itself -- into de facto policy. I've seen several editors, including Cheeser1 above, try to characterize WP:TRIVIA's advice as flowing from WP:NOT#TRIVIA, when the opposite is true.

WP:TRIVIA remains as valid as ever, but WP:NOT#TRIVIA is an attempt to boost that guideline beyond its mandate. I do not feel there is an actual consensus for inserting WP:TRIVIA in WP:NOT in this manner. WP:TRIVIA is a guideline -- a style guideline, not a content guideline, and certainly not a policy. Adding it to WP:NOT is inappropriate.--Father Goose 20:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is not a trivia collection makes a good policy, and should be kept. This speaks to what "encyclopedic" means. Not becoming a trivia collection is a valid goal for Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ★ 20:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that idea in the abstract, but expressed as policy, it creates an open-ended "Delete. Trivia." wrecking ball. Immediatism of that sort is the greatest danger to Wikipedia's ongoing mission.--Father Goose 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I favour trivia sections as they provide a lot of useful information in a small space, information that cannot always be put into the main body of an article without spoiling it. Mglovesfun 20:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to go with keep the line, but reword it so that it doesn't say that trivia decreases utitility. That is completely false, trivia is occasionally useful and often interesting, but when in trivia sections, slightly out of place. Just stating that all trivia is not useful is much too general. reword it and I will be happy to leave the policy alone.--Kyle(talk) 22:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Though there are trivia abuses, and the guideline is well-intentioned, it is often used and cited too broadly. "Trivia" and "popular culture" material are part and parcel of coverage of current events, popular music, etc., which are all pop culture phenomena in themselves. Showing the relationships between them and how they affect modern popular thought is a useful and important function. To truly understand the importance, say, of The Godfather, you have to know how it has played out. That article, incidentally, has a straight-laced, button-up trivia section that doesn't really do the film justice. Wikidemo 23:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the fence on this one - I strongly support Wikipedia:Trivia sections (as I would having written most of it) but I'm uncertain about the NOT bullet point. There are two ways to look at it:
  1. One could imagine a book where a bunch of topics are discussed in the form of lists of random factoids about each topic. It's quite in line with the other parts of WP:NOT to say "Wikipedia isn't one of those - it's an encyclopedia". If someone starts a new article at Ninja that says "Facts: 1. Ninjas are mammals 2. Ninjas come from Japan" and so on, you could very well say they're not attempting to write an encyclopedia article and need to be reminded that that's what we do here.
  2. One could say that trivia sections were an attempt to present encyclopedic information in an encyclopedia article, but the presentation was poor and needs to be fixed. In this case, it does little good to tell these people "Wikipedia isn't just a list of factoids about stuff!" They were trying to write an article, and just chose a poor method of presenting that article.
My argument: Most people fall in category #2, and very few in category #1. It's inappropriate and a bit silly to try to create trivia-related policy under the scope of WP:NOT. Dcoetzee 02:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with removing "Trivia" from WP:NOT. I mean.. come on.. I also would like to echo (and completely agree with) AldeBaer's comments above. What the heck is with this backlash of editors defending this horrible rubbish? -- Ned Scott 03:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: at the heart of it, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" means, to me, that we need not keep information around just because, but rather, that we are allowed and expected to be discriminating about it. Trivia in an encyclopedia, at best, must be carefully controlled and selected and should not be a free-for-all. Hence, no articles or use of Wikipedia that is treating it as a mere collection of trivia. Mangojuicetalk 04:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
almost nobody disagrees with this as a general principle--the question is whether the particular section here represents sufficiently clear guidance. DGG (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove any mention of trivia from WP:NOT#INFO. The word "trivia" has an ambiguous meaning. "Trivialis" means "appropriate to the street corner, commonplace, vulgar" and trivia came to mean "unimportant information" from that. In the 1950s and 1960s, quiz shows started using the term "trivia", which meant unimportant information, but then the word came to mean pretty much any fact or general knowledge. The word still has negative connotations to some people. The Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information section says "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:.." and lists "Trivia sections. Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility." This is being misinterpreted by many editors and so should be removed. This is not a ban on trivia sections, it's saying that articles should NOT be one big trivia section. WP:NOT#INFO also lists Plot summaries, but those are not banned. The mention of plot summaries says "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." The trivia mention doesn't say it's appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, and the "guideline" WP:TRIVIA doesn't acknowledge that it can be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but I think it can. Whether information is directly related or indirectly related is subjective, which information should be labeled "trivia" is also subjective, and the mention of the word "trivia" contradicts WP:N. "Trivia" means "unimportant information" and the guideline on notability says notability is distinct from importance. There is no policy or guideline on importance. There is a great post about the history of this criteria and the origin of the inclusion of "trivia" on WP:5P. Jimbo Wales made a declaration[10], but it needs to be ascertained whether that statement was descriptive or prescriptive. He could have been saying "we don't want trivia on Wikipedia" or he could have been saying "Wikipedia is not just a bunch of unimportant information" or he could have been saying something else. I have repeatedly asked for a definition of "trivia" to clarify the issue and I have seen no consensus on the topic. The mention of "trivia" in WP:NOT is being used an excuse to delete anything someone deems "trivial." The word "trivia" is being used as a synonym for "cruft", "garbage", "crap", "rubbish", "pointless", or just about any other way of saying "I don't like it". One man's trivia is another man's facts. If you assume that any fact that has appeared or could appear on Jeopardy! or inTrivial Pursuit is "trivia", then just about every fact on Wikipedia is "trivia." Every sentence. Every number. There may have been a consensus at one time to include "trivia" in WP:NOT, but consensus can change and I think the trivia criteria should be removed. It's been a contentious issue since it was included, because information important to one person can be unimportant to another. --Pixelface 21:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Trivia is something not important to the article — nothing more, nothing less. All this rule says is we don't tack on unimportant information. It's a reasonable rule, and what is important will obviously be decided by the editors of the article. It's not that hard. / edg ☺ ★ 21:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Except there is no policy that says information has to be important to be included in an article. The issue should be whether information is sourced or not, not whether one editors finds the information important personally. --Pixelface 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data/information. This is fundamentally important to an encyclopedia. --Cheeser1 22:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
That rule is no longer part of this policy. I think it came out a week or two ago. And as the great-grandparent post states at some length, it is not clearly stated anywhere else in this policy. Checkmate! / edg ☺ ★ 22:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
What do people expect? That Wikipedia will become a repository for every possible fact ever? I could make mathematical and philosophical arguments about how that is impossible, but I'll just remind everyone that that (1) doesn't make for a good encyclopedia and (2) burdens us with an excess of what are quite often genuinely unremarkable/unimportant facts to try to verify, source, maintain, and integrate into what would otherwise be concise, well-written articles. --Cheeser1 00:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, if the question is simply whether it should be is a large section or a separate article or otherwise arranged, that is not a matter of policy, that's a style guideline, and should be discussed elsewhere. The question is about content Assumming that we want to have focused articles with content that is in some way significant, how do we say this? 08:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of material from this policy

Within a few days, with no attempt to gain consensus, Father Goose has removed material from this policy. I must ask him to stop, unless he can truly show that he has consensus for this change. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you believe the burden is on him to demonstrate consensus to remove this, but not on you to truly show that this material "has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow"? Where is the consensus to elevate a contentious guideline to policy status? DHowell 19:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
As someone who participated in the discussion when this was added, it is my opinion that there was no consensus to add it in the first place, so I have no objection to its removal. -Chunky Rice 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I was coming to believe that its placement in WP:NOT did not reflect consensus, and I was backing up DHowell's removal of it. I didn't remove it again, as the discussion of it had kicked into high gear. Furthermore, as DHowell says, the burden is more on those who wish to retain this recent addition to WP:NOT than on those who question whether that addition really had consensus. It may be true that WP:TRIVIA has consensus (even I support it), but I find it very questionable to "promote" it to policy via its insertion in WP:NOT.--Father Goose 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
What we obviously have to do is find some sort of mutually acceptable version. (I know what I'd like, but that's not the same thing). The present wording is wrong in any case " it is "Large sections of indirectly-related details" The problem isn't that it's in sections--we know perfectly well by now that it doesn't fundamentally matter if it it's a separate article, or a section , or dispersed. How to arrange it is a style guideline. WP NOT is a contents policy. We all agree, I hope, that at least we do not want to accumulate material of only peripheral interest as a major activity. I changed the wording to "excess accumulations of indirectly-related details" I'm certainly open to alternatives. I am not happy with "indirectly related," either, as a description. I would prefer "excess accumulations of miscellaneous details", ,if there's agreement on that. DGG (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need it in WP:NOT at all? The guidance exists elsewhere; inserting it here is redundant and turns a style guideline into something it's not.--Father Goose 05:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I say it should not be in WP:NOT, and here is why: Policies are generally actionable mandates with no, or extremely few, exceptions; guidelines are recommendations where reasonable exceptions can be made. If something "should be avoided" (whether it is "large sections" or "excessive accumulations"), that's inherently a guideline, not a policy. A policy would generally say that something "is not allowed" (or "is not allowed, with the following exceptions: ..."). And that's the crux of the problem: having this as policy inherently changes the meaning of "should be avoided" to "is not allowed", no matter what wording the policy may actually use. And that's is exactly how the policy is used; to argue for the deletion of chunks of material that certian editors deem "trivial". There may be consensus that material in trivia sections ought to be integrated, but this does not create a policy mandate to delete sections (or entire articles) which contain material that hasn't been integrated. This is why WP:NOT#TRIVIA should not be policy. One editor restoring this section complained in the edit summary that removing the anchor name "just break[s] links to this section. Imposing an inconvenience doesn't help develop a consensus." However, I claim it is those links which are the problem, because they are generally used as shorthand for "trivia is not allowed", which is not, and never has been, policy. No matter what consensus we come up for the wording of this policy, the mere existence of a shortcut called "WP:NOT#TRIVIA" will be used to claim that policy supports the deletion of "trivia" with extreme prejudice. DHowell 09:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with DHowell that material must clearly represent consensus to remain, and if there is reasonable doubt it should be removed until a new consensus forms. I also agree that policy should have wide acceptance and few exceptions, and things that require more careful evaluation should be in guidelines or essays. Dhaluza 10:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Funny how I get blamed for acting in a non-consensus manner when removing material which itself has no consensus. And DHowell's point is cogent: We have WP:TRIVIA, a guideline for which there is consensus, and treating it as policy is inappropriate. I will now remove WP:NOT#TRIVIA again because there is no consensus for treating WP:TRIVIA as a policy.--Father Goose 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm the "one editor" DHowell quotes; I restored not a section, but the anchor name #TRIVIA. Breaking the link is not discussing the content, so I think we should get off defending that as an acceptable move. There are several wordings for WP:NOT#TRIVIA, and the one I prefer (and probably what editors, when deleting trivia, think they are linking to) is Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. This speaks to content (as opposed to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections, which is deliberately limited to style issues), saying that information considered tangential to the article subject or simply unimportant may be excluded. Whether or not this is kept as policy should be discussed and agreed upon. Breaking the link is just WP:POINTy, making Wikipedia less user-friendly for editors who do not read this policy daily, and might expect some stability in a policy.
If it gets changed, it should be changed once, with consensus. / edg ☺ ★ 17:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at the diff right here [11], and you certainly did reinsert the section. There was no broken link. -Chunky Rice 17:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Holy cow I didn't notice that. I thought only the name anchor was being deleted.
That said, I would agree with the revert that said there's hardly enough discussion to warrant this change. / edg ☺ ★ 18:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
We've had at least as much, if not more, discussion about removing as we did about putting it in. -Chunky Rice 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I imagine there was less resistance to adding the policy than there is to removing it. But I don't really care to argue that. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia is a good policy. We can all think of examples of information that should be excluded, even when well-sourced and easily verifiable, for being unimportant or excessively tangential (per editors of that article, given that article's subject as the context). If the consensus really is that most articles on Wikipedia could use an In Family Guy section, far be it from me to resist. / edg ☺ ★ 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think that there's roughly the same amount of resistance. It just seems to me like the people who want it in are more willing to edit war to keep it there. Also, it's such a straw man argument to say that anybody thinks that meaningless factoids belong in every article. Nobody thinks that, but that also doesn't mean that there should be a WP:NOT policy on it, either. Think of me as a Wiki-libertarian. -Chunky Rice 19:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia makes for a better guideline, since trivia is accepted on Wikipedia, just not unsorted lists of trivia. We have such a guideline, it's called WP:TRIVIA, and it deals with matters of style. If we put "Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia" in WP:NOT, a content policy (meant to have few if any exceptions), we're saying something far more stern: "no trivia". Having WP:NOT reiterate WP:TRIVIA is unnecessary -- WP:TRIVIA works fine on its own -- and reformulating that guideline as part of a content policy turns it into something it's not.--Father Goose 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
While I appreciate WP:TRIVIA, it is a guideline about style. It is not a policy about content. The two are not redundant. I'd thank you to wait for the discussion to end before declaring consensus in your favor and removing the item from the page. I will not re-add it because you seem to have a habit of removing it anyway, but I'm going to strongly state that your removal of this point, on the basis that it repeats WP:TRIVIA is nonsense, and citing "no consensus" in favor of making a bold edit like removing a piece of policy seems counter-intuitive. --Cheeser1 04:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia" is a horrible policy, becuase there is absolutely no consensus about what constitutes "trivia". The only discernable consensus we might have about "trivia" is a style guideline to avoid unsorted lists of trivia. There is zero consensus on what type of content is "trivia", thus a policy prohibiting "trivia" is useless except as a tool to be abused in deletion discussions. If we can come to a consensus on what type of content constitutes "trivia", then maybe we can have a policy. Without such consensus, such a policy is not just useless, it is actually harmful to the encyclopedia by encouraging division of the community along extreme opinions about what "trivia" is. DHowell 05:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Red herring issue. What constitutes trivia can be decided by the article's editors. The reason Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia is needed as policy is so that it is understood that unimportant information can be omitted. / edg ☺ ★ 05:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is it is not the article's editors deciding, but a handful of self-appointed policy enforcers who go around removing trivia sections or nominating articles for deletion, who otherwise would have no interest in such articles other than their perception that it contains a policy violation, and they use this policy to WP:BASH those editors who are truly working on or are interested in the article. DHowell 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposal: Wikipedia is not a trivia collection

Some of us may not yet know that Wikipedia is not a trivia collection has been removed from WP:NOT.

Wikipedia:Avoid trivia is a newly proposed guideline intended to return WP:NOT#TRIVIA to Wikipedia. It is distinct from Wikipedia:Trivia sections in that it is a content policy, not a style policy. This guideline states that trivia may be removed.

While some editors will regard this guideline as obvious, even common sense, there is currently a tremendous amount of opposition to Wikipedia having limitations on trivia. As this proposal is specificly a content guideline, it may receive even greater opposition than Wikipedia:Avoid trivia has been subject to in recent months.

I could use specific suggestions and general feedback. A guideline (which this is proposed to be) does not need to contradict itself, so contradictory philosophies need not be introduced, but I would also be interested in feedback from people have problems with excluding trivia, especially if they have specific suggestions on how this guideline can be made better.

(This message is cross-posted in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not.) / edg ☺ ★ 14:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that. Articles shouldn't have (generally unsourced) collections of random factoids. Besides, we already have a policy that says they may be removed—I've never seen a trivia collection with a single source in it, so just remove them as unverified. It still should be in NOT for clarity though, Wikipedia isn't and shouldn't be a trivia collection, and those lists of random factoids should be removed. They're an attractive nuisance, just inviting people to add more garbage rather than adding to the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Avoid trivia states explicitly that well-sourced, easily verifiable information that is unimportant to the article may be removed. This is detailed on the Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia. The guideline itself is short and I think easy to read.
Interestingly, Wikipedia is not a trivia collection was restored within the last hour. I would like it to remain, but since it has been removed at least three times in the past month, I doubt it will last long. / edg ☺ ★ 15:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of it being restored, can anyone explain why "WP:TRIVIA is not policy" has anything to do with WP:NOT? WP:TRIVIA is a style guideline. This is a content policy. "There was no consensus to upgrade WP:TRIVIA to policy"??? This is not WP:TRIVIA. This is content policy. The two are completely different. Furthermore, if there wasn't consensus, why has it become a part of the article that is only now being boldly removed? Last time I checked, when your bold edits are reverted, you WAIT FOR CONSENSUS, instead of hammering it down everyone's throat. If there's a stalemate, or a large discussion/change in progress, you're supposed to leave it in there until things settle. I'm talking to Father Goose and Equaczion here. --Cheeser1 15:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there has historically been clarity whether WP:NOT#TRIVIA meant style but not content, or both style and content. I'm not sure if recent edits presuming it should be only style were being hopeful or sneaking, tho I should both hope and assume the former. / edg ☺ ★ 15:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict x2) I must say, reading through all this and the arguments, we cannot have a hypocritical situation where WP:NOT policy to avoid trivia and we have a guideline to avoid trivia. I believe it is simple, either it is a style guideline as per WP:TRIVIA and is removed from WP:NOT or part of Wikipedia policy, where it becomes part of WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA is changed to policy or deleted. As far as I am concerned, style guidelines state that trivia should be integrated into the article. WP:NOT should be about what should not be placed in the article in the first place. Trivia may have some acceptance, if it can be backed up with third party sources and is integrated into the article. The avoidance of trivia can not be both a style guideline and a content policy! It is confusing, causing conflict, disputes and is hypocritical. --tgheretford (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about "hypocritical", but I certainly agree it is confusing. / edg ☺ ★ 16:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It is hypocritical, or at least inconsistent, as Tghe explained. It should either be consistently a policy or consistently a style guideline. It can't be one in one place and the other in another place.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:26, 09/23/2007
Says who? It can be a style guideline and a content guideline. Lists of information. There are two words here: lists and information. How we format a list (or prose, if not a list) is one thing. What information we include is another. --Cheeser1 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, they are two different things. Pointing to a style guideline to support something being policy doesn't make sense, and that's all NOT#TRIVIA did. The trivia guideline isn't a policy, it's a style guideline.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:28, 09/23/2007
Whoever said they were pointing to each other? NOT#TRIVIA was more than just "see the style guideline." It was a content policy, related to the style guideline (obviously). The fact that you can't tell the difference, and refuse to hear otherwise, makes me wonder what you're trying to accomplish. --Cheeser1 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
NOT#TRIVIA was pointing to the style guideline. It said that itself, and was little more than that. And if it was a content policy, that's more reason to remove it, because there is no consensus for making it a content policy, as has been demonstrated here.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:39, 09/23/2007
The bold edit in question is the removal of a content policy. Hand-waving at a related or similar style guideline is irrelevant. Nobody "made WP#TRIVIA policy" - WP:TRIVIA says nothing about content. This is a content policy. WP:NOT#TRIVIA may have resembled or even been related to WP:TRIVIA, but they are not the same thing. Nobody secretly "upgraded" it into a policy behind your back, and now you've just found out about it and are fixing it. You and Father Goose are continually removing content from this policy in a series of repeated bold edits. They say "do not revert the revert" for a reason, Equazcion. It's part of the reason this feels so much like an argument, instead of a discussion. That and the fact that you won't stop bringing up WP:TRIVIA, when it's an entirely different kind of thing. --Cheeser1 22:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the edit in question is the placement of the policy to begin with. There was no consensus for it, and I'm not the only one saying that.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:30, 09/23/2007
Well, unless space and time do unimaginable things, you're going to have a tough time raising your objections now. And even if there's no consensus for it, the only reasons you seem to be objecting are (1) because this duplicates WP:TRIVIA (it doesn't) and (2) to leave a gap that WP:ROC would fill. It's already come up in other places that you're pushing ROC as if it were policy now. Talk about jumping the gun. --Cheeser1 23:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I never said this duplicates WP:TRIVIA and I never said anything about WP:ROC. And I have not pushed WP:ROC as policy anywhere. I invite you to show me some diffs of these claims you're making -- but please do it on my talk page so that the other kind folks here don't need to wade through this pettiness. Thanks.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:24, 09/23/2007
You seem to think that this is WP:TRIVIA "turned into policy." And I seem to recall you pushing WP:ROC pretty heavily on WT:TRIVIA. If you think that's "pettiness" then I don't know who you should be pointing the finger at, but it's not me. I have no interest discussing on your talk page - you can skirt this issue all you like, I won't help you do it. I'm done trying to get around your doublespeak and nonsense. I came here to work towards consensus, and I've tried to get a straight answer to explain your bold removal of content, and I get nothing. I'm done (or should I say, browbeat). --Cheeser1 23:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

←The argument at WT:TRIVIA had nothing to do with whether or not ROC is a policy, and I wasn't pushing it there or anywhere else. I'm not trying to skirt the issue at all. You still haven't posted diffs to back up the claims you're making. I've already explained my actions, both here and in my edit summary. I'm sorry we couldn't work this out.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:57, 09/23/2007
This proposal is closed, not useful. Redirecting to WP:TRIVIA, where I found it. / edg ☺ ★ 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
What? With one day's discussion?!? I don't think so. I totally oppose this change. You haven't given those who oppose the change a chance to make any comment. I personally believe that you've been too hasty, and I'm reverting the change. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Huh? You first objected to the removal of this section at least 9 days ago, and we've been discussing it ever since. How can you say that you, or anyone else, haven't had a chance to make any comment? In fact, we've been discussing it ever since the policy was first proposed and added less than two months ago, discussion which never established a consensus on a content policy; and in fact the consensus eventually stripped down the proposed policy to nothing more than a summary of the WP:TRIVIA style guideline. Since there never was any consensus to upgrade a style guideline to policy, the logical next step was to remove it entirely from WP:NOT. I believe edg is doing the right thing by establishing a separate discussion on a trivia content guideline. If such a guideline garners enough consensus, then and only then maybe a section in WP:NOT corresponding to it is warranted. DHowell 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It is my impression Ta bu shi da yu mistook edgarde's retracting his Wikipedia:Avoid trivia proposal for a closure of continuing discussion of NOT#TRIVIA.--Father Goose 22:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a price guide

I think this strongly needs to be put on the page (if it's not already, I didn't look through every section), and it needs to be enforced. This was brought up several times in the past: and usually was forgotten, or just went to no consensus. Just some of the articles that are issues (and I would imagine there is more):

  • List of Virtual Console games (North America). An online currency called Wii Points is listed for all these download games. It shows no historic value, and it's only useful for those that download the games. It's a constant price: but there is numerous Nintendo sites that list this already. Some progress was made months ago: when the list was changed, but the points need to go altogether. Why not an external link that leads to a reliable site? That would solve this. There is similar lists with the points for games in a few other countries. They can be found here: List of Virtual Console games.
  • Xbox_Live_Arcade#Xbox_Live_Arcade_games_for_the_Xbox_360. Similar to the Virtual Console list, this list shows the online currency for games that can be downloaded.

Since these lists exist, who is stopping people from listing game prices for each certain computer or console game? The information is "useful" to some, but frankly it's not important and it makes Wikipedia a price guide, and a directory just to find out what a current download costs. People shouldn't be coming to an encyclopedia to find out current prices of games, period. RobJ1981 06:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Sales includes the language Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions. / edg ☺ ★ 06:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but I doubt that will be enough to justify cleaning the articles. People will revert it back, and make claims of "no consensus to remove" (as they did many months ago, when the page got locked over it, and the table was changed somewhat as a compromise). I hope this gets somewhere this time, as this appears to be a clear violation of guidelines... however people refuse to accept it and demand "consensus" (when it's pretty clear, a violation should be fixed, not ignored because of a consensus of a few editors). RobJ1981 06:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If there's a consensus against enforcing a rule, that suggests there is no consensus for having that rule, or at the very least, for enforcing it in the particular case being discussed.
That said, I personally agree that listing prices for products is unnecessary unless some kind of point is being made regarding the price.--Father Goose 07:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
W need that last exception. I had problems with the article of Web of Science, when it was necessary to explain that it was significantly more expensive than almost all other databases. if I didn't give numbers it was challenged for vagueness; if i did, it was challenged for advertising (the price, by the way, is between $100,000 and $150,000 a year for the complete set at a large university). Most major databases run 1/3 of that. DGG (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that conflict in the history of Web of Science. Maybe you are thinking of a different article? There is this; I imagine if it was described the way you did above (three times as expensive as other comparable databases), that would be regarded as factual and not "POV".--Father Goose 08:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
For another example, consider the iPhone. It debuted at $599, then Apple dropped the price to $399 a few months later. Early adopters were very upset and it made international news. This is a relevant encyclopedic topic that should be covered in those articles, and should not be tossed out by a crusade against discussing pricing. Another example where relative pricing of products would be encyclopedic is comparing the pricing on Airliners such as price warring between Boeing and Airbus on similar models. Dhaluza 10:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
In the case of both video game articles I listed: the prices are constant (and I'm pretty sure neither have ever had price changes). A constant price isn't notable. Let's take a McDonalds menu for example: if fries stayed the same, it wouldn't make it more noteworthy to list here. People shouldn't assume Wikipedia has to list prices, so they can come here instead of sites more suitable for that information. RobJ1981 11:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. No price guides, but prices may often be relevant to our coverage. Another suitable example is giving the prices of game consoles in comparison to other consoles ("high pricing" being an extremely notable property of the PS3, for example).
However, the fact that the prices ("points") are constant, like you point out, makes them less subject to NOT#DIR: "On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time." The prices listed (in "points") are more like "tiers" of pricing, which seems fine to me, especially in lists of this variety.--Father Goose 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a constant download price any different than a current price for many other things. Prices should be listed on Wikipedia for historic value, a price for a recent sale (for a collector's item) and so on. This is neither, as the downloads havent been out very long. RobJ1981 04:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the current wording is enough. People are quoting bits and pieces above. In full the section says (disclaimer, I contributed much of this wording when the original was written):

"prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless the price can be sourced and there is a justified reason for its mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions."

This gives some examples of exceptions, and the phrasing "includes" should make clear that other exceptions are expected and allowed. In this context, "street price" means everyday prices, including those on the internet. In all cases where changes in prices, or exceptional prices, are notable, there should be a way to source that. One warning though is that vague price ranges also need to be sourced. If the source is vague, fine. If the source is specific, we can convert specific prices into a range to avoid giving the appearance of advertising the price. If the article requires the specific price to be mentioned as part of making a wider point, that is fine. Merely mentioning the price as a piece of data in a table or infobox can be dodgy. If the only reason people need to know the price is as part of a "do I want to buy this" process, then the price is almost certainly not being presented in an encyclopedic way. If the price is being presented in a wider historical or economic context (with sources), then that is fine. Does that make things any clearer? Carcharoth 13:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an experiment in consensus reality

In response to yet another academic lecture that seriously asserts wikiality as an operative principle of Wikipedia,[12] I've revised a proposed addition to this guideline.

Wikipedia is not an experiment in consensus reality. Wikipedia's editors do not create philosophical truth when they revise articles. Instead, appropriate collaboration summarizes verifiable information from reliable sources in a neutral manner. The experts may be wrong and may need to be corrected, but as a tertiary source it is not an encyclopedia's function to spearhead new ideas.

In other words, the population of elephants does not triple just because some Wikipedian tries to say so. The elephants don't read Wikipedia, and if any human endeavor could inspire them to triple their population it would probably be reruns of steamy episodes from the Discovery Channel.

Additional citations to demonstrate why this is a necessary addition to policy are available at User:Durova/Wikipedia is not an experiment in consensus reality. DurovaCharge! 23:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I like that essay. However, the policies that (ostensibly) keep us from being "an experiment in consensus reality" are already in place: WP:V and WP:NPOV. I don't think we'll stave off Colbert Report pranksters any better by cramming yet another permutation of those principles into WP:NOT. More importantly, we won't stave off academic critics until Wikipedia is the world's most reliable source of information. To do that, we have to do a lot of work, not just create redundant legislation.
In other words, people won't stop vandalizing the elephant article just because some Wikipedian tries to create another rule telling them not to. The vandals don't read policy, and if any Wikipedian endeavor could inspire them to stop, it would probably be more pictures of breasts.--Father Goose 03:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, there's no concise location to rebut that concept and it's gaining traction. It's also rather destructive when people seriously try to put it into practice. There are plenty of people who approach controversial topics as if they could actually sway reality by making Wikipedia voice their thoughts. DurovaCharge! 04:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It's nice to have something simple we can point to when somebody adds BS to the encyclopedia. "Hey buddy, see here, it says here you can't do that. We're not kidding." WP:V is heavy reading for a newcomer. This page is more accessible to the masses. - Jehochman Talk 04:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:VANDALISM is the policy that applies here.--Father Goose 05:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I like it. It's short, pithy and neatly encapsulates the principles expressed in excrutiating detail on other pages. It fits perfectly with the spirit and usage of this page. Add it. Rossami (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't . this is the sort of thing that is much better as a separate essay. It really wont be of any practical help is dissuading anyone if it's here. DGG (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the cited lecture did not "seriously assert that wikiality is an operative procedure of Wikipedia:
Emerick concluded on an amusing note, showing a clip of the Colbert Report, where Colbert debated reality and www.wikipedia.org in what he called wikiality. Colbert introduced the idea that we have control of reality by what we publish on Wikipedia.
We do not need to add another (redundant) rule every time someone mentions Wikipedia somewhere. The essay you wrote is good, and sufficient.--Father Goose 05:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As an essay it's inherently insufficient because it carries no weight with its intended audience. The professor did indeed validate wikiality because he used it to introduce the concept of consensus reality and asserted that Wikipedia actually operates on that basis. In doing so he lent the weight of his expertise and profession to a very misguided notion before an audience of hundreds, and the assertion got repeated in a news report for an audience of thousands. As the other instances I've collected on the essay page demonstrate, this is part of a pattern and Wikipedia has no cogent disavowal for it. The ripple effect is highly destructive to the project. DurovaCharge! 06:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think trying to create a rule in response to an academic lecture that presents a misguided notion of Wikipedia is what's highly destructive. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rules are coordinating our efforts amongst oursevles, not for PR purposes. Colbert, academics, and all of our other critics will not see "our new rule" and will not care even if they do see it.
Disavow all you want -- I applaud that -- but if you really want it to be heard, contact these ignoramuses individually and point out that Colbert is making jokes and that "reality" on Wikipedia is governed by WP:V.--Father Goose 08:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Too many reliable sources are advancing this as a serious argument. What I need when I contact them is something quotable within site policy. Here are some of the other more notable ones over the last year. DurovaCharge! 07:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Let them. if everyone says that is what we do, then that's what we are doing.Possibly a good case can be made for the idea, and I'm quite prepared to discuss it on the talk page of an essay., it doesn't belong here. There's a sense in which the accepted understanding of the late Victorian world is the 11th ed. of the Brittanica, and the Catholic encyclopedia was a conscious attempts to create an alternative. DGG (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Im a little new around here

When you say original thought, do you mean any new invention, a page on (the physics of)breaking a pencil, or anything that may seem too frivolous?--Swing, Baby, Swing! 14:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Accurizing and textbooks

So we're in an argument (okay, I'm in an argument) on Talk:Accurizing regarding whether this is a guide rather than a descriptive article. It's already transwikied to WikiBooks once; since then, it's grown and despite having gotten less blatantly prescriptive it still basically covers the same ground.

So two questions:

  1. Is this the best place to discuss whether this falls under WP:HOWTO, or is there a better place?
  2. Err, does it?

I feel pretty strongly that this isn't an appropriate subject for an article. It basically describes a process from a means-to-an-end perspective, where the end (accuracy) isn't in itself a particularly notable subject for an article (it's an attribute of a weapon, that's all). I think it's teaching subject matter, and it's only getting deeper and more involved with every iteration. There's a whole page on how the trigger affects accuracy right now, for instance.

Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 14:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's looking pretty encyclopedic to me, if a bit long-winded. It could probably do with some cleanup, but it is very different from what it was when it was transwikied to WikiBooks. PS: No, this isn't the place to discuss whether an article fails to satisfy Wikipedia policies and guidelines; that's WP:AFD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Propose moving two items

WP:NOT#OR point #3 about personal essays more properly belongs under WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, because it is more of an NPOV-grounded issue than a NOR one, is barely different from an opinion piece, and to the extent some such essay would not be personal opinion but actual research it is already covered by NOT#OR point #1. And WP:NOT#OR point #4, about using WP as a chat forum, and its WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NOT#CHAT and WP:FORUM shortcuts more properly belong under WP:NOT#WEBSPACE because that entire section is about misusing WP as the wrong kind of service, and discussion forum kinds of behavior do not really relate to the subject of original thought in articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Jewish musicians notable per policy?

In the Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations policy, it says List of Jewish musicians is notable. Wikipedia policy does not need to give the impression of favortism and the following sentence should be removed from Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations: "Whilst some cross-categorizations are notable (for example, List of Jewish musicians), a majority are not." -- Jreferee t/c 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you suggest a more neutral replacement?--Father Goose 04:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I presume the point is that Jewish musician is not simply a concatenation of two unrelated categories. For example, "List of tall actors" simply takes two traits (being an actor, and being tall) and concatenates them. There is no reason for such a category because tallness in actors is not necessarily notable. Other such lists might be "List of tennis players with blond hair" or "List of left-handed authors." However, musicianship in the Jewish communities of the world (likewise, Judaism in the musical world) appears to be an important cross-categorical distinction. --Cheeser1 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
...because otherwise one would not think that there would be jewish musicians? Do we need a list of black rap artists?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:40, 10/13/2007
I wouldn't mind seeing a list of white rappers.--Father Goose 17:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
So the policy should really be changed to say that cross-categorizations are notable as long as they demonstrate the relation of two categories that are stereotypically unrelated.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:03, 10/13/2007
No, because Jewish music (and music in Judaism) is something that has a fair deal of notability on its own. It doesn't have to do with stereotypes, it has to do with whether or not the intersection of two categories is notable, if it has been the subject of particular academic (or perhaps journalistic) inquiry, as more than just an intersection of groups for its own sake. Music by Jews and the music of Jews is a source of particular study as its own notable cross-category. I think my examples illustrate the difference, and I'd ask that you not reply with any more sarcasm. --Cheeser1 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not sarcasm. And a list of jewish musicians is not an article on music in judaism. They would be two very different things.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:43, 10/13/2007
I agree with Equzcion - a list of Jewish musicians is silly. An article (not list) about Jewish musicians, music in Judaism, Judaism and music, or the like is valuable and important. Just as an article about whites and rap music could be interesting, while a list of white rappers wouldn't. - DavidWBrooks 21:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a list of Jewish American entertainers, which I consider an "encyclopedic" list, as Jews' success in the American entertainment industry is a notable topic. Conversely, white rappers are notable for their success in a musical genre driven by black culture. So general rules about what makes intersections "notable" are probably misguided. Nonetheless, I believe we're off the subject of the original commentator: whether the example given is displaying "favoritism" (toward Jews, I presume).--Father Goose 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my point was that while rap is traditionally driven by black culture, music is not traditionally driven by non-jews. I fail to see how that list is notable at all, and its notability especially shouldn't be given the backing of an example used in a policy, lest people think of it as therefore unquestionable. I suspect that if it didn't appear in the policy as it does, it probably would've been deleted a long time ago. In my mind it is a perfect example of arbitrary cross-categorization.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:12, 10/14/2007
Is List of Jewish American entertainers arbitrary? Its sub-list List of Jewish American musicians got deleted just today, and I see now that that AfD prompted Jreferee's question here.
In the abstract, I'd agree that "Jewish musicians" seems like a non-notable intersection, but I think "Jewish American entertainers" is not. However, the size of such a list requires it be broken down into sublists, and one of those sublists, discussed in isolation, just got deleted. There's a logical misstep in there somewhere.--Father Goose 05:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The misstep is a flaw that's rather fundamental. It's in our splitting of articles that are too long. If a section of an article must be split off simply because it makes the main article too long, that section in itself needs to become its own article -- and consequently, it suddenly is not only subject to content rules,but notability as well. Would every section of every article survive notability on their own? Probably not, as they are meant to be content, not standalone articles. As I said this is a fundamental problem and not one that'll be solved without a complete overhaul of the system here. Maybe if we had hidable/expandable subsections, or sub-pages for long articles rather than split-offs, either of which would make a lot more sense, then maybe this wouldn't be an issue.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:20, 10/14/2007
FWIW, Citizendium has implemented an interesting system of subpages. But for immediate needs, we need to remember there is no rule that a article cannot be over a certain length. One was proposed, and a project set up to implement it, and it was very soon removed at MfD. Perhaps a explicit use of one of these structures might help. WP:Article series and WP:Summary style. For immediate use, the moral is to redefine the criteria and justify fully when dividing. It it necessary to AGF, but I think it is unrealistic to ACS--Assume Common sense. And remember that AfD will always give erratic results, until there is a change to make it clear that we honor consistency. At the moment there seems to be strong opposition to the idea that consistency is a virtue at WP. I consider this attitude a holdover from the primitive days. , DGG (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, rule or not, there is a de-facto tradition of keeping articles down below a certain length, and the split remedy often results in articles that get deleted for notability. Would it be appropriate to therefore split articles by creating subpages (meaning now, not as some idea for the future)? How about merging articles that were already the result of splits by creating sub-pages for them under their original articles? How are the sub-pages to be linked from the main article? I don't think there are any general practices or templates for this purpose, and if one of us were to suddenly do one of these things, it would be met with a lot of "what the hell are you doing, since when do we do this?" I'd like to start doing this myself but it doesn't seem feasible at this point. Should we start a discussion at WP:VPR?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:57, 10/14/2007
There is such a rule: WP:SIZE. It's not a hard limit, but it's generally followed, via the mechanism outlined in WP:Summary style. It's less rigorously enforced for lists; we have a few above 200k in size (see Special:Longpages). I agree with WP:SIZE and WP:SS, but like Equazcion points out, WP:N doesn't take those conventions into account, and the end result is something of a Procrustean bed.
I prefer inconsistency to harmful consistency. I'd rather see Wikipedia have permanently unresolved disgreements than to see such issues permanently closed in favor of one camp or the other in the name of consistency. Quite often, one camp will create policy that favors their views that doesn't enjoy true consensus but that is "defended" vigorously enough to make it Law. After a while, people may embrace it out of habit or in deference to its authority, though they might not support it if they really thought it through. This is much like real-world politics. Nonetheless I'm all for laying out more common ground where it genuinely exists.--Father Goose 17:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

←To FG: To go back to the policy example, I see that while List of Jewish American musicians was a sub-list of List of Jewish American entertainers, List of Jewish musicians is not; so the logic of it being notable as a sub-list of something doesn't apply here. I should also note that part of my objection to the list being notable is based on the feeling that, in my mind, its notability is based on the need to disprove a stereotype -- as if to say, "look at how many jewish musicians there are, who woulda thunk it." The same as having a List of Asian professional drivers. Not that I'm one to cite political correctness as a motivation to do anything, especially here, but I feel like that's the rationale that's really in the back of peoples' minds when they say a list like this is warranted; because otherwise I really can't see what other possible way this is notable.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 09:26, 10/14/2007
I'd rather err on the side of "non-notability". What little power WP:N has should derive exclusively from WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. If content is verifiable, neutral, and well-organized, I don't see what we gain in removing it from Wikipedia. I don't care if Wikipedia presents subjects not covered elsewhere, as long as the content itself is kosher. I've been studying WP:NOT and similar pages lately, and I'm coming to the conclusion that we've adopted a lot of "we don't do that" rules that codify snap judgement more than any actual principle.--Father Goose 17:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I'd disagree with the contention that notability is just a summary of V, NOR and NPOV, and doesn't add its own additional stipulation. But even so, the question before us is whether or not to use this example in the policy -- not whether the list should be deleted per WP:N.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:33, 10/14/2007
I'm not saying that WP:N derives solely from V/NOR/NPOV, but rather that it should. I did a bit of searching for a better "notable intersection" than Jewish musicians, but haven't come up with anything good yet.--Father Goose 21:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need an example at all?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:24, 10/14/2007
Hmm, maybe not. Scrutinizing the whole section, it's barely intelligible. I took a poke at simplifying it.--Father Goose 23:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
However, if we do need an example, I suggest List of transvestite lumberjacks.--Father Goose
Looks good to me. As you say, the stuff you removed wasn't too clear and seemed superfluous. Thanks FG. I like your example but I have doubts about its verifiability.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:52, 10/14/2007

Lists based on...

Lists based on a shared, trivial-in-context quality. Wikipedia articles should not contain lists of (assume: notable) people or things sharing a quality unrelated to their respective notability. For example, an article about a town should not contain a list of people that happen to be born in that town. Of course, if a person “put the town on the map” (for example, Saint Paul and Tarsus) or history has validated the link between a town and a person (for example, Vermeer and Delft) then the town’s article may mention the particular fact, in the article’s narrative, without the use of the list format. Besides, categorization provides an easy way to find the people or things that share a certain quality.

I removed the above new addition from the policy. It strikes me as {{essay}} material so far, and I'm not convinced that WP:NOT is really the right place for advice of this sort. Nonetheless, I'd rather initiate a discussion of it than do a blanket revert.--Father Goose 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take a lot of scanning the talk pages of long-time, frequent editors to find statements such as the following one (not mine): "Wikipedia is bloated with articles of non-notable people and things. This is gradually changing Wikipedia in a de facto non-discriminate source of information (which is not its goal, see: WP:NOT) because every non-notable article can be used to justify other even less notable articles. I think Wikipedia should remain an encyclopedia." With a little bit of work, similar statements from 10 or 100 other editors can be found. In short, Wikipedia is drowning in trivia, in un-encyclopedic matter. Therefore my (now: proposed) guideline. (It beats me how the guideline could be seen as an "essay." Would be a strange essay.) I'll value comments to the contrary. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 21:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There have already been extensive discussions on this page about adding such a policy to WP:NOT, and there has been no consensus to do so. -Chunky Rice 21:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Notice that there is also no consensus to do nothing. -- Iterator12n Talk 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Where policies are concerned, they do have to reflect a consensus position, which means any changes have to be unopposed, or far more supported than opposed.--Father Goose 19:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If the 19,000 words (that I was pointed to in response to an earlier request for a summary of the discussion so far) tell us anything, there is no consensus about the present policy either. -- Iterator12n Talk 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Which part of it? Posts on the talk page or changes on the policy page are generally a sign of active opposition to something. For instance, this conversation would count as active opposition to the changes you suggested -- unless you can get us to agree with them.--Father Goose 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The burden of consensus lies with the creation of policy. If there's no consensus, there is no policy. -Chunky Rice 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You make a very general argument, namely that the proposed text is needed because people are saying "Wikipedia is full of non-notable things". I want to hear what the principles are underlying a proposal, and they should be "self-evident", not a matter of opinion, regardless of how often the opinion is voiced.--Father Goose 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, here are two self-evident statements, and one conclusion. 1. Wikipedia should only provide information that is notable. 2. Dependent on context, a list of notable subjects that share a common quality may not be notable information. 3. Wikipedia needs a guideline to steer editors away from the un-notable kind of list. (Which reminds me of a professorial joke: Professor is lecturing about some obscure subject, gets to a point where he says "It's evident that", stops, steps back, asks "Hmm, is it evident?", steps off the podium, disappears for 15 minutes, comes back, says "It's evident that" and continues his lecture without further explanation.) -- Iterator12n Talk 15:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability is far more subjective (and thus less self-evident) than you make it out to be. "Only information that is notable" is likely to be so variably interpreted as to be useless. And within the scope of a single article, notability (or more precisely, relevance) can change on a sentence-by-sentence basis. It is desirable to organize information according to a heirarchy of importance (yes, another subjective term), but to take an approach of "no minutae" is like saying "no detail, except the ones 'we' think are important".
As a result, what passes for notability on Wikipedia is an outgrowth of verifiability. If something's gained any kind of attention in any reliable public medium, it's notable to someone, and our challenge is to sort all this information in a maximally useful fashion without resorting to "delete" as a sorting option for minor details that aren't actual bollocks.--Father Goose 19:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
We are together on the subjectivity of notability. However, Wikipedia also strives to be "encyclopedic." Assuming we share a definition of "encyclopedic," I hope we all go after un-encyclopedic lists. -- Iterator12n Talk 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, (un)encyclopedic is one of the most vague, undefined terms that gets tossed around here. If everybody agreed on what was encyclopedic and what was not, we wouldn't need all of these various content policies. -Chunky Rice 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
My minimum standard for "encyclopedic" is verifiable, neutral, and organized. The policies that govern those standards are already in place, and most of the entries in WP:NOT are sub-cases of at least one of them.--Father Goose 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand and respect your point of view. I disagree IF you suggest that at the top-level of the policy hierarchy things are settled (not to mention the status of the lower levels). In my opinion, nothing is ever settled - quite a broad statement but there it is. Everything is open for (re-)iteration. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 23:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're trying to argue here. -Chunky Rice 00:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It would take an essay to argue the point at the next level of detail. I'll add it to the to-do list. -- Iterator12n Talk 00:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I just want to point out that our notability criteria WP:N applies to article subjects, not the content of the article. "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles." So, in this context, notability governs whether or not a list is notable in its entirety, but not as to individual entries on that list. -Chunky Rice 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Soon we need lawyers to advise us about the fine points of WP guidelines. -- Iterator12n Talk 23:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Lucky for us, I happen to be one. -Chunky Rice 00:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I know. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 00:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS X Leopard

Mac OS X Leopard will have a "Wikipedia Content Filter" which will "limit access to profanity in Wikipedia." (as part of parental controls) http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html —Nricardo 23:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Nricardo 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pointless genealogies and the sparkling templates they come with

I'm not sure where this should go, but I feel like this is a good place to start with. It has occurred to me that certain editors are obstinately shoving massive and colorful genealogical templates into articles on royals, such as this one and particularly this one. A discussion was started here, and, as I am writing this, the only argument brought up in its favor was that "this is not a paper encyclopedia". To me, this sounds like "if I can write it, it stays", and a clear infringement of the "not a directory" guideline on this page. Furthermore, we already have articles on genealogical trees, and the relevant info (i.e.: about a quarter of each tree "planted" per article) can and should be turned into text. Views? Dahn 01:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm in the two genealogy templates to which you linked. I think they should stay. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps they should, but the question is: on what grounds? If arguments are phrased negatively ("This is not a paper encyclopedia", "I see no harm in them"), this rather adds to one's doubt. Put more positively, can it be indicated what the added value of these templates is? If answers to this questions are convincing, the templates should deserve a place under the Wikipedia sun. Bessel Dekker 16:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how the information can be displayed any clearer than in the examples given. The plain text version would make your head spin. Royal lineages are very important and best shown graphically. And every paper book has them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
A table like this is clearer and less busy. The colors in the above examples are distractingly garish and four generations veers into information overload; three is sufficient.--Father Goose 21:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary (again)

In these 2 edits, Stevage removed some significant blocks of our standards against dictionary entries. Stevage explained the edits with these comments in the edit summaries:

rm "lists of such definitions". Category:Glossaries makes a mockery of that statement.
rm usage guide. The "don't be a guide" side of this statement is covered below under "not a...guidebook". The dialect/language side is blatantly untrue. See Leet.

I have reverted those edits pending more discussion here. I agree that the existence of Glossaries in the category is inconsistent with the principles of WP:WINAD. But the fact that we are not yet living up to our ideals does not automatically mean that they are the wrong standards to which we should aspire. I feel strongly that the best long-term home for those glossaries is as a Wiktionary Appendices and that, over time, we should move the vast majority of those glossaries over to the correct project and make far greater use of cross-wiki links. Wiktionarians are far better suited and have much better tools to keep glossary entries up-to-date, properly formatted and suitably verified.

Stevage's comment that the "don't be a guide" part of the section is redundant with the "not a ... guidebook" section below is interesting and I want to think more about the possibility of consolidation. I disagree with the rest of his second comment, though. Our article on Leet should be an encyclopedia article about the slang and its cultural implications. It should have a few examples of the slang but it should definitely not be a guide about how to write it. If the article has more than a few examples, that's evidence of an editorial problem and a need for some pruning, not evidence that the rule here is wrong. Rossami (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, glossaries work well here: we have far more subject experts here, and far more eyes looking over them, keeping them up to date. They fit in well as a package of related article types: categories, articles, lists, nav boxes, infoboxes - all different forms of information to help you understand a subject. It would be wrong if the reader of a new subject was forced to leave Wikipedia to consult the glossary, then to come back to read up a bit, then leave when he doesn't understand a word etc. It also works very well to have some words redirect to glossary entries (eg, Buyin) if they don't deserve whole articles. Stevage 02:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This comment was originally interwoven between the paragraphs of the comment above. Please do not interweave comments in discussion threads. It disrupts the attribution of the comment and makes it harder for other reader to join the conversation. Rossami (talk)
Yeah, let's fix this nonsense once and for all. It's been like this for years. This section of the policy has traditionally been perfectly ambiguous, supporting both sides in any debate: "Lists of definitions are bad. However, glossaries are ok." So, the issues to resolve:
    • Why are glossaries ok? What should they cover? What is an example of a "list of definitions" which is bad, and is there any danger of anyone creating such a thing?
    • What is the difference between a glossary and a list of slang terms? If Leet is ok (which IMHO it is), where do we draw the line?
    • Is there a difference between a list of slang terms and a usage guide? The example about "teaching people to talk like a Cockney chimney sweeper" is unhelpful: what's a better example of an actual real world problem we're trying to avoid?
    • Is the rule against slang usage guides not already covered under guides in general? We don't teach people how to play cricket, write a cover letter, or cook paella; however, users can extrapolate from cricket, cover letter and paella respectively. Therefore, the "we don't teach" rule is IMHO more a question of style than of content. Given *that*, there's no reason to say "don't teach people how to talk like X", as this is implicitly covered: we should still explain how X people talk, in a concise, encyclopaedic fashion.

Comments? Stevage 01:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In your first paragraph above, I think you're drawing a false distinction. A reader doesn't "leave" Wikipedia to read a dictionary entry any more than they "leave" Wikipedia to read another encyclopedia article. It's one click to follow the link whether to a Wikipedia glossary page or a Wiktionary appendix page and one click of the Back button to return to the article. The logo at the top left of the page changes but that's about it. The user experience is essentially identical. For example, up the ante vs up the ante.
The real question is where will the glossary get the best care and feeding. I think that you are selling Wiktionary very seriously short. Wiktionary has lots of eyes and they are very good at maintaining glossaries and definition lists. Wikipedians are okay but for the most part, it's not our speciality or our passion. And if there are Wikipedians who have that passion, we should be encouraging them to participate in our sister project, not fragmenting and duplicating our efforts. Rossami (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the changes Stevage made, although to really do the discussion justice I'd have to join in with more than a "ditto", and I'm stretched thin right now.--Father Goose
Ok, let's not get too side-tracked by Wiktionary vs Wikipedia, unless it turns out to be the fundamental issue. What about my questions above? There are basically two, corresponding to the two bullet points I removed:
  1. Do we agree that it's desirable to have articles about certain patterns of speech? If so, and given that any article written as a "guide" or "instructions" are inherently wrong, what, if anything, are we trying to achieve by telling contributors not to teach people to talk like a Cockney chimney sweep?
  2. Secondly, since we have glossaries — and *lots* of glossaries — why do we have a rule against "lists of definitions"? The fact that we have a lot of good quality glossaries goes far beyond "not yet living up to our ideals", it suggests that our policy is stated wrongly, and doesn't say what we really mean or want. So what do we want? Stevage 01:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand the prohibition against "usage guides", in the sense that we don't want articles that read like urbandictionary.com entries. But that no-no is covered amply by many policies, including other portions of WP:NOT.
I prefer having glossaries in Wikipedia than in Wiktionary because it helps to tie all the information together better. Glossaries in Wikipedia have navigational value: "List of terms and subjects related to subject x". Such navigation can't be done in Wiktionary, unless it's a list of links back to Wikipedia, which is just not appropriate.
If the integration between Wikipedia and Wiktionary were seamless, I'd agree with more of what Rossami says -- that Wiktionary can handle some of these things better than Wikipedia can. But even those articles that have a little bit more information than a strict dicdef are worth keeping instead of discarding that info and swatting what remains over to Wiktionary, IMO.--Father Goose 04:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I also believe that :w: and :wikt: are not particularly seamless; for one, our user accounts and privileges don't extend to other Mediawiki projects. Aside from that, though, I think it's important to think about Wikipedia in terms of what it should/could be instead of what five letters end its name—it is already immensely different from other encyclopedias in its scope, format and methodology. The principles of verifiability and notability work fairly well for defining our scope, and for excluding the worrisome slang/urbandictionary/howto stuff. — brighterorange (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these sentiments. However, the central issue is these two bullet points. There are really only two options for each:

  1. Glossaries ("Lists of such definitions.")
    1. Retain the prohibition on glossaries, despite the existence of more than 100 glossaries.
    2. Remove the prohibition, and continue the discussion regarding the long-term future of glossaries on Wikipedia.
  2. Usage guides ("Usage guides or slang and idiom guides.")
    1. Retain the explicit prohibition on "usage guides", despite the fact that all guides are already ruled out under "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook" and that valid articles like Leet seem to be discouraged.
    2. Remove the prohibition.

Any objections to me removing them? Since they both seem to be in error, the burden of argument is on the side of anyone wanting to retain them, rather than removing them. Stevage 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the assertion that they are in error and vigorously oppose the attempt to remove them. I have, however, come to the conclusion that you are discussing the problem at the wrong place. This clause is and always has been a synopsis of the larger discussion at WP:WINAD (just as other sections of WP:NOT are often synopses of other policy pages). WP:NOT is more of a quick reference guide than the source for many decisions.
If you can get WP:WINAD overturned, then it will be appropriate to come back and clean up this implementation page. Making this page inconsistent with WP:WINAD will be the worst of the available options because it will increase confusion among new editors. Let's move this entire discussion over to WINAD's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking over WINAD, I see nothing in there that affirms "no glossaries". Separately, there is a distinction between "usage guide" (this is how to use the word) and encyclopedic documentation about how the word has been used. Leet is a great example of an article that covers a lot of etymology and usage that goes far beyond what would be appropriate to a dictionary (including Wiktionary) and documents its subject in a way that is entirely "encyclopedic" in form. So the two provisions Stevage is proposing to remove are not reflected by WINAD. I don't see any changes that need to be made there, just here.--Father Goose 19:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
That's right, I'm not attempting to change WINAD. WINAD says, in a nutshell, "articles must be more than dictionary definitions". That's certainly covered in the first bullet point here. Since WINAD makes no mention of glossaries, and since clearly there *are* uncontested glossaries (whereas there are not uncontested dictionary definitions), the bullet point banning "lists of definitions" *is* in error. It neither reflects the status quo, nor does it reflect what consensus wants the status quo to be. I'll be bold and mark it as being disputed at least. Stevage 01:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So...I'm waiting for someone to mount a compelling argument that glossaries really are bad. Such an argument should explain the apparent contradiction with the existence of Category:Glossaries and suggest a resolution to that contradiction that is not effectively just waiting for Wikipedians to wake up and delete them all. In the absence of such an argument, may I suggest we remove this bullet point, or replace it with text explaining why glossaries are in fact acceptable? Stevage 03:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been going for less than a week and has so far attracted comments from only 4 people. You seem unconvinced by my arguments. I am equally unconvinced by your counter-arguments but don't know how to say it any more clearly than I already have above. I've asked a couple of people who have previously held strong opinions on this topic to join the discussion here.
The clauses that concern you have been in the policy unmodified since Jan 2005 and trace continuously back to very similar wording in the very first draft of the page in Feb 2002. The project has succeeded with those clauses for this long. We can allow a reasonable amount of time for others to find this discussion and offer their own opinions. In the meantime, I would recommend that we both attempt to advertise the question a bit more widely. Rossami (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Rossami, the only "arguments" I can find from you are: a) The clause has been there a long time. b) Glossaries should be at Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. c) This clause is part of WINAD, and must remain consistent with it. No, I don't find these compelling reasons to leave this clause in, when it's clearly at odds with current practice, and appears to prohibit the creation of glossaries accidentally. If it was intended to prevent glossaries, it would probably have said "no glossaries", rather than "no lists of definitions". Could we not update the policy to reflect current practice, then debate what the future direction should be? Stevage 05:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: In a typical reference about a particular subject, one thing I really appreciate is having a clear list of terms and a brief summary definition of each one. It helps to understand the terms that are used to define the broader subject, and I believe having them in the article is appropriate. I am the sort of person that prefers concise lists of information to long, elaborate prose, since the former just presents me with the facts (and usually gives me a starting point for further research), while the latter can be difficult to decipher depending on how it was written.

So basically, I'm in favor of having an optional "Glossary of Terms" section, especially in medical articles where terms can be quite convoluted indeed. This is tempered by the need to keep Wikipedia from turning into another Wiktionary - we should not have indiscriminate articles just to define words that in themselves aren't notable. (That is what Wiktionary is for.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A point of clarification - This clause has never been about a small glossary section within an existing article. It is primarily about standalone pages. Rossami (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. In some limited cases, I could see the need for a glossary page, but I agree that having them as a rule would serve more as clutter rather than as helpful material. Disambiguation pages should be the extent of any "glossary-definition" pages we have, and that's just to point people in the right direction. I support reinstating the original text on the first bullet item, perhaps rewording it for clarity. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages serve an entirely different purpose from glossaries: they contain lists of similarly-named things, whereas glossaries contain dissimilar terms all relating to a single subject. If you see the need for glossaries in limited cases, keeping this rule in WP:NOT is a problem as it doesn't allow for exceptions. It's my feeling we should retain it only if someone can point out a "definition list" that isn't already covered by WINAD and clearly has no place on Wikipedia.--Father Goose 16:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd second that. Given that there are many undisputed glossaries, I don't see the point of having an explicit ban. Any article that we'd want to remove for being unencyclopedic should fall under WP:N for notability, WP:V (if unsourced), or WP:DICDEF (if it's merely a definition). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not getting anywhere. Comments like "In some limited cases, I could see the need for a glossary page" are not helpful - the point is we already *have* glossary pages, and dozens of them, and there is absolutely no clamour to get rid of them. This isn't a proposal to suddenly create some new glossaries: this is a proposal to formally recognise the fact that they exist and are valuable. Here are some that we have:

They're not disambiguation pages. They're not accidents. They're not exceptions. They are glossaries. And they reflect current, accepted, standard practice. So there are exactly two possible courses of action here:

  1. Modify the policies to reflect the practice
  2. Modify the practice to reflect the policies

If you're arguing against #1, you're arguing for #2. Please explain exactly how you intend for us to enforce the policy, and whether you're anticipating a mass AfD of all glossary articles. The status quo is untenable. This goes for both Father Goose and KieferSkunk. Thank you. Stevage 04:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I appear to have replied to the wrong section. I agree with Stevage on this. Consensus (as interpreted by the existence of many well-maintained and undeleted articles) would seem to indicate that we permanently remove the 'no glossaries' clause from WP:NOT. I don't think this is so much a case of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as policy being out of touch with current practice. --Bfigura (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Stevage as well. I was making some reubuttal points toward KieferSkunk earlier. Where did the misunderstanding crop up?--Father Goose 08:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops, bit hasty there. Ok, if there is consensus that glossaries are desired by the community, can we think about some ground rules for them? How broad should a glossary be? Should it cover terms that are not used in Wikipedia? Should it aim for comprehensiveness? Stevage 12:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd argue against creep. If it meets notability, NPOV, verifiability, and passes WP:DICDEF, I'd be okay. There might be some guidance from WP:LIST too. But I'm not convinced we need more rules. Is there a reason you think we need to specify things further? Best, --Bfigura (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the feedback to my comments, I agree with Stevage's original removal of the first bullet-point about glossaries - if we need to have anything there, I'd recommend summarizing Bfigura's last comment (about meeting Notability, Verifiability, DICDEF, etc.), such that the other policies are referenced cleanly and are easy to understand. That would allow for glossaries to exist in the limited circumstances I was referring to earlier (and which we appear to be in consensus on allowing). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of being overly BOLD, I went ahead and implemented those changes. Any comments / criticisms? Best, --Bfigura (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems all right.--Father Goose 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted it for now. This is a significant shift in a very long-standing part of our policy. It deserves more time for others to join the conversation and express their own opinions. Rossami (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that. --Bfigura (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bfigura asked, "Is there a reason you think we need to specify things further?" Yes. I got into a minor flamewar with 2005 regarding Glossary of poker terms. He insisted that the only items in the glossary should be terms actually used in Wikipedia, stating that the policies are "very clear". It turns out that they're not: there is not a single policy, guideline or even style guide that I could find to offer guidance on what should be included in or excluded from a glossary. How long should they be? Is slang ok? If this page isn't the best place to put such guidance, where should it go? Stevage 05:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Glossaries are useful for some purposes. Our guidelines should not say otherwise, but as Stevage pointed out, some discussion of when they are appropriate and what they might contain would be appropriate. Avoid instruction creep and the temptation to be over-specific, however. Gene Nygaard 14:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd want to see an example of a glossary that doesn't belong on Wikipedia before specifying what kinds are good and what kinds are bad. It's a bad idea in general to write rules in anticipation of a problem instead of in response to one.--Father Goose 18:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
One of the worst examples I tried to work with and the page that really crystallized my opinion on this issue was Military slang before it was transwiki'd to the Wiktionary Appendix. It was an awful mess and a vandal magnet and it stayed that way for years despite the heroic efforts of some editors who watchlisted the page. The Wikipedia policies were not much help verifying whether a particular term belonged on the list (was it truly unique to the military, was it slang, was it a neologism, etc) or even whether the slang term or expression even existed. Wiktionary has better policies and tools for sorting out the answers to those questions. They have well-established protocols for verifying the existence of a word or phrase and of the proper definition. While it's still a bit of a vandal-magnet in Wiktionary, it has been getting better attention there than it ever did here.
Pretty much all the "List of xxx slang" articles on Wikipedia suffer the same problem. They are atrocious articles in Wikipedia but they are defended because they are "glossaries" of the slang.
Architectural glossary is a page that is at least written in decent english and has people watching it but it's even better in Wiktionary where the reader can easily link to far more about the word or back to a Wikipedia article about the detail. When that page is completely migrated to Wiktionary, both projects will be much better off.
Glossary of darts is a mere list of definitions with no hyperlinks. It would be perfect in Wiktionary because readers could link to individual pages where they could learn about the etymology of the expression. In Wikipedia, it's a mere list with no real possibility of expansion.
The list goes on and on. It's not that these pages are inherently harmful to Wikipedia, just that they'd be even better in Wiktionary. And the user experience is (or could become) seamless. Rossami (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The existence of appendices on Wiktionary should not necessarily preclude the existence of glossaries on Wikipedia. Just like Wikinews and WP:NOT#NEWS does not preclude articles on current events; just like categories and lists can complement each other and do not preclude each others' existence; so too can glossaries on Wikipedia and definitions on Wiktionary co-exist and complement each other. Wiktionary definitions are more likely to get attention from word experts, while Wikipedia glossaries are more likely to get attention from subject experts; neither will be necessarily better than the other, but both can be made better through mutual synergy. DHowell 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I took a look at the edit history for wikt:Appendix:Military slang. The majority of edits to that article since the transwiki appear to be from IP addresses, and logged-in users whose only contributions are to that article. This suggests to me that the article is not getting better attention because it is in Wiktionary; it is most likely getting attention from people who click on the link from Wikipedia's Military slang article. Also, compare edit histories of the Wikipedia article English language idioms derived from baseball to the Wiktionary wikt:Transwiki:English language idioms derived from baseball; the latter has recieved virtually no attention at all since the transwiki. DHowell 00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Military slang is a good example of a list of dicdefs with no additional encyclopedic content and verifability problems as well. [Sexual slang] was one as well. However, Architectural glossary has clear encyclopedic value, doubling as a "List of architectural subjects" (most of the terms on the list have their own articles). Glossary of darts looks reasonably well-maintained, but there's no obvious advantage to having it on Wikipedia instead of on Wiktionary. Glossary of ballet comes in the form of several short encyclopedia articles documenting ballet subtopics, so it's worth keeping on Wikipedia as well. I'll consult these examples when evaluating whatever language we decide upon for "encyclopedic glossaries" vs. "dicdef lists".--Father Goose 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I finally found somewhere that said glossaries are ok: Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) (as of about a year ago[13]). That might be the place to put guidelines for glossaries. The objections on the grounds of "instruction creep" are spurious: instruction creep says "Don't make up rules that aren't needed." - it doesn't say "Don't make up rules." There is a need for some basic guidelines on how and when glossaries should be created, and what they should and shouldn't include.

Anyway, we all seem to be in some sort of agreement that popular consensus is that glossaries are acceptable in Wikipedia. Is there are reason not to fix this long-standing inconsistency, now? It's not like I'm proposing abandoning NPOV, after all :) Stevage 10:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Are reliable sources needed for plot summaries?

I realize plot summaries should be brief, but they still sometimes have a couple of hundreds of words.

I think this article should clearly state what is the "official" guideline to plots when it comes to reliable sources. Currently it states nothing and in reality 99.9% of the plots in this site are original research (and surely without any footnotes). The reason first and foremost is that there are no reliable sources for, say, 400-700 words in length for movie plots for the majority of movies out there in the world.

If you think plots are unique in that they would almost always have to be an editor's (or editors') own work, this article should clearly state it.

If you think plots must have reliable sources like everything else, even if it means the eventual elimination of most of the plots in this site, this article should clearly state that then.

Thank you and please share your thoughts about this issue. -Kumarules 18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think it implicit that the plot section of an article on a fictional work is primary sourced to the fictional work. Girolamo Savonarola 18:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Girolamo. Plot summaries are accepted per WP:PLOT, and I don't think that it's original research to write about the plot on Wikipedia. We are summarizing a primary source, much like we summarize secondary sources when we extract information from it for any article. Plot summaries obviously need to meet WP:NPOV, and I think violations of WP:OR would be things like speculating what a David Lynch film means on one's own. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because speculating sounds like part of a Review section, which is a whole other story. -Kumarules 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It has been argued that plot summaries are original research, unless sourced to a published summary. The acid test in this regard, to my mind and my understanding or WP:OR (if it's in a reasonable state at the moment), is if it is a bland and factual summary, or if it makes synthetic, analytic, or evaluative remarks. In the latter case, published sources beyond the work itself are needed to avoid the summary being OR. Otherwise, it's not OR and the primary source (the work itself) is sufficient. It can be a fine line. Statements indicating that a character was rash, foolish, etc, are often a sign of analytic/evaluative remarks. Comparisons with other works, similarly. I'd say it's very much case-by-case. SamBC(talk) 18:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
"Original research" on Wikipedia is problematically named and commonly misunderstood to mean "primary sources are not allowed". The WP:PSTS section of WP:OR makes it plain that using primary sources is acceptable -- just not speculation based on primary sources. If multiple people can independently check a primary source and be in agreement about a description of the source (such as a description of a movie's plot) it's an entirely acceptable form of sourcing.--Father Goose 18:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to check, you're not disagreeing with the point about synthetic, analytic, or evaluative remarks? I'm not claiming that plot summaries have to have this, by definition, just that they sometimes do, and that that's a problem when it happens. SamBC(talk) 18:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. Unsourced analysis is a form of speculation, which is always OR. But a primary source counts as a "reliable source" for a straight description of that primary source, which is all that a plot summary should contain anyway.--Father Goose 23:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(EC) The main issue is length, not sourcing. Primary sources certainly can be used, so long as purely descriptive claims are made ("Superman is a superhero character" rather than "Superman is the most powerful fictional superhero ever conceived"). Still, it should be made clear that primary-sourced plot summaries should be a brief part of the article on the work. Not a full article, not fifteen different articles about characters and organizations in the work, sourced to nothing but the work itself. I think the reminder "keep it very, very short unless a significant amount of secondary source material exists" is a good one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
What about "knowing Lex's plan, Superman knew he could either save Lois or someone else. Since he loved Lois, he chose her"? If it's OR, how could you say that line without "knew" or "loved" and still making sense? Unless there's a narrator that states the heroes' thoughts aloud, there has to be at least some level of interpretation. -Kumarules 19:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
"It was impossible to save both person X and Lois; Superman chose to save Lois" is one potential rephrasing. SamBC(talk) 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You solved one of the two problems. You still speculated the word "impossible". Maybe all that happened on screen was Superman thinking about his two choices without "officially" implying it's impossible for him to choose both. Maybe the viewer must deduct it on their own. And I still think it would be pretty hard to describe whole movies (let's not even start with romantic comedies) without speculating on emotions such as anger, hate, love, etc. -Kumarules 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The length issue, even when there is no OR in the plot summary, is a fair use issue. Our overall policy on that issue is err on the side of caution. As for whether a given description contains OR, if editors agree that it doesn't, then it doesn't. Maybe it is plainly evident in the work that Superman saves Lois because he loves her. If it isn't, rewrite the description.--Father Goose 23:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to the question by Kumarules, "Are reliable sources needed for plot summaries?", I think secondary sources are preferable but should not be mandatory. For a longer reply, I've looked at multiple policies and guidelines:

The policy on verifiability says "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I suppose one could say if something is not likely to be challenged, it doesn't need a source. But to say something is not likely to be challenged is speculation. I suppose you could write whatever you want and only cite sources *after* another editor has removed it, but I personally think that articles should be written from sources to begin with. Although, the Main Page says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" not "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can collate based on previously published material." The introduction says "If you add new material to Wikipedia, please provide references." and links to the guideline on citing sources. The introduction also says "Facts that are unreferenced are routinely removed from the encyclopedia" and links to the policy on verifiability. The policy on verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Self-published sources like wikis are generally not acceptable as sources. Preferably, material added to an article should be previously published.

The policy on no original research says "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". Original research refers to "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." The policy on no original research says the policy on neutral point of view has "traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles" The policy on no original research says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources." WP:NOR says sources may be divided into three categories: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Books, films, television programs, videogames, etc are primary sources. WP:NOR says "it is easy to misuse" primary sources. Anyone "who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." In that way, I suppose plot summaries could be left to a general agreement by readers/editors who have consulted the primary source. Many editors like describing the plots of fictional works they've read/seen/etc. This helps Wikipedia grow and allowing them to write plot summaries encourages contribution. But doesn't this mean the editor is a secondary source? Editors can't cite themselves. How do you tell if an editor has actually consulted the primary source? I suppose you can tell by consulting the primary source yourself and looking at what an editor has written and agreeing or disagreeing with their description — or you could leave the fact-checking up to other editors who claim to have consulted the primary source or appear as if they have consulted the primary source. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." A section that relies on a primary source should only make descriptive claims and no interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. I think that a section that relies on a primary source may lead to frequent arguments by people with different points of view, and even arguments about whether a sentence is descriptive or explanatory.

The concept of verifiability was developed "as a way of ensuring the accuracy of articles by encouraging editors to cite sources", assuming "that the most notable views were easiest to document with sources." I can understand why plot summaries of fictional works may not need to strictly be written from secondary sources — we're not dealing with the biographies of living persons. The style guideline on citing sources says if material lacks a citation, consider putting a {{fact}} tag after it or finding a reference yourself. That guideline says if material is doubtful but not harmful, use the {{fact}} tag and remove the claim if no source is provided within a reasonable time. The policy on verifiability says "any edit lacking a source may be removed" and "do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long." The word "may" in that quote could mean "might", it could mean "editors have permission to do so." The phrase "too long" could mean different things to different people.

You could assume that all information in a plot summary is written based on the primary source (the fictional work itself), but the policy on verifiability says "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published." Does that mean the fictional work has already been published or the plot description has already been published? The article for publishing says publishing is the activity of making information available for public view. Speaking of television programs, I suppose broadcasting is a form of publishing, and I suppose releasing films or games on optical disc is publishing, and publishing a book is obviously publishing. But I do not think that readers should have to watch an entire television program/read an entire book/watch an entire film/play an entire videogame to check if the material in the Wikipedia article is true. Asking readers to consult the primary source themselves may be a problem, because many fictional works are copyrighted and if readers must consult the primary source to verify an article is accurate, readers might have to buy a product. That is why I think secondary sources are preferable, although plot descriptions from secondary sources may be difficult to find for many fictional works. Readers might not have to buy a product if it's available from a library. Readers might not have to buy a product depending on their country's copyright laws, but since the Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered in Florida, articles must conform to U.S. copyright law. That is why hyperlinks to full versions of copyrighted works are not allowed in articles, even though they would help a reader check the primary source themselves. The policy on copyrights says "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States...Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." For editors in the United States, the Wikimedia Foundation article says "all contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation are tax deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes" — I don't know if this just applies to fundraising donations or also edits. If a reader purchases a product in order to verify a Wikipedia article, is the purchase price of that product tax deductible as research? I doubt it.

The policy on non-free content says material must meet 10 criteria, 3 of which are: "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.", "Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole.", "Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia." I don't think Wikipedia articles should be a *substitute* for a book or film. If an article retells the entire storyline of a book or film or videogame, that may be replacing "the original market role of the copyrighted media." This is especially true when it comes to short stories. Speaking of films, I suppose a description of the plot is "more free" than the actual video, but the guideline on writing about fiction says "Information about copyrighted fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". Many works of fiction covered by Wikipedia are protected by copyright. Some works are sufficiently old that their copyright has expired, or the rights may have been released into the public domain." Perhaps this is why the style guidelines for films says plot summaries should not exceed 900 words. The guideline for television episodes suggests as a rough guide, "no more than ten words per minute of screen time." It also says "An actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode and constitutes a primary source. Such use does not constitute original research if it is used to verify a fact." Facts can mean objective and verifiable observation. Fact can also be synonymous with truth. There are many theories of truth, but the policy on verifiability says "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

I think it needs to be ascertained whether in-depth plot details about copyrighted fictional works qualifies as fair use. In-depth plot details of fictional works also upset many readers. This has led to arguments at WT:SPOILER about the appropriateness of putting {{spoiler}} tags under headings titled Plot, Plot summary, etc. Some editors assume that a heading named Plot implies spoilers are present, but many readers do not expect spoilers in articles and make no such assumption about headings. If one views the edit summaries in articles about fictional works, one can often see many readers upset with the level of detail a plot description contains. To say that ==Plot== sections do not need citations means all an editor has to do to keep an unsourced section in an article is rename the heading to ==Plot==. That may not fool anyone, but how a policy or guideline is worded is important. It could be also argued that an article with a plot summary and no critical commentary would not quality as fair use. The word "verifiable" might mean that material does not need a source immediately, but eventually, or it might mean that readers have the ability to check the primary source themselves (which could present a problem for out of print material).

I don't think we should start saying that certain sections of articles are exempt from policies. But I also don't think we should be bold and remove all unsourced plot summaries. Although consensus can change, policies and guidelines reflect consensus and common practice. If most plot summaries on Wikipedia are unsourced, I suppose you could say it's a common practice for editors to consult a fictional work and edit the article based on that primary source. When editors add to a plot summary in an article about a fictional work and provide no citations, it may *imply* that they are referring to the primary source. It can also indicate they are adding nonsense to the article. I think secondary sources in plot summaries are preferable — you simply leave the description to a published source and rewrite what they said or quote them. But making secondary sources mandatory is a problem when it is difficult to find secondary sources that describe a fictional work. Insisting on secondary source citations may also lead to the removal of unsourced "spoilers" which upset many readers, since most critics do not tell readers the entire storyline of fictional works. Citing secondary sources may also cut down on the "play-by-play" nature of some plot summaries, although I'm not aware of any film studio or book publisher suing the Wikimedia Foundation for copyright infringement for a long plot description in an article. The script of a film or the manuscript of a book is likely copyrighted, but I personally don't know how much rewriting is allowed by U.S. copyright law. The policy on copyrights says "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference." Plot summaries in articles about fictional works may imply an editor rewrote information in their own words. But the only people who would be able to tell if the information was rewritten are people who have consulted the primary source themselves, unless the text can be found with a search engine or if the text sounds like it was copied verbatim. The Wikipedia article for "paraphrase" says a paraphrase should be introduced by a disclaimer, and that a well-done paraphrase is not a summary, not plagiarism, and usually longer than the original.

WP:NOT says "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic". But I have seen many plot descriptions on Wikipedia that I would not classify as "brief". I don't think Wikipedia exists to do your book report for you, but many readers like long plot descriptions. I think a problem with policies and guidelines in general is that of the 5.6 million registered users on the English-language Wikipedia, very very few users actually discuss policies and guidelines. Policies and guidelines often contradict, because they were written by different people, often at different times. The policy on copyrights says it's legal to rewrite information in your own words. So perhaps a 10,000-word description of a book's plot written by an editor is legal. The policy on what Wikipedia is not says a *brief* plot summary may be appropriate. So that 10,000-word description might get removed. When a person puts alot of time and effort into writing something and it's deleted, it can be upsetting. When editing a page, there is a note: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." But deleting large plot descriptions may lead to valuable volunteers leaving the project.

If we want Wikipedia to be accurate, we should probably insist on secondary sources. But plot summaries that do not cite secondary sources can be brilliant, useful, interesting, etc. I suppose an editor risks wasting their time whenever they click the edit tab — anyone could change it or remove it and editors have all kinds of reasons for changing or removing content. I suppose all we can say is, your edits are more likely to remain in an article if people agree with what you wrote, or if you have more time to watch an article than the people who disagree with what you wrote. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and the spirit of any rules, policies, and guidelines should be followed. Long plot descriptions can be great. Extensive detail may upset some readers and may pose a fair use problem. Unsourced material raises the question of whether readers can trust Wikipedia. Perhaps the accuracy of plot summaries should be left to readers who have read the book/watched the film/played the videogame/etc, but I think secondary sources are preferable. I don't think we should impose a strict word limit on plot descriptions. Saying plot summaries don't need secondary sources means they are an experiment in consensus reality or "wikiality". The policy on consensus says "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it". Declarations on legal issues like copyrights can supersede consensus decisions on a page.

The policy on consensus also says "Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." But how do you know if a topic has "adequate exposure"? As far as I know, there is no tool that currently measures page views or unique visitors to each revision of every article. One could look at a list of the most edited articles at stats.wikipedia.org, although it may be out of date. One could look at a list of unique editors in the last month at wikirage.com. One could look at a list of the top 100 most viewed articles. A counter which tells readers the number of people currently reading a page might be useful, a counter which shows users that have consulted the primary source and have read the entire article might also be useful, but those may put too much load on the servers. You can say, "This is Wikipedia, articles are going to contain inaccuracies." You can say, "This is Wikipedia, articles should be written from secondary sources." You can say, "inaccurate plot descriptions are really not a big deal." You can say, "fans will fix anything wrong in the article." You can say, "Wikipedia is not a fansite and plot summaries attract cruft." I guess we can put plot summaries to the "eyeballs test", but citing secondary sources avoids alot of potential problems, so I think secondary sources are preferable. Now excuse me while I take a wikibreak and go to sleep and have a wikinightmare. --Pixelface 19:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use would not necessarily be affected by the presence of additional information in the article, if the summary part served the requirements of substitutiong for the original work, etc etc.

Articles on criticism...

I see a lot of articles on Wikipedia stating something like, Criticism to Windows Criticism to Da Vinci code, Criticism of Coca-cola etc., etc., etc., I agree that, we should have a NPOV. But so long as the criticisms are a part of the main topic.,it's fine. Does an article that speaks only about Criticisms satisfy the "notability" criteria of an encyclopedia? Do you think that there can be reliable citations for such articles (esp if it focusses only on criticisms)?

there are always people who hates coca-cola, who hates windows, who hates Da-vinci code. But is Wikipedia a place to argue that? Can some one think on this? i think we should have a rule like, Wikipedia is NOT a "critical analyzer" or something like that... Criticisms should only be in a section of the main article. For example, the article Da Vinci code can have a critic's remark. But I don't think(My POV) this is a notable article, even if it has *valid* citations. Just wanted to know others consensus Mugunth 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some "criticism of" articles may be POV-forks, but some are allowed as valid "content forks" when the original article is long, and the section(s) on criticisms make up a large chunk of this. This is occaisionally done preemptively. SamBC(talk) 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, a criticism article would present both sides of an issue. Crticism and defense support. In fact, I'd probably prefer to call such an aritlce Controversies about... which I think is a little more neutral. -Chunky Rice 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Criticism cuts both ways, it's just sadly unfortunate that the American vernacular has turned it into a singularly negative connotation. To critique a thing is to evaluate it, and that goes both ways. Why water down the language to the lowest common denominator, when we can maintain higher standards for articles, and not panderingly retitle them?
As for having such, as SamBC says, often they're used in larger articles, like presidencies, to evaluate, positively and negatively, the major 'issues' surrounding a topic. It's a good thing, except where it is a clear POV fork, and not an article fork for size. ThuranX 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, connotative versus denotative meanings are often a POV issue. Do we not attempt to chose the most neutral of both when attempting to maintain NPOV? I have no interest in changing the names of these articles, but I don't think that an assertion that a word shoudln't have a certain connation, when it clearly does, is a good reason to do something. -Chunky Rice 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:CFORK, in particular, Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles, as well as WP:SUMMARY, in which the issues related to POV forks are explained. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists

Here's a radical thought: What other encyclopaedia has lists? What is the point of lists in Wikipedia? Can't an agglomeration of items which have something significant in common be better explained in an encyclopaedic article on the subject? Such as State Parties of the International Criminal Court rather than List of State Parties to the International Criminal Court? If the items themselves are sufficiently notable it could be covered by a Category instead. List of groups referred to as cults could become Groups referred to as cults, which could perhaps have sections on the historic usage and context of the term, as befitting an encyclopaedia, as well as the actual list itself. Hence the focus would transfer away from the heated talk pages towards the actual article itself. Could this idea take hold? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Some off the cuff thoughts: 1) Lists are far more flexible than categories and one cannot really replace the other. 2) Contents of a list are not required to be notable, any more than they are in any other article. 3) Most lists are content forks from articles that got too long, so obviously, folding them back into those articles is not practical. -Chunky Rice 22:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As someone who has spent quite a bit of time working on categorization policy, I see many problems with this idea. Categories exist without annotation or citation. For that reason, they are unsuitable for any classification that requires an explanation. Lists offer the ability to explain why a member is included, categories do not. In addition, many categories have been removed with the understanding that the information is much better suited to being presented as a list. An example of this is cast lists from films and television shows. If these were category entries, some actors would have hundreds of category listings thereby making all of their categories much less usable. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization for more examples. I find it very frustrating that discussions at CFD will reach a consensus to "listify" a category, and then AFD discussions will want the lists deleted. I'd like to see some broader discussions about what Wikipedia could be, rather than what it is not. There are many pages that get deleted because we cannot agree on an appropriate home for them. Rather than just delete them, I'd like to find the appropriate repository for them. This might mean creating some name-spaces that don't yet exist. I can imagine namespaces called "trivia", "back-files" (for less notable pages), "web" (for web directories), "wikilists" (for lists created in a wiki process that don't have good sources and verification is self-evident), "glossaries", etc... Having these additional spaces would mean that articles could be moved to the appropriate space instead of deleting, and would still be available. This might make most xFD discussions unnecessary, while enriching the content at Wikipedia. Eventually, I'd like to see Wikinews and Wiktionary incorporated as well. They could be in name-spaces called "words", and "news'. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


I fully endorse Sam's namespace idea. There's a lot of valuable information that is just getting dumped because it doesn't fall into the strict definition of an encyclopedia. It is time to think of a solution beyond a trashcan. IMO Namespaces are worth following up. Pgr94 13:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree also. Id rather see Wikipedia as a reference work, and not just a encyclopedia. It already is more than an encyclopedia, and includes almanac entries, and gazetteer entries. I'd like to see the dictionary incorporated directly. Too must time is wasted arguing for the nth time to delete a list, calling it "indiscriminate" or "listcruft". The terms have no meaning. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point. I'm thinking of putting an Essay together: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not just an Encyclopedia! AndrewRT(Talk) 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be interested to read it. I have looked at various definitions of the term "encyclopaedia" and none puts restrictions on what it cannot contain. It is a Wikipedia anomaly. Pgr94 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia include long lists as parts of article, or in tables., or condensed into paragraphs. subjects which can best be handled in list format should be handled in list format. WP is an encyclopedia in the general meaning of the word, not a copy of any preexisting work. it is not just intended as a free version of Encarta or the Brittanica. DGG (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
WP is what it is: articles, lists, categories, etc, all usefully interconneced. I do not see any structural change needed except in the minds of editors who keep trying to make WP into something else and to get rid of all those things (like lists) they do not like or understand. Hmains 02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer the original question "What other encyclopaedia has lists?", my Aschehoug general purpose paper encyclopedia has, among other things, a full list of Shakespeare plays and Ibsen plays near the articles on William Shakespeare and Henrik Ibsen. They are boxed in as a separate section, outside the main body of the text. This is pretty much the same as us making a "list of..." article, although we alphabetize it differently. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of lists is mostly an indexing organization and navigational system; it's a logical extension of the hyperlinked nature of Wikipedia. Paper encyclopedias have all kinds of funny sections we don't have here owing to their particular format and medium. We have different opportunities and constraints. That's not such a big deal. The core part about our being an encyclopedia is the way we look at subject matters, notability, verifiability, etc. I would say Wikipedia is more of an "enclyclopedia plus" where the "plus" part are the extra goodies made possible by our electronic-only, free content, collaborative editing format. Extra disk space is cheap, so we don't throw out features just because encyclopedias don't have them. We throw them out if they're bad ideas, unsustainable, have nothing to do with our work, or would undermine our basic mission. Wikidemo 02:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_15&oldid=1089112829"