Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Newspaper articles - and especially Tabloid Newspaper articles.

What happend to Avoid weasel words?

"Wikipedia properly considers the long term historical notability"

Define long term (also in violation of "wikipedia is not a crystal ball"). We don't and cannot know who will be remebered in 100 years. Most MPs will be largely forgotten but it appears villians are remembered longer (see Herostratus).

"of persons and events with a eye towards care for the harm our work might cause"

Groovy now possible to get wikipedia articles removed through threats. Information is dangerous. This section could be used to justify high levels of censorship. Plenty of bits of history can cause harm in being remembered ("your country attacked us a few centuries ago therefore our attack is justified").

Or there is infomation of a more technical type:

Gun-type_fission_weapon

We cause harm to magicians by saying how some of their tricks are done. Now normally we sidestep the issues by taking the approach that is popular in certain areas of science that true information is not intrinsically good or evil and it is not our place to judge. Moving away from that position creates far more problems than can be solved by doing so.

Geni 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the information itself is inherently good or evil, there are ethical considerations intrinsic in the act of making specific information widely and easily available now and for posterity. We can and must take into account those ethical considerations when publishing any article and especially when dealing with the biographies of living persons.

While revealing magicians' tricks and methods may potentially negatively affect some people, it in no way is directly comparable to the specific harm in extending the fifteen minutes of embarrassing fame to an immortality of shame in an encyclopedia. To argue otherwise is disingenuous. Comparing these two things is like saying that American Express account numbers often have 15 digits is as harmful as publishing specific account numbers with personal details in a way that enables identify theft. Lkinkade 00:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Which ethical considerations and under which ethical system? There are ethical systems that would say our article on homeosexuality is wrong since it doesn't explain that all those who commit homeosexual acts are going to hell.Geni 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As written, the new guidelines contradict WP:NOTE, which states that notability does not expire. In other words, if the subject of an article gets widespread press coverage over a short period of time (the so-called "15 minutes of fame") they pass the notability test for Wikipedia. -- MisterHand 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If by WP:NOTE you mean the Wikipedia:Notability guideline, it's okay for this official policy to contradict guidelines. The trick is to interpret the guidelines in the light of policy, and modify them where they are irreconcilable. While it's true that (at least in principle) notability does not expire, notions of what is notable change from age to age. In the eighteenth century, for instance, the late seventeenth century civil servant and politician Samuel Pepys was just a footnote in history, except for his bequest of his library to Magdelene College. In the early nineteenth century, his private diaries were decoded and his notability as a citable source on major events of his era became more apparent. Cases of notability going in the other direction. My personal reaction to this is to avoid using the term "notable" and to evaluate articles on a case-by-case basis, with help from the so-called notability guidelines where they can help. There are other strategies and I don't decry them although I don't use them myself.

If you're saying that being in a lot of newspapers worldwide guarantees someone an everlasting article in Wikipedia, well what I and Jimmy Wales and lots of other people are saying is a firm no. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that's what this encyclopedia's notability guidelines say. If that's not the case, then those guidelines need to change as well. -- MisterHand 03:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside - Gun-type fission weapon doesn't contain enough information to help someone design a nuclear weapon and is not dangerous. The Nuclear Weapons FAQ does, but please note that essentially none of the "how-to" or design analysis math or techniques info there is anywhere here. This is a subject near to my heart - I have worked with the NWFAQ author on and off for about 15 years on this topic - and unfortunately the subject of great paranoia at times by those who aren't technically informed and aware. Fear not. Wikipedia is very harmless on this point. Georgewilliamherbert 04:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at rewording

The closest I can get to something that is consistant with policy is:

Wikipedia does not allow for articles that exist with the aim to disparage the subject of the article. This is required by NPOV and Verifiability in that there must be enough information from Reliable sources to write a NPOV about the subject. With regards to people this means that there must have been wider coverage of their lives beyond a single event.

however this doesn't work because it would require the deletion of articles on things like Olympic athletes.Geni 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. If an athlete wins Olympic gold, we get a hole biography appearing in reliable sources. When a person becomes a bit player in an incident, all we get is newspaper reports of one incident. That a baby was 'switched at birth' does not allow us to write a biography - although if the incident attracted enough attention, we could write an article on the incident.--Doc^g 00:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe in a Darwinistic approach -- we can have the articles, then when time passes by and there really is no significance to an event, we can go on ahead and delete the article. If the event still has significance after a period of time, then the article is kept. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable. In the meantime we are highlighting something that's unimportant - and giving it google juice. If it is just an incident report - then it isn't a biography and we should not have what we cannot write.--Doc^g 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We have to take the longer term view with BLPs. We have the ability to affect an entire life by making a rash decision and publicizing unnecessarily some stupid mistake that someone might have made. Better to wait to see how and whether reliable sources develop the issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

so you support the deletion of articles on olympic athletes? If not how do you square that with your position.Geni 02:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

nah plenty of minor events where such coverage will not exist Olympic Trap shooting for example.Geni 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If having been involved in Olympic Trap Shooting ever becomes a serious liability to former contestants, the articles that include such trivia will probably be subject to heavy editing. We make the internet not suck, and we need to live up to that. --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No that is what I'm trying to work around since your suggestion would put us as the arbiters of what is good and evil and that just doesn't work. Trap Shooting may be harmless but what about say Eurovision (answer depends on where you are) or say someone who was briefly a major homosexual activist? No these are not judgments that it is wikipedia's place to make.Geni 02:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's our encyclopedia. Who's to say the judgements aren't ours to make? Who else would make them but us ourselves? --Tony Sidaway 02:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

generaly our readers. anythign else would be presenting a POV.Geni 02:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I'm not sure (as the discussion above seems to indicate) that we should attempt to discriminate much based on the type of news coverage, as how 'embarrassing' a story is, and how much the person in question contributed to their own publicity, are often quite debatable. The way, the truth, and the light 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes which is the problem my suggested wording tries to get around however that has the problem of 1)seriously alturing our noteability standards (not that I would have a problem with that) and requireing the deletion of some widely accepted articles.Geni 02:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording as it now stands does not mention any such standards, so I don't think that's a problem. I agree that this seems to conflict with notability standards. The way, the truth, and the light 02:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's policy, not guideline. Going into nitpicking detail is inappropriate. This is just a statement that we don't think much of the fact that some unfortunate bozo happened to be in a newpaper. If we decide we don't much like his article being on the encyclopedia, for whatever reason (but particularly for reasons related to our wish to be an ethical source of information rather than an aggregator of whatever scandals the news media can publish) we delete it unless there is a particularly good reason not to.

As for the notability guidelines, they're always to be interpreted in the light of policy. So no problem with apparent conflicts. Policy takes precedence. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This new section is horribly written and, at least the way it is phrased now, completely ill-conceived. Can we get (or can someone point to a pre-existing piece if one exists) some comments from Jimbo on exactly what it is he is trying to accomplish so this can be reworded to something sane and rational, because as it stands now it just opens the door for people to ask for all sorts of notable articles to be deleted for less than encyclopedic reasons. DreamGuy 02:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tabloid

From my limited understanding of what people are arguing here, it's not so much the newspaper article part that Wikipedia is not, but the tabloid part. The rewording has taken out the tabloid mention, however, which suddenly makes the statement sound a lot more broad than I think (or maybe just hope) was intended. Perhaps if it specified tabloid newspaper instead of just newspaper. DreamGuy 02:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree; "Wikipedia is not a Tabloid" captures it well without being controversial. — brighterorange (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The controversial articles are about subjects that were covered in non-tabloid, respectable news sources. So I think 'Wikipedia is not a tabloid' would just be confusing. The way, the truth, and the light 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I meant that the policy change would not be (as) controversial. — brighterorange (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is probably better language. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• What Jimbo was getting at is this: there is a difference between a newspaper reporting a major event, and sensationalist reporting of the cause celebre du jour. If, for example, the press report a massive new public project, that is probably pretty uncontroversial. If, on the other hand, they are covering a court case which has no lasting societal impact but has some feature that will sell newspapers, we should recognise that as just that: sensationalism to sell papers. How we finally word it I still don't know, but the reason for the qualifier, as I understand it was to allow for inclusion of news which is actually encyclopaedic, and more importantly to draw a distinction between the types of news which might be, and the types which are probably not. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• it was almost certian writen in the context of the Crystal Gail Mangum case. Problem is that almost certianly will have a long term social impact in that geniune rape cases are less likely to be belived in that area for at least a period of time.Geni 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think my original wording was fine

I think my original wording was fine, subject of course to some tweaks and smoothings of grammar and style.

And I invite Geni to be a bit less hysterical about objections. I am happy to discuss it in detail, and to make changes as necessary, but the core point is critical, and I am unwavering about it.

Most slippery slope arguments in this area are just nonsense. What if someone wants to nominate Gun-type fission weapon for deletion? Well, I would imagine that they will be laughed at. Saying that we properly "consider" long term historical notability and the harm we might cause is not dispositive in any particular case. We consider it. Sometimes we think it worthwhile to proceed despite that. Many times, and in particular in the kinds of cases we are all concerned about, we think it not worthwhile. We are Wikipedians. We discuss, we debate, we think.

We do not and can not know what will be important 100 years from now. True. We will let those Wikipedians of the future decide for themselves. We live here and now, and having total fucking crap (have I ever cursed on Wikipedia before?) in Wikipedia today, on the theory that the people of 100 years hence might want to write an article about it then, strikes me as unwise.--Jimbo Wales 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'd say it's identically unwise to make knee-jerk reactions in the other direction. Of course, since we write from sources, the addition really lacks anything anyway, as it's wholly subjective and will undoubtedly only be abused, rather than used in any proper manner, if there is a proper manner. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the knee-jerk reaction here (aside from leaping to the conclusion that this "will undoubtedly only be abused")? It's an attempt to maintain coherence between our guidelines and our practices, while addressing issues that have been the subject of concerned discussion for some time now. --Michael Snow 04:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to address anything regrding guidelines or practices, really. If you think it does, then it's even more toothless than perhaps I originally thought. And it's certainly not a leap to consider this easily abused - have you not been paying attention the last couple weeks? --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that the page is tagged as "official policy" (for what those labels are worth), why you say it doesn't address guidelines or practices is beyond me. I can see you've already softened your stance from will "only be abused" to "easily abused". From past observation I know I'm not ready to adopt your definition of abuse, so care to keep moving further in the direction of a middle ground? --Michael Snow 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that the section added doesn't reflect any of that, and is at least giving the appearance of a "Jimbo wants it" support (never a good sign), I fail to see how this actually reflects practice, guideline, policy, or consensus. I see no middle ground, and I'm not really changing my opnion on the abuse - Wikipedia writes from sources in a neutral manner, that's all we must concern ourselves with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The inability to see possible common ground with people of divergent opinions does not speak well of your capacity for working on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. --Michael Snow 04:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent defense of your position. I assume you have no argument, since you instead felt the need to go after me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Or rather, I have decided not to argue further with someone who rejects any possibility of compromise by his own statements. All you've done is essentially rehashed the same position on your side, so I don't know what my position needs to be defended against other than argument by assertion. --Michael Snow 04:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm fine with that. You'll note that I can agree to that without making a trite comment about one's capabilities. You do, however, seem to have an issue demonstrating how this actually jives with what you claim is "an attempt to maintain coherence." It may be worth your while to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia writes from sources in a neutral manner, that's all we must concern ourselves with." No. Wikipedia is too big, too influential, too widely linked to, too often the first thing returned in a Google searhc for that to be all. We must also be ethical. We must also refrain from causing needless harm or anguish. We must also refrain from needlessly increasing notoriety of those who are only victims of circumstance. I think the majority of the community believes that. I think the wider world believes we have such a duty as well, and I think Jimbo's changes reflect that consensus, rather than being something imposed by fiat. IMHO, it has come to Jimbo taking this stand personally in part because there is a minority of people, including yourself, Jeff, who apparently do not get this, and it is important enough that Jimbo himself felt that, since you apparently do not get this, his direct contribution to the debate might possibly serve to influence you to reconsider your position, to reconsider spurning ethicality, and to do what is right, not just what is allowed by policy. Please reconsider your position and your opposition. ++Lar: t/c 11:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Which ethical system? "needless harm or anguish" define what need do we have and where are you drawing the line?Geni 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not an ethical experiment. I do get what you're saying - I reject it wholeheartedly, and without reservation. Jimbo may have other reasons that come into play - he's not sharing them, and, truly, he hasn't been an editor in a very long time, and that certainly bears noting. Unless he's acting as God King here, I see no reason to treat his opinion as greater than anyone else's at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not an ethical experiment. We are a project with an opportunity to act ethically, or instead to stand on process. It's too bad that you reject what I believe is consensus "wholeheartedly and without reservation", because I choose to act ethically, not to stand on process, as do I think most other people. As for weight of opinions, I think you'll find that WP is at least in part a meritocracy and Jimbo has demonstrated more merit than most, and thus his opinions rightly carry more weight (at least with some of us) than some other folks opinions do. ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I choose to act ethically as well. See the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I do. Restating it... if my ethics lead me logically to the conclusion that we should not do needless harm to victims by publicising them more than necessary, and your ethics lead you logically to the conclusion that doing so is OK, at least one of our ethical systems has a logical contradiction or a moral failing. Perhaps both, of course, and perhaps instead, one or both of our derivations is not sound. But.. if I'm in fact logically contradicted or if my conclusion is fallaciously derived, then I'm in pretty good company, company I'm proud to keep. For the most part, I think it's a good idea to structure things in a way that we don't have to use ethics to make decisions, as much as possible. But sometimes we do. These sorts of cases are the sort where we do have to be informed by ethics, and your apparent viewpoint in this matter about what is right and what is ethical is, I think, in a small minority. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has an issue with the statement that it might be considered. But having that statement be part of policy implies that things that violate it are likely to be deleted, not just that it will be considered as a factor. If you support deleting these types of articles, that's reasonable, but significantly different from just saying "we consider it". -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

not a slippery slope argument just a logical extrapolation. If we are going to start worrying about harm that is the direction we should logicaly go in. We cannot decide if information is going to cause harm without first decideing if information is good or evil and that is a POV judgement that we should not be makeing.Geni 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not justification for speedy deletion

WP:NOT is explicitly listed as one of the things that is not a speedy criterion. So if you think that this section justifies any speedy deletion, you are wrong. Those will continue to stand on their own merits, supported by no policy (except maybe some interpretations of BLP). -Amarkov moo! 04:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think we'll have a lot less need for speedies in a short while. Stay tuned. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What did this mean?--P4k 22:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

notable->encyclopedic

I've restored Jimbo's wording in the newspaper articles item to emphasize the word "encyclopedic". Our notability guidelines are rules of thumb and do not guarantee an article in an encyclopedia. The stronger standard applies: "should this item have an encyclopedia article in this encyclopedia?" In answering that question we consider every relevant factor. In particular, this policy overrides theg guidelines. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like using the word 'encyclopedic' here as it's circular: 'encyclopedic' in this context means 'suitable for the encyclopedia'. So saying that we shouldn't have unencyclopedic articles is a tautology. It seems that my wording with 'notable' is better, because that really is the only standard that we can use. The way, the truth, and the light 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You remain my favourite Wikipedian, Tony, for your ability to write stuff like that with a straight face. Your standard is utter bollocks, of course. It basically says you'll decide what should be in an encyclopaedia by deciding what should be in an encyclopaedia. Which would be fine if there weren't dozens of opinions on what encyclopaedias should contain, which are drearily rehearsed in various forums here. It's not that I don't appreciate your desire to allow editors you consider to have a "clue" to be arbiters of what should be in and what should be out -- it's a bit self-selecting but so long as you include yourself in the "clueful", what's the harm? -- but you can see why some find it a bit unsatisfactory? Of course, I think we should have stuck with the original bold vision and not settled for aiming at being a poor man's Britannica, but I'm not as influential in the backchannels as yourself. Grace Note 05:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at rewording #2

I've been bold and reworded it slightly. I should probably outline my position in greater detail here:

While i'm mainly in agreement with BLP and this policy addition, I still feel it requires further clarification to avoid loose interpretations. I'm not sure whether every article on a living person needs to be viewed as a full 'Biography' - if their notability is restricted to one particular incident or event. I'm also concerned at the potential for 'sanitising' wikipedia that BLP seems to offer - if negative information is both relevant and verifiable, it should be included. The Crystal Gail Magnum case is a clear example of the line where the article becomes unnecessary - not enough verifiable information for a full biography (which is not necessarily a problem) or for an article (which is). Since there was a larger article on the incident which contained the relevant information, I supported the redirect. However, I'm sure there are articles that have been speedied where there *was* enough relevant information for an article, and where there hasn't been coverage of this information within another article.

In short, I'm in agreement with thois policy, with the proviso that people should tread lightly when approaching this type of article: rather than speedying, it would be preferable to blank dubious content (not whole articles), protect, and send to one of the many fora for resolving content disputes. Some of what's been happening with DRV etc has served to divide the community, rather than to encourage co-operation. Which path do we want to take? --DrumCarton 13:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think it's divisive to talk about policy overriding guidlines - BLP and Notability are perfectly capable of working together, as long as people try to make them do so. If a subject is clearly notable, we can't censor it from the encyclopedia, even if the verifiable information is predominantly negative. Likewise, if an article is negative without adding anything to the encyclopedia, it shouldn't need to be here. Example of the type of story that does not merit an article: [1]. However, there are many that do. DrumCarton 13:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

More minor tweaks

I've made another tweak back towards Jimbo's original language. I can see where "Newspaper articles" stands out from "News Reports" which is a term used in WP:NOT#OR. --InkSplotch 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

More comments and changes

Wow, I'm away for a long weekend and look what I miss - Jimbo himself somewhat unilaterally adds a new section to WP:NOT#IINFO out of the blue. So it looks like I've come back to a bit of excitement. Anyway, while I think Jimbo's heart is probably in the right place, I have a couple of comments and changes for the new section.

• The name of the section, "News reports", unfortunately duplicates the name of the "News reports" section of WP:NOT#OR. They talk about different problems, though (one is about first-hand reporting, while the other discusses remaining neutral and on-topic). Ideally one of both of these sections should be renamed to make them more distinct. I'm not sure what name to use off-hand, but if someone has a good idea feel free to suggest it or make the change.
• I think the new section significantly overlaps WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. WP:BLP for example already says very similar things, such as in the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section. I think the new section can probably be shortened by a sentence or two, mainly referring readers to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV for guidance on what is or isn't suitable for biographical articles. Then leave those policies as the one that delve into greater detail on what exactly Wikipedia is looking for in terms of keeping bios on topic and neutral, etc. To that end I'll take a stab at making the section a little more concise.
• My only disagreement with the spirit of the new section would be that, in my opinion, we should be mainly concerned with whether or not information is objective, verifiable and worth mentioning in a detailed encyclopedic treatment of the subject. I believe that while "possible harm" should be a reasonable secondary consideration, it should in the end be trumped by "accuracy and significance". That is possibly embarassing information which is verifiable and non-trivial in an encyclopedic discussion on the topic should still be included. Unimportant information which is potentially embarassing should be removed, but important information should not. I think the current wording leans a little too much away from accuracy in favor of avoiding embarassment. On the upside, if I shorten the section to refer to WP:BLP then that would eliminate my concern by shifting details on the definitions to that policy instead of this one. Dugwiki 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I reverted you, for two reasons - the previous wording started at a fairly uncontroversial premise and logically argued it to a conclusion, imo. Also, this debate's also caused quite a lot of friction, so it may be wise to specify fairly clearly here the ground rules for this particular problem. DrumCarton 11:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no big deal there one way or another. I did make one more minor change, though. I didn't like the phrase "In many cases it will be impossible..." because it sounds a bit too much like a weasel word. I replaced it with a hopefully logical correlation that the briefer the news coverage of a person the less likely a sufficiently comprehensive encyclopedic article can be constructed. This tries to explain the relationship between brief news coverage without quantifying whether there are "many" or "some" or "a few" cases where biographies can be constructed. (It's not important exactly how many such cases exist, but only how to recognize when they occur.)

P.S. I like the new title "Journalism" for the other related section of policy. Thanks to whoever came up with that. :) Dugwiki 15:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We need more discussion on this

I completely agree with the addition, however there seems to be major disagreement to how this is supposed to be applied. I don't suggest removing the entry, but agree with it or not, it's way too new for people to be using it in such unclear situations. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What about crime, death, medical curiosities and watercooler stories?

Early this year a couple of AFDs of articles about a murder victim Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce and a man who got lost and died of exposure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kim led to discussion at a proposed guideline (now essay) WP:NOTNEWS that we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, and that a TV news show editor or a newspaper editor seeking to build audience have different basic standards from an encyclopedia editor, so that alarming stories about crime and sympathy-evoking stories about loss, and even watercooler stories about cute animals in distress can give rise to substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, but still not have the makings of a good encyclopedia article, even if they more than satisfy the letter of WP:N and WP:A. The new standard is apparently to delete stories if they cause or might cause distress to the subject, or his friends or family, in the judgment of some administrator, without the process of an AFD. This leaves us with what are basically memorial stories such as the Kim and Pryce death, where sympathy says keep the article rather than compassion saying delete it as in the case of youthful crime victims. If there are lots of sources like for the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, then does this policy not apply, or do we contact each victim (the deletion review says "The Shawn Hornbeck Foundation was contacted for input") and ask if they want the article deleted, as is being done in the deletion review for the kidnapped Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby? These are all cases of what NewYorkBrad in that deletion review called "crime victims and others who achieve notoriety or notability, fleeting or otherwise, as the result of events wholly beyond their control." This would include Lina Medina who gave birth at age 5 and is now 73, and 17 year old conjoined twins Abigail and Brittany Hensel besides the crime victims. WP:COI seems to contraindicate the subject of the article determining its content or even its appearance in Wikipedia. Edison 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Microformats

It has been suggested that the inclusion of microformats (see WP:UF for background) is a breach of this policy's "Wikipedia is not a travelguide" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" clauses. I do not believe that that is so, since the data presented on the page does not change; only the metadata (one might make a comparison with PERSONDATA). Does any one else have a view? Andy Mabbett 14:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem offering information in different formats as long as they can all be kept up to date without the need to fork in many places. However, if the information in those other formats is not important enough to be visible on the plain text page or in images, then it has no place in Wikipedia. That would include all information where changes affect the metadata only, such as phone numbers and the like. This was discussed a while ago. --Para 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. No microformat are intended to provide hidden metadata, such as you allude to - it's expressly prohibited in their specs. (That's where microformats differ from PERSONDATA.) I'd be grateful for other' comments, also. Andy Mabbett 06:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

From what it looks like, I don't see any issue with what you're doing. JoshuaZ 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that that is so, since the data presented on the page does not change Then why are you wasting your time? Your arguments for the inclusion of Micrformats is their use by software and GPS systems, since the current templates already do this and that wikipedia is designed to be read there is little point for such an overly complicated system to be implemented. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Then why are you wasting your time?" I'm not. Got any other straw men you'd like to exercise?

"Your arguments for the inclusion of Micrformats (sic) is their use by software and GPS systems" - you misrepresent me.

Microformats are not "overly complicated" and the existing templates do not have their functionality. You appear to be labouring under a series of misapprehensions. You may educate yourself in this matter at http://microformats.org/, or here on Wikipedia.

Andy Mabbett 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to represent you since this isn't a vendetta against you. I am quoting you. I don't know why I bother trying to communicate with you since you dismiss any coments from I in the ruddest matter, there is little need to begin this enquery if you do not welcome counter arguments. you have in the past offered GPS and geo software as tools to use Microformats on Wikipedia, since GPS is used for travelling they would be more suited for Wikitravel. Or maybe you could bring out more straw men and offer them as arguments? If you do not follow procedures correctly, the matter will have to be taken somewhere where you will have to answer for this since you do not accept any other coments than positive. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think you're quoting me, then cite your source. Andy Mabbett 12:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the inline templates {{Hcard-geo}} and {{Hcard-bday}}, I'll have to change my position a bit. Microformats should ideally be supported by MediaWiki, and in the interim I think it's acceptable to implement them with templates if normal users don't need to pay attention to them. But if the consequence is that editing the wikitext becomes harder, like with inline templates, then we have another problem in hand. Will we soon see all names and such surrounded with obscure microformat templates? I really don't think that's the way to go. If an inline template does nothing to add consistency or help in maintenance, is there then any value to keep it in article space? There is probably a better place to talk about this, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates or Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates, or somewhere else? --Para 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Will we soon see all names and such surrounded with obscure microformat templates?" No. I only envisage the new pair being used where there is a particular need; such as the coordinates on Ridge Route; or where the named individual does not have their own article (I've seen a subject's father, and the father's date of birth, mentioned, unlinked, in-line in an article recently, but can't recall where). However, the issue here is "do microformats breach WP:NOT", not how to implement them. Andy Mabbett 09:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer Paradisal's concerns. Paradisal mentioned the positibility of extensive code present in articles, would you like to answer that? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have answered Paradisal. I also said, "the issue here is "do microformats breach WP:NOT", not how to implement them", which you appear to have overlooked. Andy Mabbett 12:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Semantic markup is likely to become more popular on the web through various different formats, and people won't stop after just two types, but will come up with the strangest sets of information that they feel must then be entered in their preferred format everywhere. If these inline templates are only ment to be used with fragments of information that don't deserve their own article (which I doubt, since things are often duplicated elsewhere from the main article), do they really deserve to be showcased in other formats that don't contain the rest of the article?

The implementation is very much related to this page, as the obscure markup used might change Wikipedia from an encyclopedia that anyone can edit into a site to demonstrate technical innovations only precious few understand to edit. People should really not be forced to look at things like "hcard-bday fn" when they want to write someone's birth date. If nobody wants to talk to developers about implementing an extension and some tag scheme for microformats, how about just continuing to try moving these additional formats inside the currently used templates, such as extending the {{birth date and age}} template to take a name? --Para 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the power of your crystal ball, but this remains off-topic here. Andy Mabbett 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you not expect microformats to be used more and more? If they are implemented inline like the examples above are, they will lead to wikitext ending up an incomprehensible mess. --Para 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This remains off-topic here. Andy Mabbett 16:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Incomprehensible mess implies WP:NOT. If inline microformats result in articles becoming an incomprehensible mess, inline microformats belong in WP:NOT as well. --Para 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If inline microformats cause a mess, be sure to point it out at that time. Does someone presently have an example to discuss? (SEWilco 00:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Inline microformats have now been nominated for deletion to stop this nonsense from spreading. --Para 08:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't notice mention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats. If you look there you find mention of a number of microformats which may be of interest. For example, Wikimedia already has several kinds of links for getting more information about an ISBN. Is there something wrong with a similar format which follows a standard? Dates could be be marked as such, so in addition to Wikipedia's links to some dates the user's browser might provide additional information about a date or event (if all browsers have a useful date handling ability maybe Wikipedia can have better support for dates than the current mix of real wikilinks and pseudolinks). (SEWilco 00:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

As I wrote above, there is no problem when additional formats are generated transparently inside templates that normal editors don't have to look at. None of the templates mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats are used in articles directly. However, when the templates are for one output format only, such as the inline template {{hcard-bday}} mentioned above, we move from Wikipedia content markup in wiki format to using a single XHTML representation of an additional output format. With this inline template it would mean writing "{{hcard-bday|fn=Firstname Lastname|bday={{birth date and age|1955|06|08}}}}" instead of "{{birth date and age|1955|06|08|Firstname Lastname}}" for example. We can't possibly generate every format for semantic web in articles themselves, but they have to come from special MediaWiki handlers such as with ISBN, or be generated transparently inside our normal content markup templates. Special case output format markup does not fit in article space. --Para 03:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The original question and most responses are about microformats, not Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats's implementation. I don't think microformats should be banned without considering their implementation. I'm happy to have the WikiProject create an initial implementation, as I think more general templates will absorb them, such as Taxobox. (SEWilco 03:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Nobody has suggested banning all microformats. They should however not be written in articles directly. The same applies to any other additional format. The original question does not pay attention to it, but it's an important condition of the answer. This is a general Wikipedia issue and not something WP:UF can decide on their own. --Para 03:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody has suggested banning all microformats" - Captain Scarlet has. Another user also suggested that their use breached WP:NOT. Andy Mabbett 12:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

{{birth date and age}} has no firstname or lastname properties; if it did, I would have added hCard microformat mark-up there. Your "We can't possibly generate every..." is straw-man; nobody has suggested that we do that. Andy Mabbett 12:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why I was suggesting above to work on extending the template to take those properties. Then you could implement the microformat and its special parameters in template space, instead of polluting article space with useless cruft. These hCards hold no special status to deserve to make the wikitext more complicated, other semantic web markup ought to be supported just as well then. But since writing implementation specific markup directly in articles makes them harder to edit, that's not the way to do it. --Para 13:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The new template is no more, or less, in the article space than the old one. You're applying double standards. Andy Mabbett 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you refer to with old and new one. The examples in my post at "03:11, 8 June" are perceptibly different: first is full of odd cruft, and the second intuitive without having to read any documentation. To an article reader, even a microformat-enabled one, the articles would look the same with both templates, but an editor would have to look at the microformat implementation in the first example only, as in the second one the special markup would be in template space. --Para 18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(Response to Andy's original question) I see no problem with the microformats I have seen implemented. They don't cause trouble for readers or editors, and have the potential to be useful for integration of WP, automatic catgorization, etc. I don't believe there is any inherent conflict between microformats and WP:NOT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett 12:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're ready Pigsonthewing: A Microformat is a way of adding simple semantic meaning to human-readable content which is otherwise, from a machine's point of view, just plain text. They allow data items such as events, contact details or locations, on HTML (or XHTML) web pages, to be meaningfully detected and the information in them to be extracted by software, and indexed, searched for, saved or cross-referenced, so that it can be reused or combined. Why is that relevant to wikipedia's readers who read articles? machines can be told exactly what each value represents, and can then index it, look it up on a map, export it to a GPS device, or whatever. wikipedia is designed for people not devices, a GPS is not a device thought of on wikipedia. You remember when you tossed me aside asking to quote you, well there. A GPS you say...

Other microformats allow the encoding and extraction of events, contact information, social relationships, and so on. More are being developed. So Wikipedia is the new Yellow Pages? Your other pet, hCards is equally off topic since it is not Wikipedia's aim to provide online phone books or advertise such and such artist, it is the role of their respective official websites. Adding information such as post codes, addresses, phone numbers is not acceptable and it has been discussed. It says here that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not what you're transforming it into, neither is your project relevant to Encyclopedia#21st_century.

for the average user, Microformats means:

• a set of simple open data format standards that many are actively developing and implementing for more/better structured blogging and web microcontent publishing in general. Wikipedia is not a blog nor a directory.
• an attempt to get everyone to change their behavior and rewrite their tools Indeed since most of the issue is surrounded by having to change for something new and described by its advertiser as the same.
• a whole new approach that throws away what already works today Indeed.
• a panacea for all taxonomies, ontologies, and other such abstractions Indeed.

Implement Microformats where they're needed, personnal, business, company, directory websites, just not Wikipedia. You'll also appreciate that [2] doesn't even have a complete definition of the concept, bad website design full of corporate talk: An Evolutionary Revolution Yes that's convinced me, not. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm always ready to refute the nonsense you post. Where I asked you to quote me was to substantiate your claim that "[My] arguments for the inclusion of Micrformats (sic) is their use by software and GPS systems". You have, of course, failed to do so, because your claim misrepresented me. Your references to an "online phonebook" or "Yellow Pages" are also bogus, because, while microformats could indeed be used for that purpose, no-one is proposing to use them for that here; nor is anyone (in relation to microformats) proposing to add address details where they are not already used. Wikipedia is indeed intended to be used by "devices", as the recent debate on the parsing of coordinates illustrates. Wikipedia is indeed not a blog; but it does fall under "web publishing in general". Your latter quotes appear to be incomplete, thereby reversing their meaning. I note that you don't cite your sources. Your criticism of the microformat website, while it may be justified, is irrelevant; your opposition to microformats without foundation. Andy Mabbett 09:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, you don'(t understand I didn't invent the quoted text above. These are your words, so use bogus, straw men or slippery slopes as much as you want but these are your words. These are your words from your Wikiproject from which you justify your edits [3], so you're justifying your edits with rules and convention you invent? Your comments are as usual empty and full of threat instead of an attempt to listen to others. I don't think you'l ever listen Pigsonthewing, I made an effort for you. If you're not even capable of accepting quotes from Microformats.org and WP:Microformats then where does that leave you? Funny how you're sure of your quotes form these locations but if anyone else does they're suddenly all wrong. You're applying double standards and assuming I'm making edits in bad faith. I have done nothing, over the course of the last three months to be amicable and have god faith in your capabilities to argue with others. I believe you're bent on getting your ideas pushed through at whatever the cost and do not intend on accepting any comments other than full support. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

They are indeed quotes, though not all of my words; but they're taken out of context and don't support your false assertions.

"I have done nothing, over the course of the last three months to be amicable" - indeed.

I make no threats, empty or otherwise. I'm not really interested in your fallacious beliefs.

Andy Mabbett 09:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is double-censored

The pornography "project" that has enpowered editors to remove all but six porn video titles from filmographies is censorship. There is no other logical explanation for it. "Notability" isn't relevant because "notability" applies to the subjects of articles, not article content. "Undue weight," and the idea that porn filmographies represent the "indiscriminate collection" of information don't apply, because filmographies of non-porn actors routinely go beyond 100 films.

Editors here are routinely misrepresenting purported Wikipedia "pillars" and "principles" in this area, and they are repeatedly and deliberately lying about the notability issue. They are lying about censorship, puking out the tautology that censoring porn filmographies isn't censorship because "Wikipedia doesn't censor."

Maybe all of this is to be expected, given that Wikipedia is headquartered in Florida, the craziest state in America. Who knows, maybe it's been taken over by a bunch of evangelical Christian Republicans. It sure seems like it when it comes to anything involving porn. In any case, the idea that Wikipedia isn't censored is an absolutely preposterous lie. Pwok 08:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking it to talk

Hi, I had a lovely personal message on my talk page from someone who assumes I know nothing about Wikipedia policy. What would you like to discuss about my edits? 172.159.93.208 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not censored?

Should the not censored section be expanded to specifically include content warnings? Things such as: This article contains (type of content) that some may find disturbing. I've seen this turn into disputes on two articles recently. Gangrene had to be protected over this and there is a dispute over at Robert Pickton about it now. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

These user-created disclaimers are already removed on sight, so I have added WP:NDT to the {{seealso}} list in this section. Prolog 00:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, that's only a guideline (a set rule IMO, but not in everyone's) and these technically aren't templates, just text. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:NDT should be just "No disclaimers" including templates? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, it appears that moving the guideline to Wikipedia:No disclaimers has already been proposed. Maybe it should be moved through WP:RM then. Prolog 00:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've listed it at WP:RM and started a new discussion thread on the talk page for the guideline. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

>Wikipedia is not censored at all <

This is BS! If anybody added a detailed description to WP of the quaternial integral cryptanalysis method which NSA currently uses to break high-strenght PGP, or the exact way to make sub-100tons tactical nukes economically, wikipedia would go down faster than you can count 1-2-3. Geeks seem to think they are almighty, but when the black suit govt guys come knocking to their doors underwear replacement is warranted. Wikipedia is not above laws and morals imposed by governments and that may well include censorship and you cannot do anything against that! So it is better not to put empty bragging on your pages like no censorship at all here. 81.0.68.145

• • • I'd like to see reliable sources for those articles. (sarcastic reply). -N 21:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

is this what wikipedia is not?

I just looked at Song Sparrow and while it doesn't fit any of the categories specifically, I think the references section that is far longer than the article (especially the list of dissertations) is not very encyclopedic. Or am I way off base? Pdbailey 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy over-ref... I suggest you move that "further reading" section to a talk subpage. --tjstrf talk 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. The further reading section's definitely worth keeping for reference when editing, but not on the article, there it does violate Wikipedia is not a directory. The references section should stay as it is, although it does need inline citations rather than just a list. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Do no harm", our aim to

This is not an over-simplification of any sort. It's what WP:BLP says: "In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". In which case, why this edit? Our aim is to do no harm. It's in the policy. Moreschi ^Talk 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So link to the policy. Done deal. "Do no harm" has proven to be absurdly subjective, and is being expanded to unnecessary and disruptive lengths. Linking to the policy is a better idea, since the policy governs what our aim is beter than simply trusting people we can't trust to "do no harm." --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not a good (or necessary) wording regardless of the policy behind the wikilink. The whole point of the section is that Wikipedia includes content that can be harmful to some people. Prolog 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say leave it as Biographies of living persons. Whilst "Do no harm" is an important part of the policy, it isn't the whole of the policy, so it's necessary but not sufficient. The entirety of the policy applies here. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Get the game here

List of free first-person shooters contains many links to download locations, within the sections and labeled like "Get the game here". I'm coming here before unilaterally taking those links out, because I need someone to hold my hand for a second. Or are links like that not a violation of WP:NOT? —AldeBaer 10:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. My immediate reaction was that it violates WP:NOT#MIRROR, but I've just had a look at the external link criteria, which (under what to link), states "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply". I guess it falls under that. I don't like the sentence "get the game here" though, sounds like advertising speak. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 10:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My sentiment exactly. I had also read WP:NPA#MIRROR and didn't find an immediate answer whether or such links are ok. Well, I guess I'm removing the "get the game heres" and leave the links for now. Thanks for the input. —AldeBaer 10:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Ball

Is the following discussion appropriate to report in the article Islam and antisemitism:

Johannes Jansen writes that antisemitism will have little or no future in the Arab world in the long run. He states that, like other imports from the Western World, antisemitism is unable to establish itself in the private lives of Muslims.

Reference:Jansen, Johannes, J. G. Lewis' Semities and Anti-Semites. The Jewish Quarterly Review.

The Jewish Quarterly Review is a respected journal.

Johannes J.G. Jansen used to be the Director of the Dutch Institute in Cairo. Since 1983, he has been an associate professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at Leiden University. His books have been translated into Bosnian and Turkish, and even printed recently in Indonesia. He writes regularly for a weekly newspaper and has a weekly column on the religion page of several provincial newspapers. [4]

Does the above discussion violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball?

Bless sins 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. Not a crystal ball is more intended for articles like Spider-Man 4.

Yeah, that's what I think as well. Apparently there is some confusion over whether "development" includes the decline of antisemitism in the Muslim world.Bless sins 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Scheduled church services

A number of Singaporean church articles [5] [6] [7] [8] include information about timing and content of services. This, IMHO, violates WP:NOT#DIR. Second opinions? Jpatokal 05:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Listing a guide to current events violates WP:NOT#DIR. It's very similar to the example of "...an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable." Major events in the history of a particular church can be discussed, but specific day-to-day and week-to-week schedules should not. Dugwiki 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And now a church-affiliated editor has attempted to compromise by deleting times, but keeping dates [9]. I still think it's unencyclopedic. Jpatokal 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a key question is will the information you're talking about be deleted and replaced a few weeks after the event occurs? If so then there's probably no reason to include it in the article in the first place. For example, day-to-day schedules are not likely to be something that will be permanently kept in the article. So attempting to do that just means all that much extra maintainence and a lack of stability in the article. Truly significant events are ones that will likely be still mentioned the article long after the event occurs. So if the dates your talking about are not something that will be kept in the article in the long haul, they should be removed. Dugwiki 16:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a schedule of weekly church services: on Sunday at 10 AM is the English service, on Monday at 6 PM is the Mandarin service, etc. IMHO this kind of stuff is totally irrelevant for somebody wants to know about the church itself, and is better maintained on the church's website. Jpatokal 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

question about WP:NOT#PUBLISHER

I have some questions about this rule. Some users warn me regarding the possible violation of this rule (#6) when I place sport score before a sport game has officially end. I just want to know the definition of this rule and whether or not I have violated this rule. Chris 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See discussion on Talk:2007_NBA_Playoffs, User talk:Chrishomingtang#2007 NBA Playoffs, User talk:Ksy92003#2007 NBA Playoffs, User talk:Wizardman and User talk:Soxrock for more detail.

The issue of reporting sports scores on Wikipedia during the middle of a game really doesn't have much to do with verifiability. Tens of sports websites across the web can verify the score of the Red Sox game at any given moment. The problem is that, within a half-hour, that score is likely to change. ESPN.com will change its scoreboard accordingly, but Wikipedia usually won't. So it's best to just wait until the game is over, and then report the game as a whole.

Wikipedia's real-time flexibility is a great advantage over print encyclopedias, but it can be taken too far. Updating scores in the middle of a game is symptomatic of recentism. Don't despair, though - there is always plenty of work to do on our sports articles. :) Placeholder account 07:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is similar to my comment on day-to-day church event dates above. Basically information that is obviously going to be deleted or changed shortly after its inclusion in an article shouldn't be included in the first place. You should normally only include information in an article that is likely to be there for the long haul. Dugwiki 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#IINFO - doesn't cut it.

There is an ongoing debate in the article cups and balls in which a section once existed (and has been forcably removed by certain editors) that explained the principles behind performing the trick. The claim is that "wikipedia is not an instruction manual" and no how-to or instructions should ever be placed in articles. I would like to suggest that this policy is not realistic within wikipeda to be strictly defined as such.

It is normal practice in wikipedia articles to explain how things work, and not just described what they actually do or how they appear. As such, the internal combustion engine article explains the chemical reaction inside an engine, and describes many different kinds of engines and how they work. (to me this is either a how-to guide for engines, or a how-to guide on how to achieve internal combustion). Articles on musical instruments like violin don't just tell you the shape and materials the instrument is made from, it tells you how the instrument is played, and explains techniques related the instrument. This would be a how-to manual to me.

Games like Chess have lots of space dedicated to technique - there is even a whole article about it - Chess strategy. There are articles dedicated to other secret "instructions" such as recepes (which are just cooking instructions) for the Coca-Cola formula and MacDonald's Special Sauce. I don't see any good reason for details on the performance of the Cups and balls to be any more unacceptable than those articles just because it instructs on a physical action, and not just instructs on a mechanical, mental or culnary action. I would say that the top reason someone would goto an article on Cups and Balls, or any magic trick would be first to read about how the trick "appears to be performed" (the intended effect), if they don't know the trick, or to learn about the techniques that create the illusion if they have seen the trick. I'm not saying that the section ought to be written in the style of "take the ball in your hand- place your hand in your pocket - slip the ball under the cup...." but an outright deletion of the section and a ban on any information relating to how the trick is performed seems outright un-wikipedish to me. TheHYPO 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as the section just describes the basics of the technique and is not a step by step guide to performing the trick, I don't think it falls under WP:NOT. The point of that clause is not to prevent any description of a procedure. -Chunky Rice 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

N's user page disclaimer

N has added a new disclaimer to the myspace clause [10]. it reads:

If you are considering nominating a user page or personal image for deletion because it appears to be used as a personal web page or a blog, please be aware that many editors will consider this a personal attack on themselves, because they may believe they own "my userpage". Be very careful not to scare a newbie away from Wikipedia, and try to assume good faith that they are merely trying to share information about themselves. Try to resolve the issue on the user's talk page first. Also note that a limited amount of personal information (perhaps a short biography) and a freely licensed (never fair use) tasteful personal photograph or two may be allowed on a user's page in order to show the user's human side are usually allowed, but only if the page complies with other Wikipedia policies. Users with most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits. And always remember that a user's user page being used as a personal web page is not in itself a speedy deletion criteria.

However much I agree with this (and I do, very much), I think it probably belongs somewhere else. Wikipedia:User page most likely. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I also think it would be better suited for Wikipedia:User page as well. --13² 16:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, doesn't belong on the WP:NOT page. WP:USER is a better spot for it. (Requestion 16:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Moving it per consensus. Thanks for the affirmation. -N 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Schedules & program lists

The section on "Wikipedia is not a directory" includes the following:

"3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable."

The wording "programme lists" was added after a brief discussion which lasted for 3 days and involved 6 users. On the other hand this AfD discussion revealed a clear community consensus to at least include program lists and even schedules of many TV networks (while many arguments to delete were based on citing this very paragraph of WP:NOT). Since policy is supposed to follow consensus, and not the other way around, either this wording is unclear, or it is not true policy. Either way, it must be rewritten in a way such that it is clear when program lists and schedules are allowed and when they are not. Otherwise, such articles as List of programs broadcast by NBC might be repeatedly nominated for deletion, because a not insignificant number of users will interpret this policy as prohibiting such articles. Any thoughts? DHowell 03:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Day to day schedules are inappropriate. As I mentioned in some of the similar threads above, a key question is how often the information involved will change. In the case of day-to-day television network schedules, the answer is that they change fairly frequently, meaning the scheduling information is not going to be stable in the long run. Day-to-day operating schedules are therefore not appropriate for general encyclopedia entries on a topic; it's better to simply include an external link to such schedules. Dugwiki 15:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's understandable, as a maintenance concern. Schedules which change from day to day or week to week are generally not appropriate in an encyclopedia. However, what about lists of programs produced by a particular station or network which tend to be stable over long periods of time? For example, if a station had the same newscast schedule for the last 10 years, would it appropriate to include such a schedule? Also, the major network schedules also often change on a weekly basis (and sometimes programs are canceled with a less than a day's notice), so frequency of updates can't be the only critieria for inclusion; for example, fall U.S. network schedules are typically included (with wide consensus to do so) because they are widely reported by dozens if not hundreds of reliable sources. And the criteria as presently worded also says "programme lists", which seems to prohibit pages such as List of programs broadcast by Discovery Channel, which had consensus to keep in 2006. Again, how can we change the wording of this section to be clearer? DHowell 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree that the phrase "programme lists" should be removed or replaced, since lists of both current and former programmes can be acceptable (see List of programs broadcast by Discovery Channel as an example of a list of current and former programmes that was kept). What isn't ok would be lists of "current programmes", which would suffer the maintainence issues above. Someone also mentioned in the related discussion for this wording that copying and pasting program schedules can violate copyright. Dugwiki 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

To this end I removed the phrase "programme lists" from that section. Since it's a recent addition, but seems to be a little problematic, better to take it out for now and discuss whether or not to replace it with another phrase. Note that it might not even be necessary at all, since the current language does specifically mention "schedules".Dugwiki 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What we need to do is rather than have mere lists of programmes, encourage editors to describe in prose the programmes on a certain channel, based on notable programmes which have made their mark or featured in a number of third party sources rather than produce a long and exhausted list of programmes which a channel has broadcast. For example, though it is a bad example at the moment because it needs cleaning up, Channel 4 programming at least explains the what Channel 4 commissions on its channel and notes the programmes which have shaped the channel over its years as a controversial and outspoken channel. Although it still goes down the route of having a long list of programmes (many redlinked), it is a step in the right direction. In terms of Channel 4's history as a distinguished broadcaster of controversial programmes that push the boundaries of what is acceptable on television, a mere programme list would have been an insult to the channel's historic notability (or even notoriety).

Many of the programme lists in channels are just long unsourced lists of non-verified programmes. For example, Cartoon Network (UK). The list goes for as long as the eye can see, has no sources to verify if any of the programmes have been broadcast on Cartoon Network, and even includes future programmes (possible violating Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). CBeebies has been long plagued with vandalism from editors, and all vandalism to the article has focused solely on the programme list, with editors adding programmes never screened on the channel, and other editors reverting the changes made. Even after I suggested that every programme be verified with a source, the vandalism continued. There is no indication either of what is currently broadcast and what was broadcast on a channel. Programme lists suffer the same problem as schedules, in that a programme is added to a list and is then left, and it could be that a programme is being shown as being broadcast on a channel in Wikipedia, whereas in reality the programme has been axed from a channel or even bought up by another broadcaster, thereby making the programme list irrelevant, redundant and factually incorrect.

Programme lists also have no set guidance on what should be included, in terms of notability. What makes a programme notable enough to be included in a list. Would a programme that was influential on BBC One also be included on a programme list for UKTV Gold, if the same programme doesn't have the same impact on that channel? Would all programmes broadcast on one channel be notable? Because if that is the case, the BBC One list will be extremely huge, since BBC One has been broadcasting a regular television service (except for the Second World War) since 1936! Programme lists generally bring more trouble than they are worth in my opinion. The better compromise would be, where possible, the programming policy of a channel should be described in prose, alongside examples of notable programmes on a channel, where notability of its media and social impact have been catalogued and shown in a number of third party texts, which will be more valuable to readers than a mere long list of programmes.

Schedules, as in my original proposal to be added to this policy, should, for current schedules, be kept out of Wikipedia and remain the preserve of scheduling and TV Guide websites, who can keep schedules up to date and have the copyright (where applicable) to reprint schedules from broadcasters. From experience, schedules are usually added once and never updated. Schedules are copyright of the broadcaster or the website of where the schedule is hosted in a lot of cases (ie. a copy and paste job from a website) and should be removed on sight. Historic schedules should remain as they can provide a snapshot of a timeframe of television where a textual analysis should also accompany the schedule, but of course, as long as they follow Wikipedia policy on verification and notability. --tgheretford (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite to this discussion, Tghe. I would not have known about this conversation if you hadn't left a note on my talk page. Wikipedia's Five Pillars set the record straight on the issue of program schedules: The very first line of the page states: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs."

Wikipedia is meant to be both a general encyclopedia and a specialized encyclopedia. At least three television encyclopedias that I know of contain national network program schedules. Total Television (McNeil, 4th ed) at 1,251 pages, dubs itself "The classic television encyclopedia is also the most complete!" and "The comprehensive guide to programming from 1948 to the present". The text contains 5,400 articles on television series and also contains national network program grids from 1948 to present. There are also several competing television encyclopedias (Brooks and Marsh), (Brooks), etc, which contain these national program schedules. Clearly, they think the material is encyclopedic, and these volumes have been around since the 1960s.

It's only been recently, with the growth of Wikipedia, that we have started to see these (in my opinion) odd claims that national network program schedules are "unencyclopedic". Material that has been included in encyclopedias for decades has been declared unencyclopedic by editors who are either unfamiliar with TV encyclopedias, or unaware that the Five Pillars of Wikipedia claim that Wikipedia is both a specialized and generalized encyclopedia.

Further, Wikipedia consensus has usually been that national network program schedules are encyclopedic and educational. [discussion] resulted in the keep of five national network program schedules (the rest were, oddly, never nominated).

There has been an insistence from some Wikipedia sectors that only prose is a valid form of text in an encyclopedia. I'm not sure where this idea came from, but anyone who has read a text encyclopedia has found plenty of tables and directories in them. These tables work where prose cannot: town directories for State/National maps, tables of data for items which would be extremely repetitive in prose form, etc. Programming grids present data in an easily readable format that prose cannot duplicate.

Finally, there has been some confusion over the copyright status of program grids. Just like a train schedule, which contains a list of times when the train will stop, a program schedule cannot be copyrighted in the United States, because it is not a work of creative process; it's a timetable. This is discussed at more length here. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing to consensus

What about a compromise where the TV/Radio Guide is removed and replaced with the more correct (and covering just current schedules) term - electronic program guide (written in American English)? This is more in keeping that TV/Radio guides can be kept and record historic trends in programmes, whereas an EPG will delete old schedule data and only show current or forthcoming schedules.

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

Changes are underlined.

Doesn't cover lists of programmes within the policy, but I still believe that programme lists should move away from just long lists of programmes and attempt to explain in prose the policies for buying and producing programmes for a particular channel, as explained in my argument above as well as in Channel 4 programming. Maybe this should be covered in another policy, Wikipedia:Notability maybe? --tgheretford (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would go along with this, but I would replace "historic notable" with "historically significant". Truly notable schedules should get their own article, but an article ought to be able to contain schedules which are historically significant to the subject of the article, without the schedule itself having to pass notability standards. And while "historic" implies only schedules which are no longer current, "historically significant" could even allow for future schedules under certain circumstances. It doesn't take a crystal ball to know that 2007-08 United States network television schedule is both "historically significant" and "notable", even though it is a "forthcoming" schedule. DHowell 07:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to challenge your assertion that the 2007-08 schedule information is "historically significant". 81.104.175.145 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How would you challenge it? By claiming that because it is a future event, that it cannot be historic? Or that because it is only a schedule it isn't historic? Actually, these schedules are planned months in advance; the 2007-2008 one has already been released for at least five major US television networks. These schedules affect 300 million television viewers each year, and the schedules themselves play a part in which shows will be seen the following year: shows which are placed at the same time as a hit series often will not be renewed the following year. The schedules also affect the thousands of local TV stations in the United States which carry the signals; while many stations will carry the programs on the schedules, there will be some stations that are dissatisfied with the current schedule, and drop parts of the schedule ("pre-empting") or drop the network entirely. Network schedules also affect syndication and cable TV. In fact, the entire US television industry, thousands of local businesses, entertainers, even industry, is greatly affected by these schedules, even those which have just been announced. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm challenging it on the basis that you haven't actually suggested why the schedule information is "historically significant" beyond Because I Said So. 81.104.175.145 23:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because that's what I said. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So, erm, ... do we get a real reason any time soon, or are you just going to continue being awkward? 81.104.175.145 02:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You've been given a reason, and you haven't responded in any way that indicates why you think this reasoning is wrong. So far, your responses have been essentially the equivalent of plugging your ears and saying "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!", or The Argument Sketch from Monty Python. DHowell 22:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Given the malleability of program schedules and given that such information really belongs in a TV guide rather than in an encyclopedia, we should link to external sites (cnn.com, etc) that already cover the program guides better than we can. >Radiant< 08:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I edited my original suggestion, but I am just wondering how to incorporate the suggestions that current schedules should link to a reliable external source into the above compromise? --tgheretford (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Historically significant program schedules do not usually appear on external sites (certainly not CNN.com!), but do appear in television encyclopedias. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that historical, season-by-season program grids for national networks are of encyclopedic interest, consisting of the program lineup at the start of the season (and perhaps a few notes indicating subsequent mid-season lineup changes). However, it would be too much clutter to go much beyond this, like to attempt to include local program listings for every station or day-by-day listings including specials and the like. *Dan T.* 19:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that reading through the responses, the above compromise matches consensus here. Unless anyone disputes it, I shall add it to the policy later. --tgheretford (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd dispute it or not, but I'm not clear on what exactly a "historically significant" schedule would be. Putting in program schedules seems to me the exact thing that NOT a directory tells us not to do. We're not TV Guide, we certainly shouldn't have such things except in very rare cases and for very good reason. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The above compromise works for me. Historically significant schedules aren't the sort of local schedules that appear in TV Guide. They're the national grids that affected 300 million viewers every year. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes to policy as per the above. Just {{schedule}} to check now. --tgheretford (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to lodge an objection - how do we define a "historically significant" television schedule? What would be the defining characteristics as such? Without this information, to me it just looks like we've relaxed WP:NOT to allow something we previously didn't allow for good reason into the encyclopaedia. I'd also go so far as to suggest that we can't declare that the previous standing was not a valid consensus due to lack of participation and then declare that we have consensus here on an equally low level of participation. 81.104.175.145 13:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an acceptable change, although it really does not change much. Current schedules are, and were, 'excluded', and very well so; while "historically significant" ones - which I presume would be the ones discussed in non-trivial independent secondary sources - would already have a case for inclusion. Yet I think the previous wording "[not a] TV/Radio guide" may be clearer than the current "[not a] electronic program guide" as WP is, by nature, an "electronic something". And we do not say "WP is not an electronic FAQ", "WP is not an electronic Travel Guide", "WP is not an electronic Memorial", etc. - Nabla 14:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The correct term for an electronic program guide is an electronic program guide, so that term is correct. --tgheretford (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And where did I said it was not? I simply said that, in my opinion, the preavious wording was clearer. - Nabla 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that, even though it was put on the Village Pump, people are just not going to participate in this debate, unless there is a article for deletion discussion on a article which is a programme list or a schedule. Discussion on this issue should really have be done when that AfD (in the original post) had just closed, when it was clear that WP:NOT wasn't working or was not to the benefit of the community. The only way things will go forward here is through compromise and consensus. If the section is disputed, it needs to be tagged as such (how for project pages, I don't know) but I can't think of nothing more to gain more opinions on this article, less someone posts it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. I'm stumped! --tgheretford (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to my post regarding the tag needed, is this the correct one: {{underdiscussion}}? --tgheretford (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was the case that WP:NOT was not working, but rather some people not understanding it. "List of programmes broadcast by X" is indiscriminate however you frame it. Why do we care? If anything, it should be the other way around, with programme articles showing the broadcasters that have carried it. "List of programmes made by X", on the other hand, is more meaningful - it provides scope to develop to the point where the "List of" part can be dropped (as in Channel 4 programmes).

I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but in the US, only a small percentage of television programs are made (produced by) the company which broadcasts them. I don't know why the scope would be any different, and these lists would be far more prolific (under a dozen broadcast networks vs hundreds of production companies) if they were refactored into lists of shows made by production companies. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A pseudo-random list of everything a network has ever broadcast is not of encyclopaedic value (it is indiscriminate), but rather the fact that a given network broadcast a given programme belongs more readily on the article about the programme. As an example for the sort of thing I'm talking about, the BBC is one of the biggest producers of programme content in the world, hence a list of major programmes they have made is of more value than a list of things they have decided to import for each of their domestic outlets. I would imagine that the networks have sufficient exclusivity over some original content as to make such lists feasible. I'm not in any way suggesting we need a List of programmes produced by Acme Productions, but rather that the current lists be pared back by including some sensible selection criteria. 81.104.175.145 23:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sensible to whom? It is not at all clear to me that the BBC is a representative example of one of these lists. Certainly, commercial American network content is rarely imported (in the sense of coming from another country) because networks rarely believe foreign programs will be profitable or viable. Their programs are produced mostly by outside developers who may or may not have some affiliation with the network. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody can put forward an argument that some television schedules are historically significant, I'm going to remove that particular clause from the paragraph. 81.104.175.145 22:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, arguments have already been put forward above. At the very least, things which companies spend millions of dollars creating and promoting, which are covered and discussed by multiple reliable souces, which affect hundreds of millions of people across the country every year to the extent that many actually plan their daily life around them, and thus become part of the culture, are "historically significant" by any reasonable definition of the term. DHowell 22:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

They don't meet reasonable definitions of "historically significant", because you've failed to make the important connection to specific instances. True, many people plan their lives around television schedules, so there's no reason for us not to have an article about television schedules. That is not the same as having an article containing television schedules. As an appropriate analogy, millions of people rely on the railway network around London and south-east England, which is why we have articles about them. However, we don't have the timetable for peak-time services out of London Bridge station. 81.104.175.145 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

links to commercial sites

There's a wikipedia page -- Le Bureau with links to amazon and fnac (a french retailer) to buy DVDs of the TV show covered in the wiki. This is clearly not appropriate but I didn't read anything on "what wikipedia is not" that explicitly states links like these are not allowed. Tehw1k1 12:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is better covered by the external links guideline (WP:EL). If you really want a WP:NOT section, I'd say that the advertising section of WP:SOAP certainly implies by omission that such links are inapprorpiate. -Chunky Rice 18:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Names of private individuals

I've add this to "Newspaper reports":

In general the names of private individuals may often be redacted without loss of significant information.

Quite often we'll compile information from newspaper reports where named private individuals are interviewed. This doesn't make them public individuals, and there is a risk that our including their names in the account of the event, where it isn't really necessary, will cause the event to become indelibly associated with them. I'm thinking in particular of the survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting, but it applies in many other cases. --Tony Sidaway 16:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. No need for it here, and it seems like an attempt to get it added because not enough people agree with you at the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The removal of names has been very effective there and I think it should be taken up as a general principle. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits haven't held up, and there's significant opposition. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's set aside our difference on the facts. Could you explain your opposition to the principle? --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, let's deal with facts. Can you explain the necessity? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In a word, privacy. I'd like you to explain your opposition to the statement that In general the names of private individuals may often be redacted without loss of significant information. This is the text that your removed. Do you believe it to be an untruthful statement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 June 2007.

How does published information such as that violate privacy? I do believe that do be an untruthful statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

All publication of an individual's name compromises privacy a little.

Journalists justify their actions by the requirements of credibility and the fact that their reports will only expose the individual for a brief period. Theirs is the main source of news, so it's appropriate for them, for instance, to report the names of living individuals involved, in a minor way, in larger events.

We're not journalists, and we're collating information rather than producing it. We refer to sources that contain the names, so we're not compromising completeness by removing the names of, say, people wounded in a massacre. Moreover our article is not intended for brief publication, but to be there basically forever--the whole life of this person. It makes sense to take reasonable steps by asking "does using this private person's name add significant information to the article?" The answer may sometimes by that it does, but often it doesn't. Random victims of a gunman are there by chance. Their personal backgrounds, names and so on where not relevant to the actions of the gunman are private information. This is simply a reminder that we should treat private information with respect and not use it unnecessarily. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. Their names are no longer private, so there's no privacy concerns. The entire basis is flawed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I find Tony's point quite sound, and judging from this revert, Tom harrison agrees as well. I don't think we should look on it as if once names are no longer private, it's okay to publicise them further, when it's unnecessary. There are different levels of publicity, and if Wikipedia is making the name of a private individual more notable than it would otherwise be, we need to ask ourselves if this is necessary and if it's in accordance with our principles. One thing I will say, though, is that I don't really like "in general" + "often". I'd take out the "in general" and leave the "often". ElinorD (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree - it costs us nothing to respect non-public individuals' privacy. Orderinchaos 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Names don't suddenly become private. It's unrealistic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

They don't suddenly become public either. In many cases they are aired in one news report or a few related which, after the hype dies down, gets archived and can't even be found on the news service's own site. I know of specific cases where, through a misspelling or sheer failure to check up on facts, the wrong individual has ended up becoming a target of hate mail or worse. Orderinchaos 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ElinorD's suggestion, so I've removed "In general" from the beginning of the sentence. It was just a linguistic tic like "erm", and added nothing. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

While I do not completely see eye-to-eye with Elinor and Tony on BLP, I do strongly agree with this particular interpretation. Even if ethical arguments are rejected, there is a legal distinction between public and private persons. Simple exposure to the public eye is not sufficient to classify someone as a public individual. Wikipedia's prominence makes it practically a publicist, which makes this a legitimate concern. IANAL, so I won't presume to lay out an opinion about where that line falls. However, as individuals and a community, we do have to weigh these legal concerns. Vassyana 17:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm wondering if you're failing to see the difference between bad and very bad. I just can't agree with the argument that simply because a private person has been unfortunate enough to be put in the public eye because of the actions of another, it's okay to increase the publicity inflicted on that person, and to make damn sure that the person's name is memorialised forever in search engines. I'm positive you don't mean it this way, so I really don't intend to be offensive, but it seems like saying that some person isn't rich any more as a lot of their money was stolen, so it's okay to steal some more of it. There are degrees of publicity, and having lost some of your privacy doesn't make you "fair game" for anyone who wants to write an article about you. Do you think the people involved would say that being in twenty-seven newspapers over a period of two weeks plus being added to Wikipedia forever is no worse for them than just being in twenty-seven newspapers over a period of two weeks? ElinorD (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the analogy. Google is king now - we can't do any more harm than what has already been done if it's been published previously, and it's high time we get on board with that reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's not possible for Wikipedia to increase a person's publicity, or are you saying that it doesn't matter if Wikipedia increases unwanted publicity once the person has lost some of their privacy? ElinorD (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Both, actually, in this context. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Once something appears in WP, even if it deleted, the AfD discussion almost always remains, & the article & its talk page remains in the mirrors and the web archives--even if oversighted, it still remains in archives. There is nothing that WP can do to prevent this; for all the recent dilemmas about BLP, we can only lower the visibility contribution from WP, not eliminate it.If anything, the intensity of the discussions here may serve to increase it. Perhaps we should do as first-class newspapers do, and accept that if it appears in the NYT or the like, a careful decision has been made by their editors that it's OK, and they have much more experience and professionalism in dealing with these matters than we do. DGG 19:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is, DGG, that this isn't a newspaper. But I'm not arguing for the elimination of all names of private individuals from Wikipedia. I'm just putting a reminder into this policy document that we can often do a perfectly good job without invading privacy. And needless to say, so we should whereever it is possible. To invade privacy "because we can" is not on the agenda. This is what "Wikipedia is not a newspaper archive" means. --Tony Sidaway 04:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"that this isn't a newspaper." - Tony, we derive our sources from newspapers. How Wikipedia differs is that Wikipedia does not take stances and does not solely act like the news. There are MAJOR, MAJOR problems with your addition. "The names of private individuals may often be redacted without loss of significant information." - 1. Who is a private individual? Also, 2. If the definition is broadly expanded to include people involved in nationally famous incidents, what if the readers disagree and start to lose confidence in Wikipedia? Tony, please write a definition of "private individual" before continuing with this. WhisperToMe 12:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, folks, Tony does NOT want to list the names of the injured survivors at List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre - And please see the associated talk page. WhisperToMe 13:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "They don't suddenly become public either. In many cases they are aired in one news report or a few related which, after the hype dies down, gets archived and can't even be found on the news service's own site. I know of specific cases where, through a misspelling or sheer failure to check up on facts, the wrong individual has ended up becoming a target of hate mail or worse." - This isn't the case with VTech as there were HUNDREDS of press reports across various press sources around the world. Also, the particular information here cannot defame the victims. WhisperToMe 13:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Tony's statement as it currently stands. Cbrown1023 talk 13:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What we need to is to find a definition of a private individual. IMO, it needs to EXCLUDE people such as the Virginia Tech injured. WhisperToMe 13:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    The survivors of the Virginia Tech massacre present, in my opinion, a good example of private individuals whose mention in newspapers was solely related to the random acts of a madman. We probably should be (and as a matter of fact, we are) considering whether any encyclopedic purpose is served by listing their names, if descriptions like "21-year-old Bolivian physics student" will do just as well. But the answer to that question could be yes or no and it wouldn't mean the question should not be asked. --Tony Sidaway 13:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    • The question should be asked, yes. I considered the case. Each case should be considered individually and case-by-case. Upon realizing the swarm of news media reports from major international outlets (as pointed out earlier, their editorial departments are not pushovers) and finding evidence of similar lists created by other newspapers, I decided that including the names is the best policy in the case of V-Tech victims; not including them will confuse the reader, as he or she will not understand why they are listed. Even if she finds the reason, he or she will most likely not sympathize with the reason. Out of all of the groups discussing the disaster, the only one I know that excludes names of individuals already discussed in sources is (at times) Wikipedia. NOW, there are cases where only a few press reports exist with a given name exist for a lower-profile incident or where the name is in an insignificant role (E.G. a looter took a stereo during the fire). WhisperToMe 13:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

      Well we're agreed that the question should be asked. Your points should be taken into consideration in the discussion on the relevant article talk page. --Tony Sidaway 14:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that this is a principle not a rule. It would be for editors working on an article to make the call. Sometimes it will be patently ridiculous to exclude names, other times to include them will be gratuitous. All this change does is flag up a consideration to editors, to balance with other considerations. To that degree it should be unobjectionable.--Doc^g 13:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• In that case, since WP:WIWO is considered to be official policy, we should rewrite Tony's addition and state that the idea of excluding names is a principle, and that editors should have judgement call on when to include or to exclude. There may be cases where Tony's principle works (I.E. cases based on few press reports and cases where the info can defame individuals) WhisperToMe 13:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  The present wording merely says that the names of private individuals may often be redacted without loss of significant information. It doesn't say they have to be, but does imply that it's a good thing to avoid unnecessary invasions of privacy. I hope we can all agree on that. --Tony Sidaway 13:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I would add this statement or something similar: "Editors should determine which additions of names constitute as invasions of privacy" to make clear that editors determine cases individually. WhisperToMe 13:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Any use of the name of a living person in Wikipedia reduces that person's privacy. The question to ask is: is this particular compromise of the person's privacy necessary? Many of them are, particularly when discussing, say, politicians, broadcasters, writers, princes and other people who are in Wikipedia because of what they do or did or who they are. In the case of very famous people such as Paris Hilton or George W. Bush, the kind of information we hold on them in Wikipedia is not a significant invasion of privacy in any case. With less well known living people, the invasion of privacy is significant. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    • There is a level between "George W. Bush" and the kinds of "less well known living people" who, if their names were published, would have significant invasion of privacy. People involved in international incidents who were not known before are at the point where publishing their names would not amount to much. WhisperToMe 14:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree absolutely with the principle. I'm not convinced that it should be in WP:NOT, though. Seems like it would be better suited for WP:BLP. -Chunky Rice 14:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We already have WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy WhisperToMe 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea in general to have people really consider carefully whether a name should be included or not. Normally, it would probably depend on how widely known the individual's name already is. If every source used lists them by name, we can very likely include it without doing any harm—it's already public knowledge, and specificity is good in a reference work. On the other hand, if they're just mentioned as part of the incident and you really got to dig to get the name, it probably should not be included. Just like anything else—reflect the sources, don't second-guess them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Seraphim, if you look at List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre and look at the sources for the injured, you won't have to go far to find names, therefore, in that case, "it's already public knowledge" WhisperToMe 14:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Each case should be considered on its merits. This discussion is about the general principle. --Tony Sidaway 14:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Names of private individuals break 1

Seems to me that there's consensus here on the principle - but some justified concern that this shouldn't be a general rule used to quash discussion, but merely advisory. Can we find some extra words that will satisfy the legitimate concerns? What about:

"Editors should consider whether, in a particular article, the names of private individuals could be redacted without the loss of significant information."

That's certainly not prescriptive. And it allows for the conclusion "no, there would be a significant loss" to be reached in any particular case.--Doc^g 15:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay for me, though I think the current version is fine, too. --Tony Sidaway 15:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Me too, but I'm trying to accommodate some concerns.--Doc^g 15:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this version. Let's include that wherever it is appropriate (either here or the page about information about living people). WhisperToMe 15:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this phrasing better, and think BLP seems a more appropriate place for it. Brighterorange 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat has changed the word "private" to "non-notable". I don't like that myself because it's a Wikipedia jargon word and I'm not sure I know what it means. The term private individual here seems more straightforward in this context. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I modified the wording of the new sentence to the following:

In order to help keep articles concise, efficient, and on-topic, and to help reduce privacy concerns, editors should consider whether, in a particular article, the names of specific individuals could be redacted without the loss of non-trivial information to the article.

There are a couple of reasons for the change. First, I don't think the distinction between "private" and "public" or "notable" and "non-notable" is necessary for this sentence. Either the name of the person is necessary for the article or it isn't, and either the name is verifiable from published reliable sources or it isn't. Trying to additionally determine "private" versus "public" standing gets in the way of the central question which is "is the name of the person just trivial information that can be safely deleted, or is it actually a non-trivial part of the article that should be kept?"

I also added an introduction to the sentence that briefly outlines two reasons for the procedure. First, it helps keep articles more concise and on-topic by removing unnecessary trivial information. Second, it reduces privacy concerns by removing the names of people in cases when their actual names aren't really relevant to the article.

Hopefully these changes improve the sentence. Overall I'm ok with the general principle of articles being kept on-topic and efficient, and with the idea of removing names of people who aren't really important to the subject at hand. Dugwiki 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• My only concern is that there are other reasons to keep names in an article aside from losing information. The primary that I can think of is clarity. Having multiple unidentified parties (even if their identities aren't important to the article) could be very confusing to read. -Chunky Rice 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's probably a valid concern. I'll change it to "information or necessary clarity". Dugwiki 17:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not censored v. deletion of well sourced BLPs?

Recently, we've had a number of articles deleted due to claims of BLP concerns or related issues although everyone has agreed that the information was reliably sourced. Is this contradicting the claim that Wikipedia is not censored or not? JoshuaZ 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say not. I would describe this as editorial discretion, not censorship. Most of this, for me, falls under Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and the undue weight provision of the so-called neutral point of view policy (I prefer to call it the "keep the article balanced and unbiased" policy). Even if material can be reliably sourced, it is not always necessary or desirable to include it. This can be on the grounds of style, taste, format, and various other reasons. For BLPs it is generally due to the material being non-notable or frivolous. People are too quick to say "but it is sourced". The correct order of the questions is: (a) Is this relevant or needed? and only then say (b) a source is needed for this material. Not, "I've found a source, so it must be OK to put it in the article". That is completely the wrong way round. Write or edit an article with a eye for due balance and weight, and add sources as needed. Don't try and shoehorn in everything the sources report. Reflect the sources, don't replicate them. It's difficult, but no-one said writing an encyclopedia was easy. Carcharoth 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I came here to see if anyone had made the observation that JoshuaZ has made above. The deletion of well-sourced BLPs -- those sourced from major media outlets, as opposed to, say, JayHenryshappyplace.blogspot.com -- is most definitely censorship. The article on Allison Stokke was most definitely censored. Is that a bad thing? I'm not really sure. Is it censorship? Absolutely. And it's getting increasingly Orwellian to pretend otherwise. Media outlets have censored things throughout history. That's okay, necessary even. But if community consensus develops that WP:BLP should contain a broad censorship clause, this needs to be addressed here. --JayHenry 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But censorship comes in many different forms. Censorship (which may not be that reliable of course) says: "The term "censorship" is often used as a pejorative term to signify a belief that a group controlling certain information is using this control improperly or for its own benefit, or preventing others from accessing information that should be made readily accessible" - in this case, the information being excluded from Wikipedia is available elsewhere. Anyone reading Wikipedia can go and read the missing information somewhere else. It is an editorial decision to not include the information here. To take a trivial example, a list of telephone numbers is not something that has a place in Wikipedia, but removing that information is not censorship, it is just putting reasonable limits on what Wikipedia should contain. Wikipedia is not meant to cover everything, and deciding where the limits are placed is not censorship. Carcharoth 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Under this argument, removing the image of a penis on the penis article is not censorship nor is removing a picture of the Bahá'u'lláh. This argument seems to be a bit too broad. JoshuaZ 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing said pictures in an encyclopedia that allows them would be censorship. Removing said pictures in an encylopedia that doesn't allow then would simply be conforming to the policy of that encyclopedia (say, one aimed at a specific market that would be offended by such images). Wikipedia aims at a broad readership, and so doesn't remove such images. Carcharoth 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not censored" is just something SPUI and I dreamed up one day to stop people removing a picture of a clitoris from the clitoris article and pictures of a penis from the penis article.

It does not mean that Wikipedia is irresponsible. --Tony Sidaway 21:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. Have you found a link to the original insertion of that clause of the policy? :-) And the irresponsible argument should be used with care. Some would say (though I'm not one of them) that putting pictures such as those in articles is irresponsible. Guidelines and policies are sometimes meant to reduce reliance on editorial discretion (which often ends up as edit wars among editors who can't agree), but sometimes you have to leave things to be decided on a case-by-case basis without generalisation. Carcharoth 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is where SPUI added the gist of it, and over the next few days I batted it back and forth with Dr Zen. It became an established part of policy. It has mutated a bit and now carries a more general "no censorship" message (which is fine, policy changes like that). I think it's useful, but if someone tells me it means we have to have crap in the Encyclopedia I laugh. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Having a policy which acknowledges the rights of living people to fair treatment is not censorship. Furthermore, JoshauZ's claims that "everyone has agreed that the information was reliably sourced" is a very partial presentation. Often what happens is that editors believe information is well sourced because they do not properly understand (or don't want to acknowledge) what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't. FNMF 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that this has any relationship to fair treatment is probably faulty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

FNMF, At least in this case everyone agreed that the information was in reliable sources and in at least two other cases no one was claiming otherwise. There wouldn't be much of an issue if these recent deletions were of poorly sourced or questionably sourced information. But almost uniformily they are well sourced. JoshuaZ 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not my reading of the Stokke case. FNMF 02:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the Washington Post and the New York Times are not reliable sources? JoshuaZ 02:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to re-debate the Stokke entry here. Sources are necessary not just to reference an article, but to establish the notability of the subject. A mention of a name in a newspaper does not necessarily establish encyclopaedic notability. If there are no reliable sources establishing encyclopaedic notability, then an article should be deleted. FNMF 02:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm not going to re-debate entries either, so I'll simply note that everyone else seemed to agree that these were reliable sources and if you really want I'll a small footnote above that FNMF has somehow gotten into his head that WP:N or maybe something else somehow requires not only us to have reliable sources but the reliable sources to explicitly say that the topic in question is encyclopedic (and I'm not even going to bother going into a long digression about how much we would need to delete all over the project if anything like that were remotely policy or guideline). Now, to get us back on track. Given that such deletions have occured and given that the vast majority of editors agreed that we had reliable sources, does this conflict with the item in WP:NOT? JoshuaZ 02:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say we need "reliable sources to explicitly say that the topic in question is encyclopaedic." I said the reliable sources must not merely mention somebody's name but must serve to establish the encyclopaedic notability of the subject (in contrast, for example, to the notability sufficient for a newspaper to mention their name in the daily news). Notability justifying a mention in a newspaper is not the same thing as notability justifying an entry in an encyclopaedia, even if one of the ways that encyclopaedic notability may be established is through newspaper coverage. FNMF 05:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

FNMF, please read WP:N and then explain to me a) whether what you are asserting has anything to do with what is written there and b) how we tell whether reliable sources establish encyclopedic notability other than FNMF's personal say so? JoshuaZ 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The way you decide (not 'tell') whether reliable sources establish encyclopedic notability is to discuss it with others on the talk pages in borderline cases. There is no way you can run your finger down a neat list of tickpoints to get the answer you want. At some point you will have to discuss borderline cases. Carcharoth 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, there is a difference between notability sufficient to warrant a biographical entry for a living person in an encyclopaedia, and notability sufficient to garner a mention in a daily newspaper. Grasping that difference is fairly basic for anybody who wishes to write BLP entries in an encyclopaedia. If the notion that there is such a difference is totally foreign to you, I'm not sure what to suggest, except perhaps that you should consider staying away from editing BLP entries. FNMF 15:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Using the death of a child for political purposes

This may be slightly off the point but is the mentioning of the name of a convicted criminal in the context of the crime they committed acceptable and what is the policy on reporting someone who is dead?--Lucy-marie 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That would depend on context. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly it's hard to think of a reason in an article about a crime not to mention the name of the criminal convicted of it, assuming the information is properly referenced. On the other hand, I would probably be a little more cautious when someone is simply suspected of having committed a crime but it hasn't been proven in court. Suspicion can start getting into the realm of rumor and speculation, and we obviously don't want an article to imply someone is guilty of a crime they didn't commit. Just my opinion. Dugwiki 21:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Precisely - if they are in the encyclopaedia for no reason other than their alleged crime, we might as well be saying they're guilty. 81.104.175.145 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Is it fascism, then?

No, didn't you know? Wikipedia is communism! --Tony Sidaway 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Communism on wheels! JoshuaZ 16:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

More seriously ... ahem ;-) ... "Wikipedia is not a democracy" means that decisions are not made through plurality or majority voting. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was being... what's the word? Sarcastic? Facetious? Just look at my profile. Kobra 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling on Wikipedia

I have a lot of questions as to some regulations on Pro Wrestling on Wikipedia.

1. Why can't matches announced on tv, for ppv or tv, be added to wrestlers articles?

2. Why are pages like John Cena and recently Vince McMahon always locked for some reason?

3. Why are all additions to pages removed by the likes of The Hybrid or BMG? They are not the bosses of Wikipedia. I thought that wikipedia was avalible for anyone to edit.

4. Trivia that is very important to articles is always removed but useless information is added in by the bucket load. ie. John Cena's crowd reactions at WM 22 and 23, ONS 2 and during his feuds with Y2J Angle Edge HHH HBK and many others, yet the color of his shoes is added on a regular basis. Cena's audience backlash and the 5-6 moves of doom are allways deleted but they are both very important and are mentioned on tv nonstop whenever he is on tv.

Something needs to be done about these problems or information seeking people are gonna be left in the dark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.121 (talk • contribs)

These questions belong on the Wikipedia:WikiProject professional wrestling. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

I would like to re-word a sentence in the above named title [11], Number seven, “Plot Summaries”. I would suggest removing the word “Fiction” and inserting the word “published”. The sentence would read as follows:

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).

The reason I would suggest this change, is that this section is linked to the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books) Section titled Criteria [12] Number one. The fact that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) has its own link, this would make including it in the first line redundant. In the intrest of editors, I am using this criteria in a discussion on Notability (books) Regards --Domer48 17:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

New guidelines

I have an idea for new WP:NOT guidelines:

Wikipedia is not America-centric

Just because something is not notable in the United States does not mean it is not notable elsewhere in the English-speaking world. As long as it is notable in a nation where the English language is spoken (U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, The Bahamas, Belize, Guyana, or others), it belongs on the English-language Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not perfect

As Wikipedia expands, articles will appear that initially are not perfectly encyclopedia-standard. If you find one that is notable but not encyclopedia-standard, help us out! Add to it, or if you are not knowledgeable in the subject, flag it with the proper template so someone who knows about the subject can!

These are, of course, introductory ideas. Thoughts? --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: American-centric, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. --sony-youth^pléigh 01:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't just write about things that are important to English speaking countries, we write about things that are important anywhere, and do so in English. --bainer (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong agreement with Bainer on the first one, there's nothing in WP:N that states a topic has to be notable in an english speaking country. The second one sounds more like it should be at Be Bold than here; these guidelines are all meant to make it clear what contributors are not meant to do, rather than what they should. - Zeibura^(talk) 05:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Bainer on all points. An object, person, or event that is notable is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, irrespective of where it is located or took place. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Anglophone countries' Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this dead? I still think a WP:NOT for Anglo-American bias is important. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This has long since been part of our Wikipedia:Editing policy. It requires no repetition here. Uncle G 16:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Westgate / advertising

I'm no expert in this field, but Westgate Resorts looks like a huge advertisement to me. Am I right? I tried to remove some of it, but I don't know how to do it properly. I think it might be a notable company, but I don't think all of those resort links need to be there. --blm07 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westgate Resorts, it wasn't considered an advertisement as of 23 September 2006 ... OTOH, Some Other Editor has been adding a lot of promotional material in the past few weeks ... you may wish to post your concerns at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, because this talk page is definitely not the correct forum. —72.75.70.147 07:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:NOT Bestower of Awards

I've been stumbling across a lot of "Fathers of X", "Heroes of Y", "Masters of Z" articles lately: Template:Legends_of_Horror_Cinema, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian national heroes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother of the Nation. Is it time to create a subsection specifically to articles that group together people this way? I.E. "WP:NOT A bestower of awards". Thanks! - Richfife 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Those rather obviously fail WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. You are correct, but the matter is better covered in those policies. >Radiant< 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• In addition to NPOV and NOR, these types of articles may also violate the notability (in conjunction with WP:MEMORIAL if the subject is deceased). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

IT would not be OR if an other published source referred to that person as "an Armenian national heroe". SO long as it is sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Per my logic here: [13], the phrase "Hero of X" is too strong to allow a journalist using it in passing as minimum criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Having Wikipedia declare someone a hero because one or two journalists did is going too far. - Richfife 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That would not make it "Armenian heroes" but "Armenians referred to has heroes at least once in the press". Sounds clunky, no? >Radiant< 08:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that "Hero of X" is too subjective to be encyclopedic, we do recognize "hall of fame" members who have been formally inducted into a recognized hall of fame by a vote of a broad membership group. This is an important case of notability, and should be retained. In this case, WP is not bestowing an award, just recognizing one published by a RS. Dhaluza 08:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not clear (or at least one section isn't)

I find often in AFDs people are misusing "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The problem seems to be with the word "indiscriminate", which people either don't understand or find vague. It seems some people think this term can be applied to any list, and many other articles. Not to mention, the title of the section doesn't have all the much to do with the section itself. My suggestion is to retitle the section something like "Wikipedia is not a guidebook or instruction manual". And to put a separate section under notability or lists which is something like "Article subjects should not be indiscriminately thrown together" (example: Not indiscriminate - List of United States Senators from Ohio, indiscriminate - List of United States Senators with three or more 'E's in their name).
Any thoughts? CitiCat 23:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that some people misinterpret the title of that section more broadly than they should, and this has been a topic of discussion previously on this page. Basically the word "indiscriminate" here simply means that Wikipedia reserves the right to "discriminate" against certains miscellaneous types of articles. It does not, though, mean that the section should be read as disallowing "trivia", "pop culture references" and other sorts of "random" information. It is, in fact, the "miscellaneous" section of this policy meant to hold bullet points that don't quite fit the previous sections, and thus should not be applied to the types of articles specifically mentioned in it. (For example, you shouldn't nominate an article simply because you consider it "trivial" using WP:NOT#IINFO, because trivia is never mentioned.)

  If I were going to rename the section, I might try something like "Miscellaneous types of information Wikipedia discriminates against". That title tells you that the section is the catch-all section, but gets rid of that slightly ambiguous word "indiscriminate" that some people misinterpret. Dugwiki 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. As a side note, I should point out that WP:NOT#DIR says that Wikipedia shouldn't include "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". So I think a good portion of the complaints on afd that say a list article violates WP:NOT#IINFO should instead refer to the "Not a directory", since a list like "People whose names end in E" would be a list of overly loosely associated subjects. So in that hypothetical case it's not that the article should be allowed, but simply a case of editors possibly referring to the wrong section of WP:NOT in their afd nominations. Dugwiki 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The "indiscriminate" wording confuses people, especially when it comes to articles beginning with "List of..." I don't know how many times I've seen this wording cited as a way of arguing for the deletion of something the user didn't like (or didn't know anything about). Firsfron of Ronchester 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Dugwiki - yes, that's very much in line with what I'm trying to say. CitiCat 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that this section heading is confusing and frequently misapplied. (In particular, the "indiscriminate collection of information" is often applied to articles, but the section title refers to Wikipedia itself, not the content of a specific article.) I think that a simple, clear, and non-controversial rewording would be "Wikipedia is not just a collection of information." — brighterorange (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Typically, in AFD discussions, when somebody invokes "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" it's basically a version of the "I don't like it" argument. Not unlike the similarly vague "It's not encyclopedic!" -- MisterHand 21:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• What would you guys think of renaming that section to "Other things Wikipedia is not"? The rest of the section could stay exactly the same, and we could keep the old # abbreviations for consistency. But that would eliminate the word "indiscriminate" from the title and make a little clearer that the section is for miscellaneous items which don't fit elsewhere in the policy. Dugwiki 15:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think better wording is "Wikipedia also is not:" CitiCat 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Good suggestion.  :) Dugwiki 16:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the section can be tweeked to provide workable phrases to use at AfD, such as A Wikipedia Article Also Is Not ... 1. A list of Frequently Asked Questions; 2. A Travel Guide; 3. A Memorial; 4. An Instruction Manual; 5. An Internet Guide; 6. A Text Book or Annotated Text; 7. A Plot Summary; 8. A Lyrics database; 9. A list of Statistics; 10. A News Report. If I was going to AfD an article, this would make it simple to post something like "This article should be deleted. A Wikipedia article also is not a news report." The word "also" is awkward, but this sections' title needs something to distinguish from the policy as a whole. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Indiscriminate collection of information" was a section heading invented by SimonP to replace the earlier heading that "Wikipedia is not a general knowledgebase", which people found to be confusing. Ironically, it has proven to be just as confusing, simply in a different way. It is the most widely abused part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, leading to the maxim that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. I dealt with part of the problem back in 2006. The remainder is still a problem and still requires further attention. Uncle G 14:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• In my arguments against interpretations that take 'indiscriminate' as being applied on articles rather than the encyclopedia, I don't believe I've ever gotten a response directing addressing it. Any of the above suggested renamings sound more reasonable. There was a previous discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia#Incorrect assumption about WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. A current AfD in which I am encountering this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture (2nd nomination) (don't think this is canvassing, as you can disagree). –Pomte 13:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Indiscriminate == not quality assessed?? I prefer quality assessed information, i.e. pretty true, and very established. As regards to should it be here (?), who am I to know that? Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 15:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Ball vs Long-term historical notability

Isn't this rule a direct contradiction of Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball: "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause." How can judge in the present, "long-term historical notability" unless you are a crystal ball? Its a direct contradiction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• It could be clearer, but it means that on the one hand we try to avoid speculative articles, while on the other hand we try to protect the subjects of articles of issues that may or may not happen (BLP). >Radiant< 16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Price guide (again)

The discussion here [14] (along with other recent sections of that same page), have many people attempting to re-add download prices of games back into the article. In my opinion, a note for What Wikipeida is not, needs to be added about prices. Otherwise, this price issue will get worse. Overall, people don't have good reasons to keep the points except for "they are helpful, they are useful, other pages have them, so let's be consistent" and so on. Many things are useful and helpful, it doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. The fact the prices are constant, doesn't change the matter either. Who is to say the prices will change sometime in the future (yes, some crystal balling there). However, the companies have never said the prices will remain the same forever. Hopefully this accomplishes something, as this problem needs to be dealt with, so future price problems don't happen in other articles. RobJ1981 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree, this could be easily added under WP:NOT#DIRECTORY part three, you could just add the words "pricing guide" after "electronic program guide" CitiCat 16:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Based on the earlier debate I'm kind of surprised that nobody added it to the page here. >Radiant< 09:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the addition, especially in regards to lists of prices. If an article has more than a brief mention of prices, it's likely not encyclopedic. If there's actually a price column in a table (as there once was in List of Virtual Console games (North America), that's clearly inappropriate. Chaz ^Beckett 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As a note, it's alot more the just the Virtual Console list. There is Xbox Live arcade and a few others as well. Editors claim there is a consensus to keep them, but don't back them up with very good reasons (as I said in my first post). A consensus is one thing, but if it's trivial and unecyclopedic in the first place: it should be removed and not be re-added, with no problems. A consensus by some editors to fill this encyclopedia with unsuitable content shouldn't be happening (with this case, and in other ones as well). Hopefully this leads to something this time, as this problem is currently going on (and there doesn't appear to be an end in sight). RobJ1981 19:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's wording written by User:Carcharoth (found in the most recent archive) that I think may be suitable:

Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, therefore prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless there is a justified and sourced reason for mentioning the price. 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. Everyday, street prices on the other hand are an example of ephemeral trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. 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. Therefore lists of products currently on sale should not quote prices.

Chaz ^Beckett 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that Chaz. One argument (people for listing the prices) is: it's not a price, it's just points. But that doesn't hold up either, as it's still a currency listing. People shouldn't be abusing Wikipedia to find out prices or "how many points" a game costs. A similar example: it would be like posting how much things cost in online games such as World of Warcraft and so on (which to my knowledge: isn't happening). Currencies and prices are the same, and neither belongs here. RobJ1981 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat a comment I made elsewhere since it seems very relevant: A price is "the sum or amount of money or its equivalent for which anything is bought, sold, or offered for sale". Note the "...or its equivalent..." part; a price does not have to be expressed in terms of some currency. Chaz ^Beckett 19:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT seems to address articles at the article level, not section level or content level. Are there examples of where prices of a product were quoted in an article with the result of turning that article into a sales catalogue? Isn't this issue already covered by WP:NOT#Advertising? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Might not be exactly the example you're looking for, but take a look at the current version of this article. Chaz ^Beckett 23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's pretty close to a sales catalogue. It's surprising that there is a need for Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue. Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is another article that has price guide content: Xbox_Live_Arcade#Xbox_Live_Arcade_games_for_the_Xbox_360. Plus all the other Virtual Console lists as well (Australia, Europe and Japan) have this problem: (all of which are linked here: List of Virtual Console games). RobJ1981 05:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• This would seem clear to many users already from the current wording of NOT (e.g. per the Wikimedia Board's request for strong action against advertising, and so forth) but apparently it bears clarification anyway. >Radiant< 09:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, even the single purpose accounts who post their soon-to-be-deleted Wikipedia page on their company usually know enough not to post the price of their products on Wikipedia. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What about MSRPs (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Prices)? Would they be covered in said policies? In relation to video games, where this issue first came up, a game could be newly released and retail for, say, $49.95. However, as time passes and more advanced games came out, that price could drop dramatically (I've seen games in Wal-Mart drop from stated price to $20 in a few months). Mentioning Wii Points might seem "handy" at the moment, but as time passes and the products become obsolete, I predict they will certainly drop in value (probably within a few months time). For this reason, I even find this highly inappropriate. People who want to know the conversion rates of certain games are free to check the manufacturer's site (a link could be provided to the site). The list for the Wii points doesn't belong as the Virtual Console article already contains a link to the list and inclusion of a similar list on Wikipedia borders copyvio. As a side note, I think many similar game lists need to be removed where an official list is available as it is superfluous to maintain two lists.

Regarding the argument that Wii Points aren't "real money", that's bull. I've seen prostitutes advertise themselves on Craig List and list their currency as "200 roses" (a thinking person knows what a "rose" means). I own a Wii and use the Virtual Console and to obtain the points, you must pay, at minimum, US$10.00 for 1000 Wii Points. With these Wii Points, you are then able to download any games that don't go over your credit balance. Drumpler 11:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As a note to people (that didn't know): 2 of the Virtual Console list pages are now protected because of edit wars (North America: where the problem has never been solved, and Europe). I figured it would happen again. I think someone should ask Nintendo about the list, and see if we can get a response. If they certainly think it's a copyright violation then there would be no excuse to keep the articles anymore. Then all this mess would be behind us, and people could edit other things (without having to worry about this dispute anymore). I'm not for ditching the articles, but if it is indeed a copyright violation: we can't just ignore that by keeping the articles. RobJ1981 19:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation? Wii points? What on earth...? Go ahead and pursue that route, but why would Nintendo copyright that? This is information that is available in reviews and other places, and I'm not sure it's something they'd be able to copyright (at least under US law) even if they wanted to. -- MisterHand 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, that was a stretch. Earlier quoted, "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. Therefore lists of products currently on sale should not quote prices." That's great--- however, this is not a price guide for competing products nor is it a comparison of a single product's price across different countries/regions. It still remains that the burden of proof is on those who claim how this information is currently disruptive or undermining the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia, being that it is just one column along with game title, publisher, ESRB rating and release date, and evident that the list does not exist for the sole purpose of being this so-called "price guide". Ryuzx 23:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Other people brought up the copyright issue originally, however: I think it's a possible route to go. I'm not sure if Nintendo could copyright this type of information, but it doesn't hurt to ask them. Constant prices or not: it's still leaning towards a price guide. It could be one column or many: that doesn't change much, it's still a telling people how much a game costs. The main purpose of the article isn't just to say prices, however it contains "price guide content" if you want to be technical about it. An encyclopedia shouldn't be abused with prices. It's useful to people: yes. But it holds very little encyclopedic value. If people want to find out prices that badly, they can go to the official source not here. Multiple sites can have the same information: but prices are something that simply shouldn't be here. RobJ1981 23:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the "price guide content" technicality. It also has game rating content as well. Yet, is there no harm in listing ESRB's information on the page too? There are questions regarding your argument that remain unanswered and is why I'm not finding your stance convincing: It holds very little encyclopedic value because....? It is being abusive how? If I can fully understand your stance, then it will help me not think it is nothing more than you just not liking them listed. Ryuzx 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See the comment above from User:Carcharoth that's earlier in this discussion. I agree with that. But to expand on my own view a little: why exactly should people be coming to an encyclopedia to see prices? I realize people aren't viewing the articles entirely for the prices, however I've seen no good reasons to actually keep them in. I've stated the repetitive comments by people already (it's useful, and so on) in this discussion. It's abusive because Wikipedia's purpose isn't to list prices. People can have a consensus saying "let's keep the prices" for example, but prices still aren't encyclopedic or suitable content for this encyclopedia (even if there isn't anything exactly saying no price lists). A consensus from some editors shouldn't be allowed to ignore guidelines of what articles are. I'm done explaining this, as there isn't anything else to say about it. I apologize if this isn't clear enough, but I think it is, so I'm done. RobJ1981 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This probably isn't the page to discuss it, but personally, I think the list needs to be deleted. The list is reproduced on the official sites and if one looks at the article talk pages, their method for determining future titles (by using Firefox to "hack" into Nintendo's site to determine future titles) is questionable. There may or may not be a copyvio (I might try to look into that) [i.e. I discussed copyvio in the section ABOVE, once more ripping my comments out of context] for reproducing the list [i.e. the list and the Wii Point values themselves], but I can't see why it would be relevant when all one would need to do is link to the official lists from the Virtual Console article [i.e. for the list of Wii Points]. If they want to discuss future titles, then they can do so using credible sources and make or contribute articles about games on the games' own pages. Personally, I think hacking Nintendo's site to be ridiculous and that might be another possible legal issue to bring up for consideration. Drumpler 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm making a small interjection here, as certain people feel free to split my comment above into a separate section and are not considering the context of what I'm speaking. The text above in bold regards the conversation on Wii Points. It may not have been clear, but the non-bold portion was an aside and never should have been grounds for splitting my comment from the body of the main text in the first place. I've also added clarifies in [ brackets ] so that it may be clearer what I mean. Please do not move my comment again. Thank you. Drumpler 21:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

People shouldn't be hacking then posting that content on Wikipedia. The same goes for "leaked" information and so on. Due to people being impatient, they are using any means necessary to find out information and then post it here. That simply shouldn't be a route to go when editing/updating articles on Wikipedia. It falls under speculation, in my opinion. RobJ1981 21:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is speculation, since it is obviously on Nintendo's server, unless they guess the date it will be available. Potentially not legal, hacking their server, and sounds a bit like original research. Don't know what any of this has to do with the price column though. Ryuzx 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First, this "hack" is nothing more than simply URL guessing, and does not compromise the security of Nintendo's servers in any way. (Contrary to popular misconception, it is not required to use Firefox, tweaked or otherwise, to do this.)

Second, Nintendo caught on to this a long time ago, and rendered the entire exercise useless by simply not putting the screenshots on the servers until the games are actually released. None of the information currently in the article was obtained in this fashion, and that has been the case for a few months now. The screenshot thread only continues because some people enjoy cataloging the screenshots. I suppose you could argue that it should be taken elsewhere since it's no longer relevant to the maintenance of the article, and I would be hard pressed to find a valid objection to that. -Arcanelore 04:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it indeed needs to be taken elsewhere, as talk pages aren't discussion forums (I'd suggest a blog or a real discussion forum). In my opinion, no one should be adding this information to the encyclopedia because the average person isn't going to be able to verify it and I agree it is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I'd err on the side of caution regarding legalities, as Nintendo could prosecute as you are taking advantage of a security flaw in their system to obtain this information -- indeed, the definition of "hacking" (actually, more like "cracking"). Drumpler 17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wii Points are a very difficult case, and while you can argue that there is a monetary value on the points, I don't see how having the points listed next to the games in the list makes the list into a price guide. It adds completion to the list. Also, considering that the Virtual Console is in the Wii Shop Channel, it's very difficult to argue the removal of the points, when that's the whole basis of the whole thing. So either way you want to argue, I can not see why removing the Points is going to be helpful. LN3000 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As I recently mentioned on the talk page here [15], aren't the debut prices of the games a matter of historical fact? Just like the debut MSRP of the Wii was $249 or the debut MSRP of an original Apple computer was $666.66, the amount of points at initial release seems like harmless data to include. I share Rob's objections to an ongoing price comparison guide -- and if at any point Nintendo starts dropping prices, I'd be against updating the article constantly to reflect always-current pricing. However, as it stands, all prices have remained static, and at least as long as they do, the point values remain factual information worthy of being included in the article, and if at a later date prices change, introduction prices are still encyclopedia worthy, in my humble opinion. -- DMSMac 22:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's painfully trivial, and doesn't give us any insight to the product in question. These are only "original" to the Wii system, but they are not original prices to the games. -- Ned Scott 22:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would see where price comparisons would be an issue if we were comparing the prices of Wii points from different retailers (considering they don't all charge the same amount (for example, I've seen Toys R Us selling 2000 Wii points for ~$25.00, while Wal-Mart sells them for a bit less than $20) or if we were comparing them to the original price that the games were when they were first released; however, I don't think I can comment on determining if there would be price changes in the future, since it is technically speculation, and if we use the offical Nintendo site as a source, it would be a given that we (and I use that word loosely) would update the prices. If Nintendo lowered the prices and updated them on the official site (not the store) to reflect that, I see where it would be useful to list them here; however, if it was just some "weekend special" or other kind of sale, Wikipedia should not change the point value listing to reflect that (you dn't see a listing of "GameStop promotional sales" on their Wikipedia article). However, when it comes to listing the prices (for NES games, as an example), I feel that a blanket listing of "500+" would be suitable, since it infers that NES games are 500 points and up. Users could still go to the official Nintendo article if they wanted exact point values for each game, but the only problem with the Nintendo article is that there is no means of sorting it or manipulating it to represent data in other manners. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not painfully trivial to keep a list of price changes that have been made throughout the consoles (in this case virtual consoles) life. As can be seen with these console pages: PlayStation_Portable, PlayStation_2, PlayStation_3_launch#Release_data_and_pricing, Xbox, Xbox360, Gamecube the price lists there show us vital information one would use while researching consoles. In the case of non-current consoles this information would not be findable on their parent companies web pages. Also the argument that prices can be found on the consoles parents web site is moot, when I look for information on a console I go here and not to wii.com. --Dharh 17:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The prices would show a consumer vital information, but the historical point is moot, as of now, listing the prices are an encouragement in competition. Likewise, the Wii and other consoles are in several different English-speaking countries -- should the English Wikipedia give a run-down of all country prices? Likewise, when the console nears the end of its life and its value drops, another argument could be made that this is "historic". Its promotion. It doesn't belong. And even though these game systems are unique and neat now, 7 years from now they'll be selling at yard sales for the plastic they're made of. Drumpler 20:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No I think you are missing the point. Just because the games are currently on sale doesn't negate it as "current history". It is not vital information for a consumer as these prices are not variable. A price guide is meant to help a consumer make decisions on buying an item. The prices as listed in various place in wikipedia do not have to be regarded as such. They can be regarded as information and historical.

A wikipedia article showing a price for an item also need not be regarded as only encouraging competition. When in the case that there is significant enough reason to have something for knowledge purposes then it has a place on wikipedia just as in many cases showing the prices and the historical price drops of a said item can be for knowledge purposes not purchasing purposes.

Any country which wants to put its historic prices should indeed do so if someone in that country wants to add them. In the case of the virtual console prices there are actually separate pages per region so it doesn't mess up the article.

When a console nears the end of its life and is no longer sold by the original company that is where the prices end. Then it is open market and the prices are too variable; there is also no significant historic value in listing garage sale prices.

Prices of consumer goods that have wikipedia pages in their own right, and no one would argue that consoles do not deserve their own wikipedia pages, have a valid significance. They belong there as information and do not at all promote competition comparisons because all that would mean is you advocate only listing the prices after the console had died when there is no competition to be had. --Dharh 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm inclined to disagree. Likewise, I'm opting not to discuss Wii further on this page, as that isn't the point at all. I made a new section that appeals to a general audience. Drumpler 21:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok here's another example, XBLA. Here's why I'm mentioning it, XBLA has a points system "identical" to Nintendo's Wii Points. XBLA has been around for a few years now. The article's table template is very similar to VC table template. I have not seen one of the opposing argue about the Microsoft points once on that page, like it has been here. No attempt to change the page like it has been done here, nothing. I keep bringing this up because, the article has been around for much longer than the Virtual Console. What make's this article so different than, XBLA? Neo Samus 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As this is a page to discuss regulations surrounding WP:NOT, it wouldn't matter if we were discussing XBLA, copper coins, antique toilet paper rolls, etc. This just happened to be the topic that got this discussion going (perhaps due to frequent "forum shopping" attempts). The issue (and I think this has been missed) is whether or not Wikipedia should be a price guide. If it becomes a policy, then efforts will be made to enforce the rules not only on the XBLA articles but every other article, gaming or non-gaming related, which would violate the policy. Drumpler 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to say, "Oh, Wii Points! Price Guide!" We aren't comparing prices of the games, as the Wii Points will always stay the same for a single game. This isn't about saying "Oh, this is cheaper, buy this." it's about information presentation. The virtual console is a very unique discussion. It is hard to talk about the Wii Shop Channel, and the Virtual Console games available, without noting the Wii Points. It's valuable information in this particular case. It does not work saying, "oh, well, only these games have different Wii Point values, so let's put the exceptions over here" since that list has the potential to get overly long. It is best to solve that problem by leaving the Wii Points column. LN3000 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

... what? valuable information? How on earth can you call listing individual Wii game points as valuable information? -- Ned Scott 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a price guide, but I think it's unfair to say that Wii Points = Price guide.LN3000 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia be a price guide? No. Should there be a blanket statement stating that prices never be included in an article? No. Are the Xbox and Wii articles that started this debate, in fact, price guides? No. -- MisterHand 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the discussion to discuss Wii Points. Please stop bringing them up, as Wikipedia is not Wii-centric. Drumpler 06:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is why this discussion is here in the first place. And it's still under the main Wii Points discussion. You can't yell at people for discussing this, just because you want to try to manipulate the discussion your way. LN3000 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have once again moved the discussion, due to your continual disruptive editing. This discussion is meant to cover a site-wide policy which covers more than just Wii Points and I made the new section so that other points of view might be covered. So please, if you want to discuss Wii Points, discuss them elsewhere. Drumpler 07:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I really find it funny that YOU are accusing US of "disruptive" stuff. Really, you are not acting appropriately. LN3000 07:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that's the case, I recommend the dispute resolution process. Drumpler 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not move other editor's comments out of the section they were originally posted in. I'm leaving my original reply here since it's been responded to, but please recognize that you do not own this talk page, even the sections that you start. -- MisterHand 12:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest, it was editors who were moving MY comments. The only "moving" I did were for people who were trying to make my new section another Wii-centric section and all I did there was move the section header down. If that was wrong, I apologize, but I do not wish to make this a Wii exclusive thing and that's why I made a separate section to begin with. I also moved a comment of mine which was ripped terribly out of place when someone tried to split it into a new section that I didn't intend. Drumpler 02:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fresh Start -- Should Wikipedia Be a Price Guide?

Let's take the discussion off Wii Points for a minute, so that other editors can have an opportunity to discuss this, that may or may not understand the Nintendo Wii and may have objections or suggestions to a new section regarding Wikipedia not being a price guide. The question is: Should Wikipedia articles contain product prices? Why or why not? Should a policy prohibiting the listing of prices be standardised into Wikipedia protocol? Why or why not? Drumpler 21:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

One reason "why not" is that people are using Wikipedia as a price guide. I've seen several comments on talk pages to the effect: "please don't remove the prices, I use Wikipedia to find out the price before I go to the shops to buy the game". To me, this is unacceptable. People also use Wikipedia to help them decide what computer games, electronic gadgets, books, to buy, and articles should not be written in a "product-review-style" that encourages this. Prices are part of that "review-style" problem. Articles should be written about with an eye to long-term historical interest, and the way to do this is to find reputable sources (ie. not gaming magazines, review magazines, newspaper articles, gaming websites), and note what independent, secondary sources are saying about these products. If they aren't saying anything, then there is nothing for Wikipedia to say yet. If in 10 years time, someone write a history of computer games, and mentions certain games and points systems (including Wii Points), then that is the point at which we can start saying meaningful stuff that rises above the level of "here are the basic facts about this product". I might even suggest extending this section to be "Wikipedia is not a product guide", but that is a more tricky argument. Prices are much more obviously problematic. Carcharoth 09:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Prices are a problem where they vary widely or change rapidly. But pricing can be encyclopedic, particularly on the high end. For example if a particular business jet costs $50 million, or the government spends $1 billion on something, that is relevant to assessing the topic. I don't have a problem with including general price guidance, for example that a Wii costs more or less than a competing product. But we should not include specific or changing pricing on products any more than we would include the current stock price for a company. Dhaluza 09:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It all comes back to the sources. If the source you are using is a website or catalogue that you would use to buy the product, then that is too close to advertising for comfort. If the source is an article or book discussing prices in a relevant context, eg. the super-rich buying private jets, or a national economy or political campaigning on economic policies, then that is fine. It all comes back to critically assessing the source of the information. A gaming magazine article or website comparing prices of products, would not be a suitable source, for instance. Carcharoth 11:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to the talk pages where an editor has said "please don't remove the prices, I use Wikipedia to find out the price before I go to the shops to buy the game" -- MisterHand 12:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that I said "to the effect", because I was paraphrasing from memory. The exact wording is at Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)#Do you wish to KEEP the "Wii Points" column or DELETE it?:

" Keep - It's handy for people like me that want the know the price before I go to the Wii Shop channel to download the game. Also because when I'm at work my internet is extremely filtered. Why is this even an issue??" Neo Samus 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope that helps. Carcharoth 13:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly do not think all prices should be removed from wikipedia. As I said before there are cases where showing historical prices (even if they are current at the moment) can be informational and would fall under research. If someone would use said prices as a guide to help them purchase something it should indeed cause pause to consider removal, but I think that can be a case by case basis by consensus based on whether showing prices has significant enough informational value rather than price comparisons. I don't believe it should be wikipedia policy to not have prices anywhere. --Dharh 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's arguing that prices should never be allowed on Wikipedia. There's a significant difference between including a price in an article and having a list of prices in an article. The former can provide context to the subject of the article, such as this section in the Jaguar article. Notice that it gives a range of prices (approximate low to high) for different models. This provides the reader with an idea of relative prices between models, but not the exact price of any particular car. Contrast this with [16]. Instead of simply providing a range of prices for each system (NES: 500-600 pts, SNES: 800, etc) it's a list of exact prices for every single game for the Virtual Console. This is the point at which it becomes a price guide and therefore unacceptable. Chaz ^Beckett 16:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As the topic has been taken back to the VC prices ill reply as such. I am in favor of a single table which shows as you do NES: 500-600 points, SNES: 800 points, etc rather than a table which shows points for every single game. When and if these prices are dropped or raised at a later date then the table should reflect that and expand the table to show when the prices were changed and to what so someone who was doing research could see where all the trends went.

But whats really being discussed here is whether wikipedia should be a Price Guide. To be ultra clear, I am saying that wikipedia should not be a price guide, however showing prices for historical and research purposes does not necessarily constitute a price guide. Especially in the context of a much larger article or set of articles and given that for some items prices signify more than just what they can be purchased for. This is invariably shown when historical prices are kept on items long since discontinued. --Dharh 19:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be a price guide. I agree with what Carcharoth said. One comment of his I would like to restate: I've seen several comments on talk pages to the effect: "please don't remove the prices, I use Wikipedia to find out the price before I go to the shops to buy the game". To me, this is unacceptable. Personally, I've seen plenty of things like that, the one I've seen recently is "the prices dont do any harm, so leave them in the article". That's not a justified reason to keep something in an article or not. Frankly, in my opinion: people feel the need to abuse Wikipedia with prices. The list articles (as well as others that list prices) weren't noticed for the long time, so longtime editors got upset because it was finally noticed and the type of content isn't liked by several editors. Something being in an article for a long time, doesn't mean it's immune to deletion. RobJ1981 22:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of have the list of games shown on wikipedia in the first place? The form and placement of the points may differ, but leaving them out altogether is a huge hole in the whole article. I find it weird that I have to argue what is useful knowledge or not. And in response to Carcharoth, research does not have to be academic. I could be personally researching the history of prices for a given segment. If you think that still has no place in wikipedia, I ask what knowledge has a place on wikipedia? --Dharh 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Abusing" wikipedia is a pretty strong accusation. I think the columns in question were added to the tables in good faith. -- MisterHand 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you have a point. I take back the abusing comment. RobJ1981 22:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to base this whole thing on one user's out-of-the-blue comment. The majority of the people do not see it as a price guide, and it is not used to say "Hm... Which game should I get, which one's cheaper" because it's not like that. As I've said before, considering the subject and the best way to present that information, having Wii Points listed does not make it into a price guide. LN3000 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but since it's trivial information, and it's likely that it can be used that way, as well as setting a bad example of how to use Wikipedia, then we should remove them. If this information was more than trivial, or not likely to be abused, then I would feel differently. -- Ned Scott 22:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be a price guide, and I'm surprised that there's anything to even debate. DreamGuy 00:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is. As the Wii has been argued to death here, let me add my point that I'm in agreement with Ned Scott's post above and whatever validity that Wii Point advocators might think that including the points have, it is a precedent for turning Wikipedia into a price guide. It is for this reason that I don't think prices should be listed, such as MSRPs (Manufactured Suggested Retail Prices). Historic prices could be mentioned, but I think "historic" needs to be defined more clearly. For example, if one were writing about the price of gum back in the day, that would be noteworthy, as gum prices have climbed over the years. However, those familiar with the game industry know that over time game prices usually go down and to include the game prices now, while the games are actually in the competitive market, would be to encourage competition. I think a precedent for adding the prices to games or other products is when you have something ultra-rare and its rarity doesn't make it a competitor since the original company no longer releases it and it becomes something more valued among collectors. For example, Nintendo no longer releases the game Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix and the game can fetch a pretty penny among collectors. It would be worth mentioning how much one can expect to see this game to sell for as that is an indicator of its demand. But I guess even this can be questionable, due to sites like eBay, where people could use the information in order to place the item up for bid. That's why I think we need to make a precedent for this covering several markets and not just Virtual Console games. What about rare baseball cards? Rare Pokémon cards? And so on. Drumpler 02:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just want to pick up on a comment above by Dharh: "showing prices for historical and research purposes" - this is another misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a repository for information that may one day be useful for historical research purposes. Anyone doing such research would (a) have to go to the original sources (ie. not Wikipedia) and (b) the conclusions of such research would have to be published elsewhere before Wikipedia could mention the conclusions. Some people worry that if Wikipedia does not record such things, no-one will. Again, Wikipedia is not in the business of preserving historical data. If the primary sources for such information are lost, then it probably wasn't notable enough to be preserved anyway. Do we need yet another section titled "Wikipedia is not a primary archive of historical data"? Carcharoth 12:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You could propose a section. ;) Drumpler 12:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If indeed that is the case, then I ask what is the need for most of wikipedia? Over half of wikipedia violates what your essentially saying. I agree obviously that it shouldn't be a matter of doing it since other articles do it, however I question whether this sentiment even leaves much use for wikipedia in the first place. Or to say it in another way. If wikipedia is meant for general knowledge not historical knowledge and not for research purposes, then what is not general knowledge? --Dharh 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there comes a point where we need to decide which knowledge is important (its general knowledge to chew before swallowing, to clean yourself when in the toilet/loo and a myriad of other things, but is it really Wiki material?). There are Wikipedia policies which prohibit certain types of knowledge (see for example WP:BLP which states the type of knowledge about living people that is unacceptable). The issue is whether or not price guides constitute this type of knowledge. Regarding my understanding of Carcharoth's comment above, I agree -- Wikipedia is not the place to preserve primary historical data. However, it is a place where one can cite such data where it exists.

I propose a new section regarding "primary historcial data", as this is a clearly fascinating discussion, and I don't think it should interfere with the already ongoing price guide discussion. Drumpler 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in discussing that topic. I am curious what other people think as in my opinion there is actually very little knowledge that shouldn't be on wikipedia. --Dharh 22:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does it take for a new guideline and/or policy to be introduced? Because frankly, one on prices needs to happen. Sooner rather than later is the best route to go, as I can imagine more disputes could easily appear about prices. If something is made, it helps solve future disputes: because a policy or guideline is actually in place. RobJ1981 05:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as pretty much anything around here to make a new guideline takes breaking of wills. Just as in edit wars when people get bored whosoever left can make the ultimate decision in lue of there not being an admin to gainsay. I have to imagine it may be a bit more civil with admins but ultimately the same deal. When an real dispute among admins occur either it wages until one side gives up or until Jimmy Whales makes edict.

I agree that a decision needs to be made on prices. Especially because of all the inconsistency going on, where there are several pages with prices yet other pages engaged in edit wars over keeping or removing prices. Something needs to be done one way or another.

The prices debate should continue here. I am going to try and start a new thread under this topic to see if we can't further hash this out.

I am going to also create a new topic under the heading "primary historical data" to discuss that thread of interest. -- Dharh 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Street Price?

I'm confused about some wording in WP:NOT#DIR. What is a street price and what differentiates it from a "price"? Drumpler 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the "ephemeral" wording, I'm assuming that "street price" indicates the price normally paid for a product, as opposed to "manufacturer's suggest retail price" (MSRP). For example, the MSRP for a DVD might be $24.99 -- but in reality the street price will never be that amount, and might vary from place to place or store to store. So Wikipedia shouldn't be reporting information like "Britney Spears's newest CD is $7.99 at Best Buy this week". -- MisterHand 19:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What reasons are there for ever including prices?

So far I don't see this topic as resolved yet, so I want to start over simply. I'd like to ask the question of the header. What reasons are there for ever including prices?--Dharh 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some reasons are already included on this page: "notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation". One example that has been brought up in the past is the Ford Model T, since the affordability of that car was one of its notable features. -- MisterHand 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A price is a basic fact about the marketing of a product. If an article discusses how a product was marketed, then price will usually be an appropriate part of that discussion. The major exception is products that are part of a well established market category where prices are relatively standardized -- like, say, novels -- in which case it's unhelpful to mention price unless it differs greatly from the norm. This probably applies to present-day computer games as well. But for things like personal computers in the early days of home computing, or home robots now, prices are prima facie important. Price is what made AIBO an upscale item and a B.I.O. Bug a plausible Christmas toy for not-so-wealthy families, for instance.

The current wording, demanding "a justified and sourced reason for mentioning the price", will result either in the removal of perfectly encyclopedic information, or in people having to waste time jumping through extra hoops in order to preserve encyclopedic information. Under this wording, if I want to include the year that an early home computer was introduced, I just have to find a source that states the year, but if I want to include the suggested retail price -- an equally basic piece of information -- I have to find a source that actually spells out why the price is important. Many sources won't do that; they'll simply note the price and assume that the significance is obvious. —Celithemis 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is no longer on the market, then including the original price is fine. A good source will give the year the price refers to. If it doesn't, then the source is being lazy. If it is still on the market, prices can still be discussed, but should have some of the context you mention above, explaining why the reader needs to know the price. If the only reason is "how much does it cost to buy this?" - that is not good enough. If the reason is "was this an expensive or cheap product", then that is good enough. Carcharoth 11:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

But note that a random Wikipedia editor can't look at a price and judge for themselves whether that was an expensive product or not. They need to find a source that say that. Carcharoth 11:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the current wording does not make a distinction between prices of products currently on the market and prices of products that are not. Secondly, it's a meaningless distinction anyway: how does a price suddenly change from nonencyclopedic to encyclopedic when a product goes off the market? That's absurd.

We need a source saying a product is expensive if we want to say "it cost $399, which was expensive for a toaster," but we should not need a source saying it is expensive to say "the suggested retail price was $399." —Celithemis 05:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I hate to bring this back to the console topic, but... There are certain products which do not need an outside source to say that the price matters. Most products have a volatile price which varies from store to store and day to day. Some products, consoles included, are sold at a specific price for years on end for specific market segments. It's not just, "this is expensive for a toaster," it is "this product only fits this market segment because of its price". There is a significant understanding for those who follow certain product genres, that the price for the product is very important not just for purchasing but for how the product is doing.

Basically, while I agree that for many cases we need a source citing the important of the price of a product, for it to show up in wikipedia, there are some cases where it is self evident by the very nature of the product and the segment itself that it is never spoken out loud, meaning there will be no such article explaining the importance of the price, which makes what you've outlined not possible for the few cases otherwise.

I think we need more expansive criteria for allowing prices. I think prices showing up in most of the console articles for instance, even the ones where the console is still in market, are valid. We should still allow for those, while not allowing for frivolous price guides. -- Dharh 10:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The wording "sourced reason" doesn't make sense to me. How can you source your reason for making an edit to an article? I'm going to take a crack and revising this somewhat. -- MisterHand 13:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the reason for the edit that needs to be sourced. It is the reason for telling the reader the price of something. To make it simple, the editor should ask themselves: "will this look like advertising a price" - if there is prose explaining the significance of the price, and/or a source backing up that claim of significance, then there is no problem. That's what I meant by a "sourced reason", but by all means try and clarify this. Carcharoth 14:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Historic value and notable sales of collector's items are the only good reasons I see for listing prices in articles here. Virtual Console games (and other download games for that matter) shouldn't have prices listed, as they are too new to be historic in any way. An encyclopedia shouldn't be used as a buyer's guide or a price guide, period. Articles such as the Virtual Console lists, are simply unacceptable, as they are showing people prices (which is helping them decide a game to buy). Comparing the prices (as some have wanted to do): is a form of price guide, that isn't suitable for Wikipedia as well. RobJ1981 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Reccomended section: Not a helpdesk.

Wikipedia articles' talk pages often stray far from the subject matter of the article because someone requests technical help or advice. I think it would make sense to create a section here illustrating such and explaining that people can use the Wikipedia:Reference desk for such questions. Any input?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what purpose that would serve. If they're asking a technical question about editing the subject article, then I don't have a problem with it. If there's a problem with people asking random technical questions on random article talk pages (is this a problem?), a simple referral to the proper forum should be sufficient. I don't know that such a referral needs the weight of WP:NOT behind it, and I doubt that anyone asking such a question is going to come here and read the relevent section before asking. -Chunky Rice 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It generally disrupts the flow of article talk and creates a lot of otherwise useless information. the talk page guidelines clearly state the importance of staying on topic and that irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. A whole section probably isn't necessary, but I do feel it deserves some mention under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, perhaps in #4 with medical and legal advice, the only difference being that there is a place for it in the reference desk.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

While the guideline says that "irrelevant discussions are subject to removal", it also says that "editing others' comments is not allowed" except under fairly stringent exceptions, such as removing libel and personal attacks. So the guideline shouldn't be read as a blanket approval for editors to simply remove discussions they personally think are slightly off-topic or that might be better handled at a reference desk.

Now on the other hand I think it would be a good idea for some talk pages to have a sticky template at the top directing readers to an associated reference desk for technical questions not directly related to changing the article. And of course there's nothing wrong with directing people who post questions to the reference desks either. I don't think that needs to be outlined in policy, but it could probably be mentioned in an appropriate style guide, etc. Dugwiki 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab at that using one of the generic templates on Mozilla Firefox. I think it might work.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On working the Help Desk, we ofted point people to post their question at the Reference Desk. There is nothing wrong with posting on an article talk page that the question may be better addressed at the Help Desk or the Reference Desk. A section template for the article talk page sounds like a good way to do this. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Was there consensus to add this clause to the page? It doesn't seem like it to me.-Chunky Rice 21:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Indiscriminate(?) collection of information

I'm having difficulty seeing how #10 News reports fits under "indiscriminate collection of information." If an article is compiled from news reports that span only over a brief period of time, the Wikipedia article itself probably is not a set of facts disconnected from each other. Since the news reports span only over a brief period of time, the informtion within the new articles probably haven't withstood the test of time and those news reports may be a collection of indiscriminate information. Indiscriminate has a variety of meanings and I don't seem to be able to come up with one that covers all 10 items listed under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some clarity on this would help. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion thread a few topics up about the somewhat ambiguous word "indiscriminate". That section of policy is simply a catch-all for various types of information and articles which Wikipedia reserves the right to discriminate against. We were talking about possibly changing the title of the section to something like "Wikipedia is also not...:" to get rid of the slightly confusing word "indiscriminate". Dugwiki 20:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Indiscriminate can mean a lack of clear inclusion criteria, but does not mean that if you provide inclusion criteria you are OK. You can still provide overly broad inclusion criteria (eg. "allow telephone numbers") that would themselves fall foul of inclusion criteria. Indiscriminate can also mean excessive detail. In both cases, the answer is editorial discretion. Make an editorial decision in a particular article not to include telephone numbers, and not to give a minute-by-minute account of (say) a sporting event, or a disaster. The exact level of detail (discrimination) varies depending on (a) the sources and (b) the particular article. Carcharoth 10:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If this may help: Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't imply the articles listed themselves are indiscriminate collections of information. –Pomte 13:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Renamed WP:NOT#IINFO to "Wikipedia articles are also not ..."

Per a thread above, I took the liberty of renaming the "not an indiscriminate collection of information" section to Wikipedia articles are also not.... I also added an additional shortcut for the section called WP:NOT#ALSONOT and very slightly modified the first sentence of the section. Nothing else in the section changed. Finally I moved the section to be the final section of "nots" since it's really basically the catch-all category for things that don't fit neatly in other parts of the policy.

The title change is intended to remove the somewhat ambiguous word "indiscriminate" from the section title, and also to hopefully better reflect that this section is the "miscellaneous" part of the policy. That is, when we want to list something that articles shouldn't do, but that doesn't nicely match any other section, we place it here. It also allows editors to, for example, type things like "Wikipedia articles are also not game guides" in afd discussions.

Let me know what you guys think. These changes don't alter what the policy actually says or what it does, but they do hopefully reduce the chance that someone will misinterpret the title of the section as occasionally happens (eg an editor saying an article about related pieces of trivia or an article about pop culture is "indiscriminate"). Dugwiki 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure if the WP:NOT#ALSONOT shortcut is working properly. If someone could test it out and fix it if needed, that'd be great. Dugwiki 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I fixed the shortcut; there also needs to be an anchor for the #ALSONOT to reference. I also boldly tried to make the introduction to this section clearer, I think without altering its intention. Discussion welcome. — brighterorange (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good to me. :) Dugwiki 17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The also-not title seemed a bit awkward, so I reformulated it. Dhaluza 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and good job. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think "Wikipedia is not just a collection of information" should be reworded, because Wikipedia is a collection of ('discriminate') information. How about "Wikipedia is not a collection of all conceivable knowledge?" –Pomte 13:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly object to the removal of the word "indiscriminate." The notion that the word has to be removed because people are wrongly arguing against trivia and "...in popular culture" articles by citing it strikes me as a way to end run around the consensus that in my opinion has formed that such articles are in most instances indiscriminate collections of information. "Indiscriminate" pretty clearly describes what a great many of those types of articles are (the listing of every single time a thing appears or is refered to with no regard to context). Such lists are very much "lacking in care, judgment, selectivity," "haphazard; thoughtless," "Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective." However, if the policy were amended along the lines of the suggestion here either as an additional bullet point in that section or spelled out explicitly as a violation of WP:NOT#DIR based on the emerging consensus that would go a long way toward addressing my concerns at the removal of the word. Otto4711 06:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• The word 'indiscriminate' in this particular policy never supported that argument. If by indiscriminate collections of information, you mean lists of loosely associated topics, then say so. –Pomte 07:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Given the number of pop culture articles deleted under that argument, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Otto4711 12:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• The deletion argument may be valid and may have consensus, but it is not supported to that effect by the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The term 'indiscriminate', as used in the argument, takes on a completely different meaning, by getting applied on the article rather than the encyclopedia. Any perception of IINFO as directly enforcing the argument is misled, hence the want to avoid using the word 'indiscriminate' in the policy. Anyone is still free to use "loosely associated topics", which is actually in the policy, to argue for deleting in popular culture articles. –Pomte 13:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs a bit more discussion before actually making the change. The new title was just... "bleh". -- Ned Scott 07:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear title for this section because it's just a list of types of unencyclopedic articles that don't fit under one of the other sections. There is no relation from FAQs to memorials to plot summaries other than that they're all unencyclopedic. I suggest splitting the 10 into separate sections. I think items 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 can be merged under one section called "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide"; 3 and 10 can be merged under one section called "Wikipedia is not a news publication"; 7 and 8 can be merged under one section called "Wikipedia is not a detailed source for works of art"; and 9 may be moved under #DIR. –Pomte 08:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I split out some related items under Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook since these entries are not indiscriminate, just inappropriate. The Indiscriminate section was too big anyway. Dhaluza 11:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I must stress again that 'indiscriminate' has nothing to do the particular types of articles themselves. –Pomte 13:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Would changing the title of that section from indiscriminate to miscellaneous address your concern? Dhaluza 10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing, and similar connotations. –Pomte 04:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the comments above I would recommend again changing the title of this section. Contrary to Otto's suggestion above, this section does not deal with trivia - trivia isn't even mention once in the policy. WP:NOT#DIR comes closest to dealing with lists of trivia and pop-culture references, not the IINFO section. Moreover the "indiscriminate collection" title isn't even consistent with what the section actually says and is, which is act as a miscellaneous set of bullet points that don't fit elsewhere in policy.

With that in mind, and given that most of the comments above (aside from Otto) seem to agree that the title should be changed, I'll ask for suggestions on what title you guys would prefer. The actual wording of the section itself doesn't need to change at all, only the title. But since, as someone said, the "is also not..." title was a little blah, I'm looking for feedback on what title you guys would prefer. Obviously this isn't an urgent problem, so there's no need to revert Otto's reversion of the title change immediately. I'll wait and see what suggestions you guys have. Or, of course, if you agree with Otto's position, feel free to comment on that too. Dugwiki 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Another title suggestion for this section might be "Other things Wikipedia is not". Thoughts on that one? Dugwiki 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Or "Some other things Wikipedia is not" CitiCat 04:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That can imply inferiority to the other things Wikipedia is not, and still sounds awkward. My split/merge proposal above has been partly implemented, it seems. I think FAQ, plot summaries, lyrics, and statistics can be moved up to "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook", as those are things you might find in a comprehensive manual. Lyrics and statistics might fit better under "Wikipedia is not a directory". –Pomte 04:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask what sections of WP:NOT are not included under the umbrella term "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information"? To my mind, it seems that the "indiscriminate information" term is a general catch-all for the non-encyclopedic encyclopedia aspects of WP:NOT, with the not-wikipedia non-encylopedic stuff being the WP:NOT stuff related to talk pages and the various other project namespaces. Does this sound about right? Carcharoth 11:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, but please take note that it's "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", not "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information".

• Following up my comment above, I've boldly copied the "IINFO" summary to sit under the main "WP:NOT" heading. See this edit. Per WP:BRD, I await comments here. Carcharoth 11:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with that change, except that you left the exact same text duplicated both in the introduction and the IINFO section. I changed the IINFO introduction's wording so it doesn't duplicate what you copied and pasted into the top of the policy.

On a separate note, I moved IINFO to the bottom of the section list. Since it's the "catch-all" category of the policy, it belongs at the after all the other sections which describe things which aren't allowed. Dugwiki 15:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, in part this makes sense: lots of the subheadings fall under the "indiscriminate collection" label (dictionary, mirror/repository, directory, manual) but I don't think it's a good idea because lots of them don't (paper, OR, soapbox, blog, crystal ball). In the case of crystal ball, for instance, "merely being true does not mean it is suitable for the encyclopedia" doesn't work because the whole problem with crystal balling is that it isn't, and can't be, "true." For WP:PAPER it doesn't even come close to making sense since WP:IINFO is about exclusion, while WP:PAPER is about inclusion. This reads particularly badly since WP:PAPER is right after the introduction. While I agree with the principle that the phrase "indiscriminiate collection" is trying to get at, I personally would rather see a narrowing of its scope (and a renaming) because it has been used in a variety of ways, often not in line with its intention. Pulling it out to the introduction, especially when it now encompasses things that it can't even explain, like WP:PAPER, only muddies the water further. — brighterorange (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Not Censored"

What if, nudity was fully in context? What if Barney got naked on tv? Or what if a famous child pornographer had pictures, would we be able to see such pictures, or should it be censored? Would this picture of naked Barney or naked children be showed on the article? Or would everyone agree it should be censored? First, I ask you to be consistant. Second, don't act on emotions because Encyclopedias are for facts, not feelings or point of view, leaving you consistant only to your current state. --69.67.230.93 03:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's in context, notable, relevant, and not illegal in Florida, add it. That's what we do all the time on numerous pages. For a sample, I suppose you could check Wikipedians against censorship, but be prepared for an eyeful of not-so-pleasant images if you follow many of the links. --tjstrf talk 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The music of 2 Live Crew and the cartoons of Mike Diana have, at some point, been declared illegal in Florida... and if crusading attorney Jack Thompson has his way, some popular video games will join them. Florida's a weird place, and I live there. (Redundant, I guess.) *Dan T.* 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, assuming those rulings are still in place, we presumably cannot host audio samples (possibly lyrics as well) from As Nasty As They Wanna Be or pages of Boiled Angel on our servers. However, that's a case of externally imposed censorship by a legal authority, not Wikipedia censoring itself. --tjstrf talk 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#SOCIALNET

Is this being enforced? There seem to be many accounts with mainspace contribs ranging in the tens, but featuring four-figure user and usertalk edits. I wonder how this could be handled as civilly as possible, avoiding any "jackbooting" - or whether the community tends to tolerate this. —AldeBaer (c) 14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If they make a large proportion of edits to their own user pages, those can get listed at WP:MfD. You can always take it up directly with them, encourage more encyclopedic contributions, and see how they respond. –Pomte 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And what if someone doesn't rspond? —AldeBaer (c) 12:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Having had similar experiences with listings on MfD, is there some way to enforce the policy directly without resorting to a five-day process wherein "keep it because it doesn't hurt anyone" is a valid keep response for a user with an excessive ration of userspace to article edits? MSJapan 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT rewrite

A rewrite of WP:FICT is being proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Rewrite proposed. Needs polishing, clarification, and so on, but it's a start. — Deckiller 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Scope of the soapbox clause

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX is used pretty frequently as an argument against:

a) organizing or expressing support for off-Wiki political causes

b) organizing or supporting on-wiki causes, e.g. the reform of various processes

This seems to turn up most commonly on MfD, but probably occurs elsewhere as well... However, as written this clause refers solely to Wikipedia articles. Should it be expanded to cover activity in project and user space?

I personally think that use a) is basically appropriate (since such activity is basically inimical to improving the encyclopedia), but use b) is not (since such activity is frequently necessary to improving the encyclopedia). I'd like to consider changing the soapbox clause to reflect this. Thoughts? -- Visviva 09:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and made these changes to address this. Dhaluza 08:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. -- Visviva 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead section for WP:NOT

See a few section above, and also see this edit, for ideas on how to introduce the idea of what Wikipedia is not. The idea is to start off with "not an indiscriminate collection of information", rather than "not paper". There is tension between these two statements, but that needs to be addressed up front to avoid people being confused later on. Also, the current WP:IINFO section will need tidying up, with the shortcuts and anchor tags moved to the right locations, and the remaining sections given a new subheading or moved to fit in existing sections. Carcharoth 11:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I have with that is it does not flow into the next paragraph, "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." That section deals with a different concept, and the tension is not addressed. The two just stand in stark contrast with no context. Dhaluza 08:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the tension, and noted that in my initial comment. I'm not entirely sure how to address the tension, except to suggest that "not a paper encyclopedia" be put in a new main section, as it is not technically a content issue, but a technical and format/layout issue. ie. it is not saying what the content should be, but what size limits there are and aren't. I'll try a change and see how it goes. Carcharoth 08:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I just removed the heavy "restrictions" from the section titles, and added a sentence to tie the first to the second. Dhaluza 09:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks even better now. :-) Let's see what happens from here. I find the content section very heavy going, with 10 different subsections. Maybe someone could try and streamline that somehow? Carcharoth 10:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sexual preference

Please see the following:

"User pages which move beyond broad expressions of sexual preference are unacceptable."

Please will someone explain to me why a broad reference to sexual preference is "acceptable", or rather why it is relevant to an editor's wiki-editing. A barnstar to anyone who can give one effective example of why sexual preference might have any bearing on what you say in what is supposed to be a reference resource. I personally have no objection to editors putting whatever they want to on their user pages. It's the woolly-thinking hypocrisy that I object to: ie "we better not offend [social group x] by not letting them say that they are in said group but we don't actually want the detail".

We allow people to show the groups they self-identify with on their user pages, and since sexual preference is a major facet of one's personality, it is relevant in that context. However you do raise a good point that user pages should not move past broad expressions of membership in any group or following any ideology, whether sexual, religious, political, or otherwise. Dhaluza 08:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it means we don't want TMI. <-- Note to disambiguation link repairers, the link to the DAB is intentional. DO NOT REMOVE IT. --> -N 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Its nice to know what you do; but not who, when, where, what with, and how many times. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not your web host" refers to guideline page

I've removed WP:NOT#USER for now, since policy pages normally shouldn't refer to guidelines for their text. It's analogous to including the Notability guideline here. That's not to say user pages can't be mentioned here - just that the current text isn't appropriate because it's using a guideline. I'd recommend rethinking the section and drafting a new version that sticks to policy citations.

For reference, here is the text I removed

Wikipedia is not your web host - shortcut|WP:NOT#USER

Main article: Wikipedia:User page

Many of the content restrictions listed above apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. For the full details, see User page help.

Dugwiki 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a problem, both that section and the referenced page have consensus. WP:USER is only a guideline rather than a policy because we (intentionally) don't strictly enforce it. --tjstrf talk 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd support altering the text, but not removing the section. As tjsrtrf points out, there's really no controversy over the section or WP:USER. I understand the issue with having part of a policy supported by a guideline, but the result shouldn't be the removal of a section with strong consensus. For starters, let's try removing the link to the guideline page and reworking the text. Chaz ^Beckett 16:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I temporarilly removed the section because it looked like it would need to be pretty much completely rewritten to avoid relying almost solely on WP:USER for its text. I have no problem with a new version of the section written without relying on WP:USER being reinserted.

Also, I should mention that while guidelines have consensus, they are not assumed to have as strong consensus or to be as enforceable as policy articles. Thus even though most editors probably are ok with WP:USER, the fact that it's tagged as a guideline means that there is possibly not as much enforcability or consensus for WP:USER as a policy document. Therefore WP:NOT, being a policy page, shouldn't use WP:USER as a direct subarticle, since that incorrectly implies WP:USER is policy.

An analogy would be if I were to, for example, write a new section of WP:NOT called "Wikipedia is not for non-notable topics" and list WP:NOTABILITY as the "main article" that explains what the policy means. While WP:NOTABILITY has consensus, it is still a guideline and not a policy, and so shouldn't be included here as a policy. Dugwiki 22:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I took a closer look at this, and I think you guys are right that simply removing the "main article" link and modifying the last sentence will do the trick. I reinserted the text with those minor modifications. It now says that WP:USER reflects the "current consensus guidelines" on user pages, as opposed to implying it is a policy page. That appears to be similar to how links to some of the other related guideline pages are handled in WP:NOT. Long story short (too late) it looks like it was easier to fix than I thought at first glance. Dugwiki 22:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#SOAP, Self-promotion, refers to WP:AB, WP:N and WP:COI. Do we have to remove all guideline references? Dhaluza 09:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this has arisen due to a misunderstanding of the difference between policies and guidelines. Policies tell us strictly what to do, guidelines tells us how to do it. I believe there once was a time when policy and guideline pages were lumped into a single category and not distinguished (Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines). Some policies would not work as guidelines, and vice versa. WP:NFC discusses how and where non-free content should be used. WP:NFCC gives specific criteria that must be met. The former is a guideline, the latter a policy - it would not be practical for it to be otherwise. Policies and guidelines are on the same level, and even if you want to make an exception to a guideline you still need to provide good reasons for doing so - "it's only a guideline" is never enough. 81.104.175.145 15:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference between what I removed and the other examples is that no attempt in what I removed to distinguish it from policy. There was simply a link that said "Main article here". But there is no "main article" for that part of policy - rather, it was a guideline consensus on a related topic. What might be ok instead would be to simply say "For current guidelines related to this topic, see (fill in the blank)." That sentence would make clear that what you're linking to is a guideline page and not a policy page, and thus is somewhat more likely to have less consensus, have a bit less enforcability or be more subject to change.

Also, the statement that "policies and guidelines are on the same level" isn't accurate. As described in WP:POLICY#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., "a policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions. As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages, but are sometimes forked out if large in scope. One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first." Thus policies are similar to guidelines, but should be assumed to be a bit stricter and have more consensus. Dispute over consensus and change, for example, is probably the main reason why WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline and not a policy. Dugwiki 16:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that "more official" is somewhat meaningless, and "stricter" does not imply "of a higher status". They are of the same order of standing, and there is no "order of precedence" between policies and guidelines other than "V, OR, NPOV > all". As it says, the main difference is in the exceptions. People need to stop the whole "guideline, not policy" thing. 81.104.175.145 19:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"More official" isn't meaningless. It means, for example, that slightly greater care should be taken when modifying a policy page versus modifying a guideline page, and that exceptions to policies require slightly stronger rationale than exceptions to guidelines. The reason to try avoid mixing the two, therefore, is to be able to separate those items which have strong enough consensus to be called policy from those which don't quite meet that bar. Dugwiki 20:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What you're ignoring, Dug, is that the userpage guideline, like WP:AGF, is a case where we have a guideline which has a strong consensus for what it says, and is just as official as a policy. The sole reason it's a guideline is because a part of the consensus is that it not be strictly enforced. (In WP:AGF's case, it was "downgraded" to guideline some months back because people realized that trying to legislate a mindset was sort of dumb.) --tjstrf talk 20:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said there's not consensus for the guideline - I just said that it's not policy, and therefore you shouldn't imply that it's part of policy by simply saying "the main article for this policy is here". I don't have a problem with the current link to the guideline with the sentence "For current userpage guidelines see WP:USER." Including the word guideline in that sentence would make clear the distinctions between WP:USER and WP:NOT. Dugwiki 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There's that "only a guideline, not a policy" thing again. There's no need to make a distinction between policies and guidelines - they should be treated together as a single body of rules to be followed (or ignored) as appropriate. 81.104.175.145 20:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more appropriately, user pages are governed by that guideline, and that is the main article on the subject. Obfuscating the fact solely on the basis that it's "not official enough" is silly. Are you suggesting we create a "loosely enforced policy" tag or something? --tjstrf talk 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The argument that policies and guidelines aren't distinct is, as I pointed out above with citation to policy, incorrect. Wikipedia policy specifically differentiates policies from guidelines; they're similar, but not the same. For example, the Notability guideline does not have the same level of stability or consensus as any of the policy pages, and you'd have a hard time justifying placing a policy tag on it. If you feel that this differentiation should be removed from WP:POLICY, then I'd suggest taking that matter up on the policy's talk page.

In reply to tjstrf, I already said above that the current version of the section is adequate. No further changes need to be made. It was only the previous version which did not have the guideline qualifier that I objected to. Dugwiki 14:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Live events

A discussion I think relevant to WP:NOT occured in Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Editing_live_events. My synopsis is that at least one editor thinks it proper to "live update" an article on a major sporting event while the event is occuring and (so far) most others disagree. There seems to not be an explicit guideline; WP:NOT seems closest but the one editor is resistant to that interpretation. I'm not sure it's important enough to take on - I doubt there's much effect on the final article - but I thought I'd mention it. Studerby 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper

Someone added a link to a personal essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper in WP:NOT#IINFO, incorrectly implying that the essay is an officially sanctioned position of WP:NOT. Without commenting one way or another on the essay itself, it is premature to link a brand new personal essay from the WP:NOT policy page. My advice is ask people for feedback on the essay to build consensus for it, then if it appears to have strong enough consensus advocate it becoming a guideline and/or a subpage of this policy. Dugwiki 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary Historical Data

I wish to explore further the notion of Wikipedia as historical data. Should Wikipedia be considered a historical database? What kind of knowledge is Wikipedia to cover and what knowledge should it not? If a topic has been chosen as valid to create an article, what criteria of said topic is not to be put into the article? Is it enough that the information is historical in nature, meaning it does is not concern current events, products, books, people, etc, to validate its inclusion in a Wikipedia article?

If not, what other definitions must be applied for the information to be able to be included within an article?

If so, is that the only criteria or are there other exceptions to case?

--Dharh 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

By the encyclopedia's very nature, this sort of thing is bound to happen over time inside nearly every article. I add an entry, and cite a reliable source that happens to be web based. Ten years later, the reliable source is gone, but the Wikipedia article remains. This is one reason why print sources are preferred over online ones. -- MisterHand 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I brought this up, I'd like to clarify things here. By "primary historical data", I don't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't record historical data and facts, but that Wikipedia should not be the primary source of such facts. When a web-based source disappears, the correct thing to do is wait to see if the website comes back, then, if you can't find a replacement source, use HTML comments tags to hide the source (don't remove it completely, as the details can help others find new sources). If a new source is found, great. If not, then there may be a notability problem. In general, if something is notable enough, a record of it will survive in primary or secondary records somewhere. If not, then Wikipedia can't do anything more than speculate that once upon a time, this website said this. You can try using internet archive sites, but the trail can get more and more tenuous. There is great potential for wikis to be used to record historical data, such as prices of computer games over several years, but that should be done on another wiki, not Wikipedia. Carcharoth 11:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And to reply directly to Dharh's question, only add stuff if you can find a source. For a price, just looking at the price in the shops is not enough. You have to link to a souce that confirms what the price is. And where. And when. eg. £34 in the UK in June 2007. But then it tends to look like overspecific trivia, so a range is better "Product X was sold for £30-40 by JoeBloggs Company, was marketed for ten years from 1997-2007 and then withdrawn from the market". The trouble there, though, is that you have to credit all that to a single source. If you credit the "£30-40" bit to one source, the "1997-2007" bit to another source, and the "withdrawn from the market" to another source, then you are verging on original research. I don't think it quite qualifies as original reserch, but it would be close. Carcharoth 11:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose another heading

I think we should assert that WP is not a religious tract or a recruiting tool for any particular religious sect or set of beliefs. This seems to be violated frequently at articles related to evolution and creationism, and it would be nice to be able to point to a rule here to that effect.--Filll 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:SOAP already encompasses that. -- MisterHand 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I expanded it slightly to make it more explicit, with a shortcut: WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. Dhaluza 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball...

Tell that to Nancy Benoit 71.124.116.230 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the proper link there might be WP:NOR. --tjstrf talk 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewording the plot summary section

I propose a slight change to the section dealing with plot summaries on Wikipedia:

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

The impetus for this is the recent spate of "Plot of..." articles being put up for AfD. When keep voters are told that the site does not allow plot summaries, a number of these keep users either say that the (very large) article is supporting the main article about the work or that all articles on works of fiction should be deleted since they all contain plot summaries. These additions should make it a bit more clear what kinds of plot summaries (and within what context) are acceptable on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. This will complement User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction) well. Perhaps we should extent it to "gameplay information", which is different from gameguide information; "gameguide" explains how to beat the game or provides tips, while "gameplay" info merely describes the gameplay without venturing into that guide territory. Nevertheless, articles shouldn't be solely explanations of gameplay as well. — Deckiller 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know about "solely a detailed summary"; it might give the impression that a brief plot summary warrents its own article, which is questionable. — Deckiller 14:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article to clarify that point? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, although a couple users might oppose. — Deckiller 17:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm wondering. Is there anybody else who has any ideas or objections to these changes? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess not. It's nothing to advertise across Wikipedia about; might as well implement it and see if anyone reverts. — Deckiller 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS

I don't know whether this has been discussed before, but I think this section of the policy needs to be revisited. While its intention of removing pages about details of everyday news is correct, many people are indeed notable for one event. Maybe there should be some guidelines about the length of time the incident is mentioned in the media, about the notability of the event, or some other criteria. There are often pages at AFD up for deletion or a merge that appeal to this principle, but I don't think a consensus has really been reached about its boundaries. Recurring dreams 23:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS (here the "not" stands for notability). I don't have a definable opinion on the issue, but I do place extreme violations that fail the "ten-year test" of notability on the deletion stack. Shalom ^Hello 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to write about every breaking news story right as they first appear, I imagine Wikinews is the place for them. On the other hand, we can wait to write an encyclopedia article until it's clearly established that the event really is of lasting and historic significance. If that means we wait a day, a week, a year, whatever, then we wait! If it means it turns out no encyclopedia article is ever warranted, that's fine too, it's still archived on Wikinews. Our scope is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and articles outside that scope can and should be deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What about 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack and 2007 London car bombs. Doesn't the same argument apply there? That those articles should be Wikinews articles instead, and that Wikipedia should wait a certain length of time before producing an encyclopedia article? Carcharoth 07:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to briefly counter something Shalom said above, there is no "ten year test" for notability. That is something that some editors unofficially use but which has no demonstrated consensus and isn't part of WP:N. Moreover I doubt that such a test could reach consensus if someone attempted to add it to WP:N. So I'd highly recommend not using the ten year test when looking at whether something is notable. Dugwiki 14:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I saw it somewhere, maybe on an old version of the page. I try to work within policy, but sometimes it helps just to use ideas such as WP:HOLE (which is an essay) as a starting point for consideration. Shalom ^Hello 17:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the ten year test was something that was discussed once as a change to WP:N, but it never got anywhere. The topic still does come up occasionally though so maybe that's where you've seen it. Dugwiki 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture trivia

Can we emphasize or add a bullet point to the "indiscriminate collection" section for "collections of loosely-related trivia"? Then include a link to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. — Omegatron 02:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the fuss about linking to a guideline earlier this week, that does not strike me as a good change. --tjstrf talk 03:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? Why? Who would be opposed to this? — Omegatron 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to it for starters. The avoid trivia sections is mainly a style guideline that advocates integrating trivia sections into the text of the rest of the article. While that's probably a good idea it doesn't speak to articles that as a whole might be considered to be trivial, nor does the guideline talk about not having trivia. In addition the trivia guideline doesn't, in my opinion, have the same level of consensus as most of the rest of WP:NOT, as demonstrated by the amount of back and forth disputes over what is and isn't trivia and when it is or isn't appropriate.

Therefore while I'm ok with Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections as a guideline or style guideline, it shouldn't be incorporated into policy in WP:NOT. Dugwiki 17:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tabloid

I am working on an article which is a bio of a living person and about 50% of the information in the article is garnered from one single tabloid source. This policy does not make any statement about tabloids such as “Wikipedia is not a tabloid.“. If it does, please correct me. The WP:Biographies of living persons policy states that “Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets”, emphasis on avoid. Other editors have been trying to get this article revised and/or deleted but can not because of these two weak policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Period. Do you think other encyclopedias like Britannica, Encarta, etc allow their writers/editors to utilize information found in tabloids? Your weak policy is hurting Wikipedia and as long as articles like Margita Bangová which almost completely rely on tabloids like the Toronto Sun are allowed to withstand the editorial and deletion process because of your weak policy, then Wikipedia will never be a true encyclopedia. I urge you all to revisit this issue and take a stronger position. Not even my daughter’s first grade teacher would have allowed her to use a tabloid in any of her projects. Why can’t Wikipedia, which proclaims to be an encyclopedia, have the same standards for our educated, adult editors?--Chicaneo 16:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the proper forum for contesting AfD results, and once an article has passed AfD as keep it's not permissable to speedy-delete it. I notice, however, that the previous AfD set itself up for automatic failure from the beginning by making empty allegations of racism, which spurred quite a few reflexive keeps based on the nominator being a sockpuppet who gave no actual rationale for deletion, rather than considering the article content. So in this case, creating another AfD page which gave an actual rationale for deletion might make sense. --tjstrf talk 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I know how to contest AfD results - - it's all spelled out on the AfD pages. That's another matter entirely. In bringing this issue here, I was hoping to see a discussion of Wikipedia's low standards not skirting our responsibilities to living persons and thus, the real issue. --Chicaneo 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy on plot summaries: Aux armes! Aux armes!

From section titled ;;;"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information":

2. Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article.

In a current deletion discussion, here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables the main argument, from me and others, is that Wikipedia's rule (on plot summaries not becoming a separate article) either (a) should not apply to Les Miserables, a huge (1,200-1,300 pages) classic, or perhaps (b) should not apply to other lengthy classics (there are a good number of really, really long ones with intricate plots). Some other possible options, I suppose would be that it (c) shouldn't apply to any classic or (d) maybe shouldn't even be a rule at all.

Nothing has been said in that discussion about why we have such a rule in Wikipedia. I'm hoping some editors here (very likely supporters of the rule and very likely opposed to my position) could participate in that deletion discussion and perhaps give us some reasoning about why the rule exists and what good it does and why it should or should not apply to the plot of Les Mis. Keep in mind that, probably at the end of that discussion I and some other editors may start a discussion here about changing the rule in some way. Noroton 21:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

An article about the plot of a classic is fine if it contains analysis, reception/criticism, etc. It's possible to create an encyclopedic article on the plot of a work; it just requires a ton of research (and is thus only possible for more notable works, such as the classics you mention).

Either way, someone who lives a long life may be notable, but we don't write every detail about such a life. The same applies for plot summaries. And if we write a few subarticles about a really notable person, it's becase we have primary and secondary sources to back it up. As a tertiary source (encyclopedia), we cover things featured in both primary and secondary sources (by using and citing those sources). Fortunately, because we are not paper, we can cover more topics (and many times in more depth) than others, but we are nevertheless still an encyclopedia. — Deckiller 21:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In essense, if you can provide links to secondary sources analyzing or reviewing the plot of this novel, that's information that can be added to the article. And when that info is added, the article will adhere to WP:NOT, and there will be no issue. Some good helping guidelines are WP:N, WP:WAF, and my rewrite of WP:FICT at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction). — Deckiller 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep this lengthy post rolling, but I also see numerous sources in the references section. Try going through those to find real-world context, like the author's influence or inspiration, plot analysis, etc. Then, you can google book reviews and add a section on praise and criticism related to the plot. — Deckiller 22:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If, after doing all this, you don't find enough real-world information to sufficiently complement the summary, a merge would be appropriate. — Deckiller 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, while I'm not against jiggering the policy about plot summaries, I still don't favor that particular article. Here are my thoughts:

• Separate articles: Separate articles for plot summaries are acceptable only if multiple articles reference that plot summary (I defended the Dragonlance_timeline article on these grounds) where it makes no sense to incorporate the summary into each separate article. Otherwise, however, the plot summary should be integrated into the main article.
• Length: Here, my feeling is that the length of plot summary that is appropriate is related to the amount of critical disussion about that material. I don't have a hard and fast percentage in mind, but a proportional relationship is what I favor. 3 paragraphs of summary and nothing else is probably too much. But 3 paragraphs of summary along with 5 paragraphs of critical analysis would be okay with me.

But even if policy was changed to my more plot summary friendly ideas, that Les Mis article still wouldn't meet my criteria. -Chunky Rice 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That basically sounds like the current version, except with an exception (referenced in multiple articles). Critical analysis and reception in an article about the plot satisfied WP:NOT. In the case of the Les article, though, there's probably enough real-world information to justify a separate article (the key is to locate the sources to prove it, and then to add the content to the article). My opinion of the separate articles issue is mixed, because there are always exceptions and complexities. I think the proposed wording change below is a fair compromise, since it allows compelling arguments to prevail in certain scenerios. — Deckiller 23:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The part where I feel that they don't line up is that the WP:NOT policy specifies that the summary be "brief," making no allowances for the material or the discussion. I'd be more in favor of language along the lines of "proportionate" or something like that. -Chunky Rice 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "concise and proportionate to the amount of available real-world information"? That would be perfect. — Deckiller 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Concise is a good word to use because it doesn't mean short, really. It just means not verbose. -Chunky Rice 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, this was actually the central idea behind the criterion. Articles dealing with plot and characters and whatnot are perfectly fine if there is sufficient real-world information included in the article (basically the fictional subarticle version of notability). You might be interested in User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction) (being discussed at WT:FICT). — Deckiller 23:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Deckiller has convinced me that we should have sourcing in each plot article, that each one should justify its notability, especially through multiple, reliable sources, and that plot summaries should not stand alone (although I wonder in cases like Les Mis when a plot summary should be huge). I created "Suggestion 2" below, and on several points I disagree with what's been said just above, but I'll address that in the "Suggestion 2" subsectin. Noroton 18:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd suggest simply adding the phrase "in most cases" to the policy, so that the sentence quoted above would read:

"A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but, in most cases, not as a separate article."

How about it? Then you would not have an absolute prohibition.--Mantanmoreland 22:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That might be fair enough; it allows for compelling arguments to prevail in certain scenerios, because there are always a few exceptions to the rule. I can detail exception scenerios in my WP:FICT rewrite. Nevertheless, I still think these exceptions are few and far between, since this plot article has clear potential to be turned into an encyclopedic one (based on the sheer amount of sources). — Deckiller 23:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I see very very few exceptions. Assuming the Le Miserables plot article survives, it will be contradicting this policy unless modified.--Mantanmoreland 23:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. The Le Miserables article has clear potential for real-world context and/or sourced analysis (plenty of available sources), so it can definitely satisfy the criteria with a bit of work. If a reasonable time period is given, I think it's fair to keep it for now and see what can be done. I just wish more users would split off articles only after they already have an encyclopedic coverage (to avoid these situations). The WP:FICT rewrite will put emphasis on only splitting off articles when an encyclopedic coverage causes the main article to become too long. — Deckiller 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Amusing how closely this follows my argument/thought experiment regarding Plot summary of War and Peace. Well, this should be interesting, I doubt we could find of a more perfect test case to make or break the (proposed) guideline. --tjstrf talk 23:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that there is any reason to have detailed plot summaries of every episode of a typical sitcom or cartoon. But the day after the Les Mis AFD, there was an AFD for the plot summaries of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." This series had a season-long plot arc in each of its seven seasons which was not apparent from the capsule summaries of the individual episodes. There have in fact been Buffy Studies which are scholarly analyses of the series, its themes, and their implications in the real world. If there were no article with the seasonal plot-arcs, then the main article on the series could well have merged to it the plot arcs, since there are reliable and independent sources to serve as references. This notability policy needs amendment to allow plot summaries in some cases.Mantanmoreland's sounds like an improvement on the existing language. Edison 05:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its a good preliminary change that will give flexibility without having to get a major community upheaval about it--it would in any case be better to have that change in wording than to have people go around saying IAR--IAR can be used as an argument for anything at al in either direction, and is best kept in reserve as much as possible.

I note, though, that this wont settle the argument about the article. I dont want to reargue it now here. One place at a time is enough. DGG (talk)

It also leave all the guidance for WP:FICT (perhapd the revised version being implemented) and WP:WAF, guidelines that paint the picture WP:NOT#PLOT lays out. — Deckiller 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is in response to Deckiller's statement that plot summaries are OK as long as there is real world analysis in. I disagree completely. Most subjects have a plot summary section in the main article, which gives a summary of the plot. WP:FICT says plot summaries should "describe the works, not simply to summarize them." The real world analysis should be in the main article, along with these summaries. I dont think a chapter-by-chapter or episode-by-episode recap of a piece is summarizing it Corpx 07:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, that's not quite what I said. For a fiction topic to be notable enough for an article, there needs to be substantial real-world content, such as legacy, reception, development, and/or sourced analysis (which is rare). The idea is that when users add this info to a plot subarticle, they'll realize that it's all stuff that can be placed on the main article in the first place, since most fiction is about the plot; having a subarticle (especially one that goes through a chapter-by-chapter summary) would be redundant with a perfectly fine main article. I was hoping people would realize this themselves as they worked on the articles, but it looks like I had to show my position for Corpx. Please read my rewrite of WP:FICT at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction), which is actually more strict than the current WP:FICT. (Also, it should be noted that I was the one who made the changes to WP:NOT#PLOT the other day based on an above conversation). — Deckiller 07:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - adding "in most cases" will have no effect beyond turning AFDs into popularity contests dressed up in "this book/film/video game is clearly important enough to be one of those cases" clothing. The existing policy already allows for plot summary articles that are "important" because "important" plots will have the sort of secondary sourcing that current policy requires. Otto4711 16:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Noroton 18:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That is the ideal situation; hopefully, everyone will agree so that we don't have to compromise, because I'm still iffy about opening up an exception mill. — Deckiller 19:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

Allow articles that are substantially or mostly plot summaries as long as they have some regular, encyclopedic treatment of the plot in the article.

Current language (italics added to last sentence):

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article.

Replace the last sentence above with:

"A plot summary may be appropriate as a large part of a separate article about the plot of a fictional work if normal Wikipedia notability standards are met: multiple, reliable, independent sources that give substantial treatment to the subject (the plot must receive substantial treatment, not just the work as a whole). If the plot summary can fit into the main article about the fictional work, no separate article should be created."

I'm becoming convinced by Deckiller's points made throughout this discussion and Otto4711 (at 16:00, 7 July in the "Suggestion" subsection).

Some points to consider

1. It's an easy way of avoiding endless arguments about what's worth putting in the encyclopedia and what shouldn't be in. If multiple, independent, reliable sources can't be found for Plot of the Dukes of Hazzard Episode 9 then no go.
2. It fits pretty smoothly with rules and guidelines for other Wikipedia articles. It's easy to understand.
3. It will encourage more encyclopedic treatment of plots and it demands at least a certain level of that kind of treatment (in the same way we do for other subjects).
4. Classics that have received attention from scholars, critics and others for years will be saved from deletion debates like the one over Plot of Les Miserables.
5. Other works that have received attention for their plots will also get articles. Where critics and scholars have written substantially about the plots of Harry Potter books or Buffy episodes or other works of popular fiction, we will inevitably get plot articles. But we'll get them with a degree of encyclopedic treatment.
6. There is no definition of "substantial treatment" in Wikipedia and this proposed language reflects that. Some things just have to be argued about on a case-by-case basis.
7. This proposal doesn't offer any guidelines as to how much of an article should be plot summary and how much should be sourced analysis of plot. We need to respect the fact that articles should differ depending on the subject, and articles will differ depending on the editors.

Technical points to consider

(A) Should we just change the "plots" section here or do we also need to put this policy on some other page?

(B) Any suggestions about tweaking the language?

If the Les Mis plot article survives the deletion discussion, I'd be open to another nomination in six months if nothing is added to it and I'd vote to delete at that point. Noroton 17:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC) (minor edits Noroton 18:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

• I disagree. Plot summaries should "summarize" the work, not "describe" them. I dont a seperate article would ever be summarzing the work, regardless of the attention it receives from sources. You can find a lot of news articles on the happenings on Lost, but I dont think we should go episode by episode describing what happened on that show. Corpx 18:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Deckiller makes the point above (in the first part of this section, above the "Suggestion" subsections) that if we have regular Wikipedia sourcing, we may not even need a policy change because the new plot article would not be simply a plot summary. Here is what Deckiller wrote:

In essense, if you can provide links to secondary sources analyzing or reviewing the plot of this novel, that's information that can be added to the article. And when that info is added, the article will adhere to WP:NOT, and there will be no issue. Some good helping guidelines are WP:N, WP:WAF, and my rewrite of WP:FICT at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction). — Deckiller 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think my proposal (a) makes explicit what was implicit and avoids confusion; (b) allows for substantial plot sections whether or not they overwhelm other sections of the plot article; those other sections howerver, would establish notability for an article concentrating on plot.Noroton 18:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Deckkiller later expands that to say "they'll realize that it's all stuff that can be placed on the main article in the first place, since most fiction is about the plot". You can say that secondary sources are reviewing or analyzing the plot, but I think that's pretty much the same as analyzing the book itself. Any article "reviewing" a tv show could just as easily be construed as reviewing its plot, warranting a page for plot summaries. Corpx 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the really bad plot exposition articles, which probably engendered the prohibition here, are the overly detailed scene by scene, shot by shot writings of dedicated fans about shows which other editors consider fluff. The language should be such that if a fan of a show watches it and writes a plot summary as detailed as the ones on www.televisionwithoutpity.com there is a clear basis for removing it as original research and as a violation of something in WP:NOT . Where there has been independent substantial coverage of the plot in reliable sources, it adds importantly to the coverage of the work, and can be ideally included in the main article about the show, and only stay as a separate article if its inclusion would make the main article too long. Few fictional works will have so many sources with so much encyclopedic content that the length with plot summary would exceed some standard for the maximum length of a good article. We will inevitably have disagreement about whether a review is about the show or about its plot, and it is rare for a review (which usually avoids "spoilage") to include enough detail about the plot and especially its ending to serve as the basis of an encyclopedic plot synopsis. Per all the recent discussion, Wikipedia can and should include "spoilers." Sometimes the TV show/play/novel/movie itself will be the only reliable source which includes the details of the shocking finale. Rarely, as in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer there will be books which include complete scripts and discussion of all the events of a series. Sometimes, for TV shows, the boxed DVD set has been used as a reliable source for episode or season plot summaries. Can a work serve as its own reference without the synopsizing being original research? Can actual "Cliffnotes" be a reliable reference? Edison 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Independent substanical sources about (plot of) TV shows can also be found. It seems like every hit show has books/articles about it which analyze it and what not. I put in some random shows on amazon and came up with LOST, CSI Miami, Desperate Housewives. I really dont see a difference in a person watching a show and documenting it and a person reading a book and documenting it. A plot of a TV show should also receive extensive plot summary because of the independent works that cover it. Corpx 21:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Category:The_Simpsons_episodes is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. It goes through every single episode of the series describing it in detail when a plot summary in The Simpsons is all that's needed per WP:FICT. Corpx 21:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)