Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 32

WP:NOTDICDEF
By extension, does WP:NOTDICDEF exclude sentences giving only the name of the article topic in a non-native language? Presumably the sentence can be retained if it is of cultural significance. But if it is just a translation, then to me it doesn't seem an appropriate addition. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is hard to respond to without an example to make clear what you mean. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Non-native to whom?
 * Are you talking about what was addressed in this thread: Village pump (policy)/Archive 71? -- Quiddity (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For random examples, that might be related to your question, see the good list at Harry Potter in translation, and informative subsection at List of Asterix characters. However, for what some people consider debatable (and-is-currently-being-edit-warred-over-with-much-drama) see Goblet drum translations. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean non-native to the language of the article. As a specific example, the culture section of the Mars article contained the sentence, "It is known as al-Mirrikh in Arabic, and Merih in Turkish" (since removed to the talk page for discussion). I am finding  this type of language translation common in many articles. To me it provides nothing about the cultural meaning of the word and may even be redundant with the article's languages box.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is some attempt to display etymological links between a name in different languages, that could be encyclopedic (in which languages is the planet named after a god of war, for example?), but simply listing the name in various languages does seem a bit frivolous. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional Notcensored paragraph
(The paragraph in question: )

Ludwig, other editors, as well as myself, have expressed reservations about your addition. In an attempt to avoid edit-warring, can we keep the discussion here? Thank you. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that the paragraph is largely redundant with the 2nd paragraph we currently have, and strikes the wrong balance. Language like "if and only if" is wikilawyer bait for would-be censors, and "their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate" is wikilawyer bait for those trying to turn Wikipedia into a shock site.  The 2nd paragraph achieves about as good a balance as I think we could ever hope to have; "include content based on its suitability to the article; do not remove it solely based on its offensiveness".--Father Goose (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Throwaway85, this is not my paragraph - as near as I can tell this paragraph was added a few months ago while I was on wikibreak. If you are opposing it because you think I wrote it, please disabuse yourself of that notion.
 * Father G: as I expressed earlier, my main concern is not over the particular wording (which could probably use some adjustment), but rather over the nuance of inclusion vs. exclusion. As I see it, there are two ways this idea can be interpreted:
 * offensive material should not be excluded from wikipedia, so long as it is 'appropriate' to the article.
 * offensive material should not be included in wikipedia, except where it is 'appropriate' to the article.
 * the current phrasing leans towards the first statement, particularly given that editors generally tend to quote only the last phrase - "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. - giving the impression that removing such material is frowned on in almost all cases.   This leads to the kind of wiki-lawyering that you're talking about, but in favor of including progressively more offensive material.


 * the second statement strikes me as much closer to the spirit of wikipedia policy.


 * Now, I agree there is overlap between the paragraphs, but if you want to delete the third paragraph I think we ought to revise the second to reflect the idea that offensive material should not be used except where it is necessary and/or pertinent to the topic, and then should be used with an eye towards minimizing offense. I think that you will find this true of every serious encyclopedia in the world: they do not censor content that needs to be covered, but do not indulge in more offensive material when they can get the same idea across with less offensive material.  Perhaps blending parts of the third paragraph into the last two lines of the second paragraph; something like:
 * would something along those lines be acceptable? -- Ludwigs 2  06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * would something along those lines be acceptable? -- Ludwigs 2  06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Who decides what constitutes "clear value" and what extent constitutes "the extent possible"? That sounds like a recipe for endless debates. The paragraph in question is problematic, too, since it it would be pretty much impossible to determine who "typical Wikipedia readers" might be. I have no idea whether I'm a "typical" Wikipedia editor or not, but I value the anti-censorship policy tremendously and would prefer not to see it weakened in any way. Maybe I'm missing something, but it occurs to me that the strong stand the community has taken against censorship over the years has been one of the key factors in making Wikipedia a potentially credible resource for information. Even with the best intentions in the world, if we start chiseling away at the policy we're liable to end up with a lesser encyclopedia. Rivertorch (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwig, I was not under the impression you wrote it, I was merely reverting your re-addition of it. It's a difficult issue.  The if and only if bit is what gets me, as it opens the door to wikilawyering, and distracts us from our true purpose, which is to build an encyclopedia.  I've made no secret of my belief that an honest attempt to improve articles will take care of the majority of these issues regardless of policy. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "should be used with an eye towards minimizing offense" -- that's the key part of your position, but including it would turn NOTCENSORED into SOMEWHATCENSORED.


 * When I evaluate whether content "is appropriate to include in a given article", I do consider whether offense is being served over the need to include to include the material -- i.e., if it looks like someone's just trying to bend the bounds of good taste and gross people out in exchange for little or no improvement to the article. I think most people evaluate content on this same basis as well, even if they fully support the principle of NOTCENSORED.  This is why we have little content that really is disgusting, except when there's no way to avoid it.  So we have pictures of genital warts in that article because a lot of readers will want to (or god forbid, need to) know what a genital wart looks like.  Whereas I think nobody needs to know what vomit looks like -- we've all seen it, so including a picture of puke in that article is just gratuitous.


 * Given that we self-police very judiciously already, adding explicit instructions to NOTCENSORED to "avoid offensiveness", regardless of the reason, will cause our content to suffer.


 * Just have faith that the system works, and has worked well for a long time without the disputed third paragraph. Don't try to fix what ain't broken.--Father Goose (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * FatherG: I understand your point. all I can say is I wish all wikipedians shared your perspective (I do, in fact, though I will admit I admire the evenness of your keel, which I can't always manage for myself).  Speaking frankly, though, this is a generic problem on wikipedia. If we exclude miscreants for the moment, the vast majority of wikipedians are basically thoughtful and reasonable, but a minority are - within certain topics - completely unreasonable, largely resistant to communication, and both active and vocal about it.  while I appreciate the value of open policies, policy should be encouraging the first behavior and discouraging the second behavior, not the other way around.  Frankly, this isn't even an issue about censorship (which was a bad choice of wording to begin with).  The goal here is to enable wikipedia to include anything that needs to be included to create a better encyclopedia, not to prevent wikipedia from censoring material regardless of encyclopedic value.  in the hands of a reasonable wikipedian this section works the way it should in spite of itself, because a reasonable wikipedian will do exactly what you do and import common sense and common consideration into the discussion.  an unreasonable wikipedian won't, sad to say, and I've even seen wikipedians (a good number of them - I can provide diffs if you like) argue that we should never do as you say you do, because it's against policy.


 * So what I'd say to you is that if you're being honest, and you do consider whether offense is being served over the need to include to include the material, and you think that's the correct way to behave... then it seems to me you'd want an inclusion of this sort in policy.  For most editors it would just be a reminder of what they already do; for unreasonable editors it would forestall an unreasonable interpretation of the policy.  -- Ludwigs 2  10:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Be aware that those miscreants are never going to be responsive to policy. They will, however, wikilawyer it when it serves their needs.  That's why I prefer policy that gives sensible Wikipedians the maximum amount of freedom to choose the result most appropriate to the circumstances.


 * Censorial individuals are just another type of miscreant; they too are not "here to build an encyclopedia". Giving them even a single line in policy that can be misconstrued to serve their needs is just going to make our job to get a "good result" that much harder.  What's in the first two paragraphs right now, I feel, sums up Wikipedia's position perfectly without denying us any of the flexibility we need to resolve each individual content discussion optimally.  Sadly, there's just no way to legislate idiots out of existence.--Father Goose (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * hmmm... I noticed that you completely sidestepped my main point, which was that the policy should reflect a practice that we both think is normal and healthy for the encyclopedia. I'm not sure why you would do that, and I'm not interested in one of those "blah blah blah" discussions were each side simply repeats their belief without even a token of consideration for what the other side said.  If you want this to be an honest discussion you know what to do. however, if this is just political posturing I think we've both clearly stated our sides, and we can leave this for others to weigh in on.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I beg to differ there; I simply feel the current two paragraphs allow us to uphold "normal and healthy" principles better than more specific language would. I retain an open mind toward new wording, but I'm actually quite impressed with how well the current two paragraphs achieve what I feel is the right balance between censorship and unnecessary vulgarity, so few changes are likely to improve the balance further.  Even, for instance, the words "unnecessary vulgarity" would upset that balance.
 * I perhaps could accept some wording along the lines of "no vulgarity for its own sake", but I am certain that some would-be censors would then try to characterize all vulgarity as unnecessary, and on some level, they'd be right. But from an encyclopedic point of view, they'd be wrong.
 * Perhaps my thinking here is also colored by the assumption that censors are more common than gross-out artists (on Wikipedia, anyway). I think this is why we have NOTCENSORED instead of NOTVULGAR in the first place; the former is a greater threat to our ability to produce a good encyclopedia.  So I prefer to have our policy focus primarily on the issue of anti-censorship, since measures against vulgarity are easy enough to enforce in the present policy environment -- but censorship is a persistent and well-organized threat, not just on Wikipedia but throughout society.--Father Goose (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, to my mind a good encyclopedia should always be conservative (and trust me when I say it pains me to say that - I rarely disagree with anything on NPR). It should provide thorough information while taking pains to avoid challenging people's understanding or viewpoints. An encyclopedia should inform, but shouldn't step over the line into trying to 'educate' people.  There may be more censorial types than pushy NOTCENSORED types on wikipedia, but the pushy NOTCENSORED types are clearly much more likely to engage in trying to cure people of their puritanical stuffiness, and are much more likely to abuse the encyclopedia for that purpose.  its just not wikipedia's job to break people of their old-fashioned values.  It's easy to keep censorial types from removing material that is needed for the encyclopedia through normal content discussions; it's currently next to impossible to reign in someone who has decided it is his obligation to free people of their moral limitations.  I guess we just disagree.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you on the project's core goal, I would challenge the notion that there are more "free speach at any cost"ers than "eww no it's gross"ers. I think there's a fairly even mix, as most of the notable debates in recent times have shown.  Nothing should be included to make a point; we already have that policy in place.  The debate centers upon what degree of offensiveness is appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Whereas you argue we should minimize it as much as possible, and I sympathize with your position, I argue that it should hold no bearing.  There's probably close to a billion people who would be offended by the "Mohammed cartoons", but we include them for encyclopedic value.  Similarly, we include the "naughty" version of the Virgin Killer album cover, because it is necessary in showing why it is controversial, a key component of its notability.  I think we have struck the right balance:  We don't go out of our way to offend people, but we don't go out of our way not to offend them, either.  That's the way it should stay. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * first, you've got the claim reversed - I think we all agree there are people on the conservative edge than on the liberal edge. we disagree about which is more damaging to the encyclopedia
 * second, while I understand that strawman arguments seem to be a core principle of wikipedia debates, let's try to avoid them. no one in this debate would argue for the censoring of the 'mohammed cartoons' (to use your terminology), and while the Virgin Killer album cover is more debatable, I'd probably support its inclusion - I'd have to look at the arguments more carefully.  More to the point, this question isn't about making hard-and-fast rules that would make people's lives miserable; it's about including language that supports a more conservative, discrete approach wherever such will not interfere with the encyclopedia.
 * This is, I think, the sixth time I've needed to explain this point to you, throwaway - if you misrepresent my side of the argument again, I will begin accusing you of doing it intentionally, and probably use fairly strong language while doing it. please save us both that trouble.  thanks.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of starting off on the right foot with our upcomming DR, I will refrain from addressing your accusations above. As far as your claims regarding policy needing to be more conservative, I really don't see any need for it. The current policy works fine, and I wouldn't want to handicap editors any further. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Perhaps
 * Content that has clear value to the article may always be included, so long as it is used in a manner that will minimize offense to the extent possible. Material that meets these criteria should not be removed merely on the grounds that it is considered objectionable.

 DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What does "so long as it is used in a manner that will mimize offense" mean in practice? That could easily be interpretted as collapsing any offensive image by default, and I think that's going too far. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, all of this may be moot. Remember that Wikipedia policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. The current consensus on Wikipedia is that it is not censored, and this policy should simply accurately reflect that consensus.  Even if a few people in this discussion page want to make Wikipedia 'somewhat censored', we cannot possibly change Wikipedia WP:notcensored policy to that degree without a Wikipedia-wide RFC. Locke9k (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is indeed censored. The article on Child_pornography does not contain a single picture and I do not think anyone would want it to. There are many ways that an image would add information to the article, but most would be illegal. Stating that Wikipedia is not censored is a lie.--Anka.213 (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between not censoring things people may find disturbing and not uploading images that will land you in jail for a decade. That's really not much of an argument. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Would the images have been there if child pornography were legal? Ok. I agree that most reformulations would cause more problems then it would solve. This one's just out of curiosity. (I was aware that the above post was stupid)


 * PS. Pornography is an example which I would consider slightly censored in the way that (i think) Ludwigs2 is aiming for. DS. --Anka.213 (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're into very big hypotheticals here, because it'd have to be legal throughout the world -- even just viewing a page with child pornography will put a copy of it in your cache, and in many (most?) countries, that counts as possession, and is illegal.
 * I'm really astonished we have the "Virgin Killer" image on-site. I'm certain some prosecutor somewhere could secure a conviction of someone just on the basis of having viewed that article.  We're playing a game of chicken chickenhawk with the law there.  All it'll take is one prosecutor who wants to make an example of someone or something (perhaps of Wikipedia), and the shit will hit the fan.  I'm not just talking about the "Internet Watch" business from a year ago; it's my belief someone could actually go to jail over it.  The fact that we've retained the image isn't the fault of NOTCENSORED, which says "don't break the law"; it's due to an inadequate fear of how unpredictable the law can be regarding obscenity and especially child pornography.  I think it's a time bomb for us.--Father Goose (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The international legal issues are really difficult to handle - wikipedia has (and will always have) an American bias in that regard. frankly, images that most wikipedia editors think are necessary and appropriate (e.g. the images on the penis or vagina pages) would be illegal in huge sections of the world (most muslim countries and probably China, which has some stringent rules on pornography).  opening the wikipedia page on penis in the presence of women in Saudi Arabia might be punishable by death under a narrow interpretation of Islamic law.


 * at any rate, I think the legal issue is a red herring. The fact of the matter is, most wikipedia editors use restraint and common sense when dealing with  images on wikipedia - this is in fact a form of censorship, but not something objectionable.  My real concern with this policy snippet is that it is sometimes used by editors who lack restraint and common sense to beat back editors who argue for restraint and common sense.  what I would like is to get some reference to restraint and common sense embedded in the policy to keep editors (those who might be inclined to push the envelope of good taste) from using NOTCENSORED as a bludgeon to get their way.  -- Ludwigs 2  10:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a competition?
I came across this MfD, which was deleted, and a few users mentioned "wikipedia is not a competition". I was surprised that this policy doesn't mention anything like that. Has adding something like this ever been proposed, or even discussed? What are some opinions on Wikipedia is not a competition?-- Stinging Swarm  talk 07:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While competition in accumulating barnstars is an unnecessary distraction&mdash;that AfD seems to show a consensus on this&mdash;I'm not certain that forbidding all types of competition should be set in policy. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND already rejects the most destructive type of competition. What else is really needed? / edg ☺ ☭ 12:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess we'll have to put WP:Wikicup up for deletion too.[joke] davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  13:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Swarm is after something more like "Wikipedia is not a Snark hunt." But sometimes I suspect it is.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspected that first :P Throwaway85 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that basically sums it up. Come on, does it not make sense?-- Stinging Swarm  talk 20:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah! goona play the boojum, are you?    -- Ludwigs 2  21:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having not read much Carroll, I find the reference utterly incomprehensible. From what I glean, however, that's kind of the point. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This issue is irrelevant for this policy: what happens outside article space is of no concern here. ("what happens in Wikipedia:, stays in Wikipedia:. ") There are numerous "List of wikipedians by... "s. Some of them were under attack as well. The main argument is that many these pages are statistics. And wikipedia is and will be a matter of various competition, most formidable being that of wikiholics and rat races around each millionth article. There is no way you can ban them, hence your resistance is futile. - Altenmann >t 00:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will say, I kind of like the idea of a Wikipedia is not a snark hunt section. some general warning about charging off on incomprehensible quests to achieve dangerously non-existent goals.  Unfortunately I think people would keep throwing it at me, so it's probably best to leave it out.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a snark hunt, I like. Is thhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&action=edit&section=8ere any way to make sense of Wikipedia is not Soul Train? I'd like to cite that, but it would help if it meant anything... -GTBacchus(talk) 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * that would be a section explaining that wikipedia is not a place to demonstrate how much cooler you are then everyone else. -- Ludwigs 2  02:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

eh, I couldn't resist. let's see what response it gets. -- Ludwigs 2 02:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Threw a little blue in there for ya. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to find the sub-culture where editing Wikipedia translates to coolness. I'm ready to cash in on all these years of sitting in a room with a computer! -GTBacchus(talk) 02:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * close enough. Mouseover is worth it. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

←@Altenmann: There's a whole section of this policy related to other namespaces. In response to the rest of the comments...wow. Just wow.-- Stinging Swarm  talk 05:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this section specifically says : " The following policies apply to Wikipedia's governance and processes". If you look into the "wikipedia" namespace, you will find whatsnot: games, personal rants fashionably called "essays", humor, ... To struggle to get rid of these is just as pointless as to fight against, say, posters, photos and other "irrelevant" things from walls of cubicles of software engineers.  - Altenmann >t 07:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Wikipedia is not here to keep people from doing stupid stupid things. - Altenmann >t 08:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, Altenmann. I'm not on some quest to rid Wikipedia of any of those things. I don't even think the list of editors by edit count would violate the the statement "wikipedia is not a competition". The suggestion would be closer to the concept of WP:WIN. On another note, I really like WP:SNARK (which is the shortcut I made up), which seems like applies more closely to WP:RANDY-like incidents, that happen all the time and are very disruptive. It's actually a good idea.--  Swarm  Talk 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like several people got you wrong. Please try to get into minds of the retards like me, and try to come with a better, less ambiguous "catchphrase" for your suggestion. Please notice also that in the policy the catchphrase is followed by detailed explanation how it must be understood. - Altenmann >t 22:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a suggestion. It was even below that. I wasn't demanding that my "ambiguous catchphrase" be inserted. I was simply looking for opinions on the general concept of "wikipedia is not a competition". I thought the general concept of "competition" speaks for itself, being, by definition, "The act of striving consciously or unconsciously for an objective" and doesn't allude to the removal of "games, personal rants fashionably called "essays", humor" in any way. Apparently, I was wrong. It would apply to Wikipedia's "process". I suppose it would cover the concepts of "Wikipedia is not a snark hunt", where Wikipedia is not about succeeding in convincing others of your point, also covering the concept of WP:WIN --"Disputes over content or behavior are not meant to be "won". They are meant to be resolved per consensus, with all users here for the betterment of the project at all times willing to yield to consensus."-- so even if you disagree with the other side of the discussion, you should yield to consensus anyway.--  Swarm  Talk 18:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Snark
I like this paragraph, but does it really need to be on this policy page? It'd make a fine essay, but I don't see how it's policy material.

Be aware that WP:SNARK is already taken.--Father Goose (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll leave that up to others to decide. I thought the idea was both fun and on point, and NOT is arguably the most fun and pointy policy page we have. And no one can claim this is self-serving, since I suspect that some people would love to point me to this section (yes, my sense of humor often overpowers my sense of self-preservation; it's a wonder I'm still alive).  I don't think this bit is on a level with SOAP or NOT#OR, clearly, but it has its uses, and I think it's on par with IINFO and the NOTMANUAL/NOTHOWTO/NOTTRAVEL group (in the general vein of 'don't fill up Wikipedia with useless wads of text')


 * whatever consensus says. If we decide to keep it, maybe we can steal SNARK from the user-space essay it points to now.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that it's also easy to overlook it in a huge page like this. I feel it'd probably get more of the attention it deserved if it had its own page.--Father Goose (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It might actually work better as an essay for now, and seeing what the community thinks of making it policy later. Just worried about policy creep.  We don't really want people whipping out WP:SNARK as a way to win arguments. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no way it's going to be policy, regardless of whether it's on a policy page. The nearest actual rule we have is Disruptive editing, and in cases where a person is just arguing, arguing, arguing on talk pages, as long as they're making apparently good-faith arguments in a civil way, it's inappropriate to block them.  "Don't hunt snarks" is good advice, like WP:DEADHORSE or WP:REICHSTAG, but it's not a matter for policy.--Father Goose (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be right about it getting its own page then. We are, after all, here over a policy argument concerning WP:NOT. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So, Ludwigs, can I ask you to move this section onto an essay page? I don't want to be the thorn in your side over issue after issue, but it's not a matter for policy, so it just doesn't belong on this page.--Father Goose (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in writing the essay just at this moment; I may get to it later. If someone else wants to start it I have no objections.  feel free to remove the section if that's the consensus.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Game server?
According to many editors here, it is OK for editors to use WP for game playing. If so, this policy needs to be changed to reflect it. Crum375 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the What_Wikipedia_is_not and WP:UP, the use of words like 'excessive' or 'extensive' is notable. i.e. cutting some slack at times is a good thing and we can all get along. Unfortunately these words are not quantifiable, hence the need for MfD to determine what community consensus is on borderline examples. I see no need for policy change. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is for creating an encyclopedia, but incidental activities that don't consume huge amounts of bandwidth or server space are probably not worth worrying over. heck, given that we dedicate so many resources to pointless bickering and squabbling, I'm actually kind of pleased that someone is wasting wikipedia resources for something pleasant and enjoyable.  more power to them.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If so, the policy should amended to reflect it, so if another user's game playing page is up for deletion, it won't be based on WP:NOT. Crum375 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * but that would take all the fun out of getting away with it.   -- Ludwigs 2  03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa whoa, haven't you heard? the folks at Wikipedia Review have figured out it's all one massive MMO.  To think we thought we were buiding an encyclopedia.  Throwaway85 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, we thought of that first: Wikipedia is an MMORPG. They just appropriated and (presumably) poisoned the idea. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It would have been nice to see someone have the balls to use the words "levelling up" and "grinding" for new weapons, but hey. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Department of Fun is where the games are listed (over 35 of them, if you click [show] in its subsection).


 * The general rule is (or at least was) that games are welcome if they have any kind of encyclopedic overlap (word games, writing games, info-scavenging games, etc). Hence playing chess/battleship/poker/sodoku/etc is not covered.


 * However, previous deletion precedent is searchable, and shows most were kept. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut consistency
Anchors are used inconsistently. For example WP:NOT vs WP:NOT.

Also: WP:Shortcut "The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page; instead, they generally should list only one or two common and easily remembered redirects."

We list far to many alternates and options. I propose to go through and insert consistent anchors for the various NOT# Terms, and then suggest some rationalising of which shortcut redirects are template-box-listed once full-duplicates are identified. I'm not (of course) suggesting removing any actual redirects; rather there might be a handful of new ones for any listed what-its-nots that somehow didn't get a shortcut.

Any objections? ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Link headers, not sub-points. See also this similar recent thread: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_31. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, which standard form is better WP:NOT or WP:NOTADVERTISING (again, just for the on-page list, both shortcut redirects should probably exist) ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How about consistent double linking: ie. WP:NOT always goes to the XYZ Text sub-point anchor, WP:NOTXYZ goes to the section header containing XYZ, and we list the WP:NOTXYZ form in the 'links here' template boxes? As a policy, sometimes it's useful to link directly to the policy text being used to clarify a discussion. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That still leaves us with needing to list both shortcuts in the shortcut box. I'd be just as happy to completely deprecate the use of anchor-style shortcuts (NOT#XYZ).--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not preserve (with consistency) the NOT#XYZ form and the anchors, but NOT list them, and put some collapsed text in the talk page headers on the standardised redirect approach? 'What links here' shows that the great majority of shortcuts are not listed in the template boxes currently.   ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, I wouldn't get rid of shortcuts that are already being used, but I'd -- as I said -- deprecate their use.--Father Goose (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am wondering if my driver here isn't just my brushes with those who quote WP:NOTNEWS - or rather, allude to without quoting. Perhaps the news(indiscriminate) and journalism(original thought) could be regathered under 'Wikipedia is not a news outlet' or similar; given the frequency with which this aspect of WP:NOT is cited?  That would be more useful to people being referred to NOTNEWS, and would make me more comfortable with the idea of dropping the anchors generally.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Might not be a bad idea.--Father Goose (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Loosen up price text
Price is important in describing a product. Price puts the product in a certain category. Many product articles on wikipedia contain MSRP or the original announced price. Can we change the text to loosen the guideline so that this sounds more acceptable? Current text:
 * 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.

Perhaps change to:
 * Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, historical discussion of economic inflation, and other reasons that meet wp:notability.

On the Ipad article someone deleted price info because of WP:NOPRICE. I reverted the change. Price is important to understand what market segment the product is in. Price is discussed in many articles about the ipad so it is obviously very notable. What suggestions do you have? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this: ? I agree that NOPRICE has long been a bit off the mark.  The iPad's list price is a rather significant trait -- we just don't want people listing "here's where you can get it cheapest".--Father Goose (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good! Thanks! :-) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made one (hopefully uncontested) change - it is not just non-review media source mentions, but critical commentary on the price (eg, the iPad has been stated to be overpriced for what little it does, so that's good. ). Without the "critical" aspect, a slight mention of a price without additional context could be interpreted as an allowance for price (eg a news report that drops the price of an average car that was stolen). --M ASEM (t) 07:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmmmaybe. The price of a product is often one of its most significant traits, so I'd rather err on the side of allowing it, as long as it doesn't drift into OR-type price comparisons, which I think is pretty explicitly counseled against.  "Critical commentary" is the kind of language that doesn't have a ready definition, so I foresee Wikilawyering over it.  But I won't remove it for now; I'd rather see a specific case that demonstrates whether the wording produces the wrong outcome, so as to have a clear idea of what further rewriting is necessary.--Father Goose (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood on the "critical commentary" being iffy given how it's used at NFC. But, the MSRP is not a number we include just because it is there, because it can change too. Here's an example of what I mean where I think we want something more than just rattling off price. this article asserts that the Zhu Zhu pet is a fraction of the cost of a real hamster; that's a reasonable presumption to include costs.  this one mentions the price as recession friendly, another good reason to include. However this one just mentions their price, but not anything else about it; if the product only had this latter type of price mentions, then the MSRP isn't really important. --M ASEM  (t) 08:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble grasping that one. Having to find critical commentary isn't easy.  For example who said the IPAD was over priced?  The price is important in itself without critical commentary because it establishes the market segment for the product and allows comparison with other similar priced product.  Just because the MSRP can change is not a reason to exclude it, although the cellphone template suggest only listing the original announced price.  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comparison of prices is not what we're here to do, even if we're not explicitly stated that comparison. On the other hand, if part of a products' benefit or failing is its cost relative to similar competing products, based on the input of secondary sources, then there's reason to describe this (which I've seen both ways for the iPad).  --M ASEM  (t) 14:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, shit, now I want an electric hamster. Or maybe a gerbil.--Father Goose (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a slight reword, bumping down "critical commentary" to just "commentary" but noting that passing mention is not sufficient. --M ASEM (t) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right.--Father Goose (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

link?
mabye link this to WP:BIC? the pages seem to have almost the same point. 99.149.126.135 (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify this? Where in this article is "almost the same point" as that essay? Skimming through I can't see it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is time for NOTHOWTO to go

 * I am replacing this section from the archives because there was a very wide diversity of opinions expressed and the question was not resolved before the section was archived. 99.27.203.165 (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The archives are filled with complaints about WP:NOTHOWTO, but I could not find a single argument in support of that exclusion. And then today I saw that WikiHow, the first alternative listed on this project page under the NOTHOWTO section does not allow commercial re-use of their contributions unlike our CC-BY-SA license. It is time to end the stupid restriction on instructional information. Who is with me on this? 99.27.200.154 (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Two far-better solutions: 1) Find out why wikiHow won't allow commercial use without prior authorization, and get them to change their mind, or 2) create a new How-To wiki and see if people prefer editing it than WikiHow.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are either of those better? The default instruction for encyclopedic quality is comprehensiveness. 99.27.200.154 (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What search term did you use to search the archives? Searching the archive for "nothowto" I find a total of six hits, hardly "filled with complaints". Can you provide some reasons,why you feel how to information is encyclopedic? Ridernyc (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading through the 6 hits, I don't think a single one of them is a complaint. One or two asking for clarification,the rest used as discussion points about other parts of not. Ridernyc (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched on "how to", "how-to", and "howto" please. 99.27.200.154 (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mind providing some links to these complaints ,or you could just tell use why you feel "how to" information is encyclopedic. Ridernyc (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was intrigued to find on nostalgia.wikipedia.org that how-to-guides were once accepted. See http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to and http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/How-tos. Also see How-to (historical). Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I support NOTHOWTO. Whatever problems WikiHow has are no reason to begin opening the can of worms that would be how-to guides on Wikipedia. One goes to an encyclopedia to learn what a cake is, not how to pick out eggs and bake without gluten and lick the beaters without injuring oneself. Powers T 13:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also support NOTHOWTO, and seeing the quality of content on WikiHow only strengthens this. Instructional guides quickly head into original research and are POV minefields. Let's stick to 'what'. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. How-to content has no place in WP. We need to stop it from coming in, not change the rule to let it in. The rule is good. mike4ty4 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia. How-to guides are not encyclopedic, and they are prone to original research. If you want to learn about bicycles then go get an encyclopedia, if you want to know how to repair a bicycle then the encyclopedia is not the correct book. We need to stay within the already vast scope of our project. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I forget if it was the RS/N or the OR/N but there was once a question (raised twice, and both times I was pretty much the only one answering, and gave same answer both times) about information added to an article related to sungazing (perhaps that was the article itself) that explained from a book on sungazing how to actually do it (safely, as claimed by the book). It wasnt OR, and the book was a RS, but thanks to NOTHOWTO I and one or two others supported the exclusion of the information both times it was raised as violating our ethos that we are not a "how-to" guide and that if vandalism occured and wasnt corrected for even a few minutes someone could follow wrong instructions and seriously get injured. This is an example of why NOTHOWTO must remain in order to protect the safety of those who would follow our instructions, and the Foundation from a lawsuit. Without NOTHOWTO there wouldnt have been a policy/guideline instruction that would have prevented the information to remain (not that we need one, common sense is enough to tell you we shouldnt be telling people how to look at the sun, safely or not).Camelbinky (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And Powers, ca you tell me how to et mah tongue unshtuck from the beatersh? :-)Camelbinky (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I don't have a problem with NOTHOWTO, nor with any other content restriction on Wikipedia, since the Wikimedia Foundation gives away the MediaWiki software to anyone who wants to start their own wiki. The free availability of MediaWiki for any purpose means (in a larger sense) that the WMF does not really forbid anything. Every wiki community is free to restrict itself in any way it likes, even arbitrarily. However: --Teratornis (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Justifying NOTHOWTO on the basis of its utility for eliminating some content disputes is a weak argument. The content which Wikipedia does allow is also a "can of worms" for content disputes. Wikipedia succeeds because we have mechanisms for resolving disputes, not because we manage to avoid them. If the Wikipedia community wanted to publish procedural knowledge, we surely could. We would handle the additional disputes like we handle the existing disputes.
 * Could we persuade Jimbo to use a different modifier than "all" when he says "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." Clearly we are not trying to give every single person on the planet the sum of all human knowledge.
 * Excluding procedural knowledge from Wikipedia is, I believe, elitist. It presumes Wikipedia's audience consists of leisured gentlemen scholars who never need to get their hands dirty, who learn primarily for their intellectual amusement and possibly to impress their peers with their command of useless trivia. Procedural knowledge, in contrast, is the domain of doers: technicians, the working class, and especially the poor who cannot hope to address their glaring material needs with intellectual abstractions. I don't believe elitism is fundamentally wrong, nor that it needs any justification (elitists are free to be elitist if that's what they want to do), but it does contradict Jimbo's stated ambition to provide Wikipedia to everybody on the planet in their native language. Most of the world's population is poor by the standards of the average Wikipedian. The poorest billion live on $1 per person per day or less; the next-poorest two billion live on $3 or less. One imagines that the information these people will consider important is quite different than the information the average Wikipedian considers important. Wikipedians who are well-fed and comfortable can talk about how procedural knowledge is "unencyclopedic", and this argument might even mean something. But I suspect the argument would make less sense to a starving Ethiopean.


 * The Foundation has the goal of providing the sum of all human knowledge, but not through Wikipedia alone. Wikipedia is but one of the Foundations many projects in furtherance of that goal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the Foundation is not an encyclopedia but is a collection of projects that include an encyclopedia. The foundation has a wider scope than our project does. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true, but not even Wikibooks, the most likely WMF outlet for procedural knowledge, wants large subsets of it. See What Wikibooks is not. Thousands of non-WMF wikis exist because the WMF does not want to publish the sum of all human knowledge. However, as I mentioned, the WMF gives away the MediaWiki software that other people can use to publish the sum of all human knowledge. --Teratornis (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok Teratornis, so when a vandal makes the portion of the sungazing article on how to actually sun gaze read something other than what it should and my kid goes blind because he went on Wikipedia, read it, and did it the way it was written, I'll remember that it was your idea to put "how-to" knowledge on Wikipedia. You want to be responsible for a blind kid? That's just one legal problem we'd have to deal with. Drop this issue, we've shown conclusively it is a bad idea and it just wont ever happen.Camelbinky (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, WP's general set of disclaimers (see bottom of the page) assert that advice listed on WP should not be taken as profession, so to argue that we aren't a HOWTO to prevent us from being sued is not appropriate.
 * The simple answer is that when you start getting into HOWTO for more common activities, such as making chicken soup, there are thousands of recipes that would then need to be included since they are all valid HOWTOs. We can describe that chicken soup is often made from chicken broth or chicken bones boiled in water, with noodles, vegatables, and seasoning, as that's encyclopedic, but we can't tell them to add 4 quarts of broth to 1/2 cup of noodles and cook for 4 hrs. --M ASEM  (t) 02:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that disclaimer is enough to prevent the Foundation from being sued then you havent studied law or the history of tort litigation in the United States. Yes, we CAN get sued; and even if the Foundation didnt decide to just settle (which chances are they would) the legal fees would be staggering compared to how small the budget is. It is a legitimate argument and alot better than "we'd have to add lots of chicken noodle recipes". The legal is issue is the paramount issue, we can not go around telling people to do things that we dont have control over what the wording is and whether or not it is safe, disclaimer or not. The fact that I have raised that issue here would itself be brought into evidence in court that there was a foreseeable incident and it was preventable. Just the fact of me bringing this up means if we got rid of howto and say my son got blinded, yes I could sue the Foundation; and given that my net worth dwarfs the budget of the Foundation chances are I'd bankrupt the Foundation even if I had a lost cause (and I wouldnt, I'd win, trust me). Hypothetically speaking of course, please dont try saying "Camelbinky is making legal threats".Camelbinky (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ZOMG! Save the children! — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I don't think "how to" articles would work, "how to" content within articles might sometimes be appropriate. Encyclopedia Britannica is an Instruction Manual: List of guides on "How to do things" in the EB (see esp. pages 28-29). And while they may not fit Wikipedia's definition of an encyclopedia, see also How to Encyclopedias. (I reiterate my assertion elsewhere: elevating articles on major topics underlying fundamental principles major policies like Encyclopedia for WP:5P and WP:NOT or Knowledge for Vision  or educational content (def:=?) for Mission and Values to Featured Article status should probably be a high priority.) Oh, and MASEM and Camelbinky, do you have any good chicken soup recipes by the way? :-D  You could add them to WP:CHICKENSOUP or Chicken Soup for the Wikipedian Soul. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many topics are best explained by a detailed description of how to work with them or use them. As for encyclopedicity, consider the illustration in Diderot's Encyclopedie, which were specifically intended to convey this level of detail. The provision is necessary to keep out extreme cases, but the wording should be looked to and it should be interpreted rather narrowly. The fear of legal adverse events should be left to the foundation--I think it rather remote, but if they want to prohibit something on the grounds of legal exposure, it is they and not us who do it.    DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Advertising
I disagree with Wikipedia's policy of no advertising. I think it's hurting the articles a lot.

Say for example, a few months back, I was reading the VPN article, researching the best way to create a VPN for a certain company. It really wasn't that much help, as I already knew what a VPN was, and most of the ideas surrounding it. However what would have benefited me was a list of the different companies that make VPN software. Who is better. What are the advantages, what are the disadvantages, which to use in what situation. Costs. Exactly what an ADVERTISEMENT would have.

I believe if Wikipedia was a bit more relaxed with it's advertising policy, and allowed itself to act more as a collection of existing solutions and how they functioned, Wikipedia would be far more helpful to many folks who are looking for real world application —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.122.98 (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of other sites which provide exactly that sort of service. Wikipedia exists to provide a different type of service. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fansite
Can we say something about Wikipedia not being a fansite. For example Physical fitness and nutrition of Bruce Lee is filled with poorly sourced promotional material. It'd be nice to have the policy state this to inform fanatical fans that what they're doing is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Shawnc (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Use of Wikipedia for promotion is clearly against policy. This clearly includes use of Wikipedia as a fansite.JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fans may post sourced statements from biased sources, and may be hesitant to agree that their presentation is promotional. Stating explicitly that Wikipedia biographies can not resemble fanpages may send a clear signal for this particular context. Should we simply rely on the more general "Wikipedia is not for advocacy" in this case? Shawnc (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists
I've been editing a lot of lists, and I've come across Lists of lists of weapons List of lists of weapons.

I discovered there is no end to this list phenomenon. I know that people say that lists are featured, but I think we really need to get rid of lists for all and for once. No one can use the argument that featured lists should stay, because if we allow them to stay, then other lists will appear, and the cycle of lists will restart.

Most of the lists are really just a repository of links. Although they are not external, they are internal.

The argument that these give better content than categories is very tenuous. Categories have a tree structure.

Categories are a lot easier to maintain.

Lists are hard to update.

Lists are hard to create, whereas just appending the category is to an article will show the article where the will be located, on the category pages.

If we get rid of lists, the course of action would be to save what we can and incorporate them into relevant articles. Lists are not too useful.174.3.98.236 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: this post is a duplicate of another at the Village Pump --Cyber cobra (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In theory lists of random stuff fail WP:NOT. The problem is, there is no agreed definition of what a non-random list is. There is a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists, which in theory should try to define what are the inclusion crtieria based on verifiable evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See the guideline Categories, lists, and navigation templates. There are things lists can do which categories cannot do, for example annotation of entries, and inclusion of topics which do not yet have articles. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a useless guideline, as it does not provide any inclusion criteria for either categories or lists, and does not provide any definition of what a non-random list or category is. Instead, it says categories and lists shoudl not be deleted just because they overlap. Yet categories and lists are deleted everyday for precisely this reason, i.e. they do not have any encyclopedic purpose because they are random collections of stuff. I agree with Cybercobra that there is a lot of listcruft out there that fails WP:NOT, and I think it is partly due to to weak guidelines.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did Cybercobra say that? Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you meant me.174.3.98.236 (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There are afew useful lists in Wikipedia, but most of them serve no useful purpose. Many lists get filled up with unsourced links which at best are non-notable and at worst are spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 174's is one of the most inane proposals I have seen, and almost doesn't deserve a response, but just in case this ever pops up again it would be nice to have some precedence, so I'll give it a try. Categories are not automatically better than lists because lists give the editor more flexibility in what to include; a category is truly just a list of links, whereas a list can include plenty of supporting information. See, for instance, List of Nobel laureates: a list like this is much more useful to a reader, who can scroll around and look at things rather than having to click a hundred links. As for being "easier to maintain", that is also false: a list is in one location and can be watchlisted, whereas categories are scattered across articles and there's no way to "watch" what is added to or removed from a category. The whole argument presented above belies a complete failure to understand how categories and lists work. rʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Loosen up price text
Price is important in describing a product. Price puts the product in a certain category. Many product articles on wikipedia contain MSRP or the original announced price. Can we change the text to loosen the guideline so that this sounds more acceptable? Current text:
 * 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.

Perhaps change to:
 * Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, historical discussion of economic inflation, and other reasons that meet wp:notability.

On the Ipad article someone deleted price info because of WP:NOPRICE. I reverted the change. Price is important to understand what market segment the product is in. Price is discussed in many articles about the ipad so it is obviously very notable. What suggestions do you have? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this: ? I agree that NOPRICE has long been a bit off the mark.  The iPad's list price is a rather significant trait -- we just don't want people listing "here's where you can get it cheapest".--Father Goose (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good! Thanks! :-) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made one (hopefully uncontested) change - it is not just non-review media source mentions, but critical commentary on the price (eg, the iPad has been stated to be overpriced for what little it does, so that's good. ). Without the "critical" aspect, a slight mention of a price without additional context could be interpreted as an allowance for price (eg a news report that drops the price of an average car that was stolen). --M ASEM (t) 07:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmmmaybe. The price of a product is often one of its most significant traits, so I'd rather err on the side of allowing it, as long as it doesn't drift into OR-type price comparisons, which I think is pretty explicitly counseled against.  "Critical commentary" is the kind of language that doesn't have a ready definition, so I foresee Wikilawyering over it.  But I won't remove it for now; I'd rather see a specific case that demonstrates whether the wording produces the wrong outcome, so as to have a clear idea of what further rewriting is necessary.--Father Goose (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood on the "critical commentary" being iffy given how it's used at NFC. But, the MSRP is not a number we include just because it is there, because it can change too. Here's an example of what I mean where I think we want something more than just rattling off price. this article asserts that the Zhu Zhu pet is a fraction of the cost of a real hamster; that's a reasonable presumption to include costs.  this one mentions the price as recession friendly, another good reason to include. However this one just mentions their price, but not anything else about it; if the product only had this latter type of price mentions, then the MSRP isn't really important. --M ASEM  (t) 08:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble grasping that one. Having to find critical commentary isn't easy.  For example who said the IPAD was over priced?  The price is important in itself without critical commentary because it establishes the market segment for the product and allows comparison with other similar priced product.  Just because the MSRP can change is not a reason to exclude it, although the cellphone template suggest only listing the original announced price.  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comparison of prices is not what we're here to do, even if we're not explicitly stated that comparison. On the other hand, if part of a products' benefit or failing is its cost relative to similar competing products, based on the input of secondary sources, then there's reason to describe this (which I've seen both ways for the iPad).  --M ASEM  (t) 14:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, shit, now I want an electric hamster. Or maybe a gerbil.--Father Goose (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a slight reword, bumping down "critical commentary" to just "commentary" but noting that passing mention is not sufficient. --M ASEM (t) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right.--Father Goose (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you guys comment about the discussion at: iPad talk page. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted your latest change as I think the word "has" is too strong, and you did not propose the change here before making it. Mushroom (Talk) 18:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The text already says "indication" and is not an absolute. What is your rationale for "too strong"? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your rationale for the change? I think this section has already been watered down too much. It is important to make it clear that those prices may have encyclopedic value, otherwise people will start adding prices to all articles about products and justify it by saying "the policy says it has encyclopedic value, so we have to include it!" Mushroom (Talk) 19:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "may" is already implied by the word "indication". Trying to remove pricing from a product is taking away a major description of a product.  Smells like censorship to me.  Price does much to define a product.  A 10K sports car is much different than $100K sports car.  Wikipedia is doing a disservice to its readers by removing MSRP from articles.  Having text which says "an indication of" is far from an absolute that says it has to be included in wikipedia. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think prices are not generally encyclopedic, except when they have been discussed significantly by multiple independent reliable sources. Take the iPad, for instance: prior to its release, almost all analysts thought its price would be close to $1,000, so it was a surprise when the minimum price was announced to be $499. This fact has encyclopedic value and there is good reason to discuss it in the article. However, I see no reason to keep a table with all prices in there (and why only U.S. prices, by the way? Is it not a disservice to me in Italy to have only U.S. prices in that table?). Anyway, going back to the NOPRICE section, the previous version of it stated that "articles discussing products currently on sale should not quote street prices." You already watered it down to "if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on the price of an object instead of just passing mention, this is an indication that its price may have encyclopedic significance", which says almost the opposite. This change has been discussed by just three people, which is not exactly a consensus by Wikipedia standards, and in my opinion it seriously weakens the section. I see no need to tone it down even more. Mushroom (Talk) 19:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where I stand on this. I do think having some pricing information on articles generally could be useful but I'm not totally comfortable with it. However if this change is going to be made its a fairly major one, and a request for comment should be made. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that the discovery of multiple sources discussing the price of the iPad as a significant trait seems to have convinced some of those commenting here that it is worth mentioning in the article. The recent changes to the NOPRICES section were an attempt to give us better clarity (and flexibility) on this point -- namely, that prices are not prohibited from Wikipedia articles, as the earlier wording seemed to suggest, but rather that they can be included if general sources find the price to be in some way worth commenting upon.


 * On some level, it's a little silly to have no problem with including every possible spec of a product (weight, battery life, resolution, features) but then prohibit mentioning what its price is. There are some problems associated with pricing information (the variability of street prices in particular) that are outlined in the NOPRICE section.  The current wording of the rule permits us to say  "this is what it costs and that is significant because..." if such a statement can be backed up with sourcing.


 * I happen to think it strikes the right balance in its current form. We're not a price comparison site but we don't prohibit pricing information, especially if the price of a product has generated some form of commentary (not just mention) in a non-review source.--Father Goose (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, we mention how much ram a camera has but can't mention the manufacturers suggested retail price or some one will delete it with wp:noprice moniker. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to clarify that I have no problem with the current version of the section, and I agree that the earlier wording was probably too restrictive. I just think it should not be loosened up more than it currently is. Mushroom (Talk) 02:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Airline destinations
The issue of lists has been raised in connection with the guideline WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_%28Airlines%29 and most recently tested at Articles_for_deletion/Porter_Airlines_destinations. The question, though, of whether an airline destination list is a directory was not explicitly answered. I would like to answer that question, and if it is not a directory I think this should be explicitly stated in the policy.

At issue is this: airline articles are, according to the guideline, supposed to include a list of airports served by that airline. The policy further states that when the list reaches 10 airports it should be split off into a separate article.

Is an article consisting of a comprehensive list of churches in a particular town a directory? If so, is it still a directory if it is part of an article about that town? Is an article consisting of a list of airline destinations any different an example?

Here is an example article: Kingfisher Airlines destinations. Is it a directory?

I42 (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Analogies are usually problematic. A list of all churches in a particular town is not terribly important with regard to that town, whereas a list of airports an airline serves is a pretty important trait of that airline.  That said, that particular list doesn't seem to offer any advantages over viewing the airline's offerings directly at http://www.flykingfisher.com .  It would go beyond being a directory if it offered additional (sourced) encyclopedic information, such as when a given airport was added to their offerings.--Father Goose (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point re the analogies. I agree entirely that a destination list would go beyond a directory in the circumstances you cite, and arguably such a list has to start somewhere. But the Kingfisher Airlines example is one of many like it, and the WikiProject_Aviation guidelines encourages list creation like that. I am uneasy that the lists appear to contravene policy. If it is agreed that destination directories are an important aspect of the airline coverage, I believe the policy should make it explicitly clear that this is an "acceptable" form. I42 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the WP:NOTDIR section is somewhat out of line with our actual practices. I made an attempt in the past to reform it, but I was reverted.  I wouldn't mind reopening the dialogue on how to rewrite it to better represent the community's views on uses of lists.--Father Goose (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Should this be brought up at the village pump to get some discussion? It seems pretty clear that these destination lists are directories. I think that they are the product of aviation enthusiasm, rather than to develop encyclopedic entries on the specific airlines. I proposed the deletion of Porter Airlines destinations on the basis that it was a simple content fork and too small to be forked. My only concern is that this might be picking on one project, when this sort of thing goes on elsewhere. I know that we allow some content on the basis that Wikipedia is also somewhat of an almanac. ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 16:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Another list which is clearly, to my mind, a directory is List of Utah companies and I have nominated it for deletion at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Utah_companies. This is another article which is one of many following the same pattern. However, it now seems to me that virtually every list article can be interpreted as a directory of some sort and the policy must be changed to accommodate lists rather than vice-versa. I42 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative outlets
I don't see any discussion of the re-insertion of "Please see Alternative outlets for alternatives." (This was taken out a while ago.) We generally give a week for discussion of things like deletions and RFAs, so if I don't see any discussion and it's been around a week (and this will have been around a week on March 4, I'll check back in then), then I'll assume that people are fine with it and I shouldn't exclude it from the February Update. - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Grapevine
What about Wikipedia is not for stuff you heard from the grapevine in the section about OR?  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 13:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That might be covered already by #3 under WP:NOTSOAP ("scandal mongering or gossip").--Father Goose (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But not necessarily. Suggest saying a little something about this - soap or OR.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 13:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All right, propose a change. Or do some WP:BRD and edit the page to see the response.--Father Goose (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BRD? I must confess, I'm rather scared of that. :)  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 09:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The 'R' is what empowers you to be bold. If we think your changes stink, we'll revert it; no harm done.  On the other hand, maybe we'll like it and leave it in place.  Or we'll sort-of-like-it but want to discuss it first.--Father Goose (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still a little afraid, but I'll try anyway.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 11:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, at least it gives us a basis to fully understand what it is you're proposing. And I'm afraid this doesn't quite work.  If there's any section there that would vaguely fit "no grapevine stuff", it would be the last section there, "Journalism".  But it's clearly an even better match for "Scandal mongering" in the next section.
 * I know you originally proposed saying something about it in the no-OR section, but what it is you're trying to say pairs up with the next section much better. Would you object to my moving it there?--Father Goose (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 13:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, Wolfkeeper removed it outright, and it does seem kind of redundant with what's already in the scandal mongering section.--Father Goose (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And now we're swatting around various permutations. This is the BRD cycle at work.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"
If this site is not that, then why do people treat the site that way? Just wonderin'...--It&#39;s my Junior year in High School! (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Chris


 * If we actually did treat Wikipedia that way, then it would be as large as the Internet itself, and equally unstructured.--Father Goose (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortunately we have agreement from a lot of contributors that we don't want to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Some inclusionists hate WP:N, which is the main bulwark against indiscriminacy. Extreme inclusionists don't even like WP:V very much. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This article covers a lot of what Wikipedia is not (obvious from the title), but what it doesn't show new users is what Wikipedia is. Namely a free encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium holding information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. In this line, I would be more disappointed if editors treated it per your point. To me it seems that our job is to collect and organize information into a viewable format, not decide if it's notable. I guess I'm one of those terrible inclusionists who hate WP:N, seeing as how my position on that guideline is: WP:N is an evil tumor and a corruption of everything this Wikipedia stands for because instead of giving people information it hides it from them. Crazy, I know. I'm not a fan of WP:V either because I think the people can handle OR/dubious information if we label it as such (no need to treat Wiki readers like children).... buuuut I can also see how in some cases it would be useful. Although instead of excluding blog information and such, I would put it in articles with a little warning to anyone who reads, just so they know where the info is from. I think Wiki is about putting the sum total human knowledge in a consumable format, not about putting select human knowledge in a patronizing format.

But that's just me, maybe I'm being too idealistic. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC) By publishing knowledge seperately from our experiences, we facilitate its dissemination. In Wikipedia, we make the distinction between knoweldege that is "notable", and personal experience that is not. That way, we remove the heavy burden of having to assimilate editor personal experience in order to acquire knowledge. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, how do you define what is "knowledge"? If I were to keep a diary, in some ways that would contain knowledge, but looking at it from another perspective, that would just be my personal experience. The problem with NineNineTwoThreeSix's inclusionist viewpoint is that aquisition of human knowledge has moved on since dark ages, when all human knowledge was confined to just diaries of everyday experience.
 * If you wrote a complete diary, I would have no problems with Wikisource hosting it as an autobiography and Wikipedia gleaning info from it to explain your life. Notability determination is impossible by any group of people, because what one might consider a "boring diary" or "pointless doodles" may be really important information in the future. I know some people who have spent their life cataloging what amounts to doodles and poo jokes on city walls. If you think you can determine whether a blog is notable or not, you aren't thinking hard enough. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the problem: without asserting why you yourself are important to be summarized in an encyclopedia, including this is indiscriminate - otherwise we should list all 6+ billion people living today and all billions that have lived before, by this logic. This is why we tend to rely on third-party sources to tell us when a topic is more than just routine or common (eg why is one person more important than 6 billion others?) When that happens, then your writings could become useful to source that article.  Do you think that every glyph written in stone is significant? As a whole, the language is significant, and similarly there are likely names and heirarchies that can be traced about it, but I'm pretty sure not every single glyph found is worthy of mention. --M ASEM  (t) 16:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to NineNineTwoThreeSix, your example of archaeologists is perfect illustration of how notability works: archaeologists have spent their lives cataloging doodles and poo, but most important of all, they have commented on their finds, and published their conclusions in peer reviewed journals, thereby seperating their personal experience from the knowledge they have accumulated. By choosing those journals as a basis for Wikipedia, their knowledge is being disseminated effectively, compared with, say, than having to read their blogs (as we might do) or their personal notebooks (as our ancestors would have done in the dark ages). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Masem, it has nothing to do with whether you are important or not. The only reason you would be included in an encyclopedia is because you have a complete autobiography in the form of a diary. If the rest of the 6 billion people want to complete their autobiography and submit it, we should host it Wikisource and at least list them on Wikipedia. A single glyph found inscribed on a rock could be evidence a writing system or an intelligent inhabitant, I prefer to think that if the current age of civilization ever collapses and 90% of data inscribed on chips is destroyed, the 10% that remains will be carefully recovered and treasured even if it comes from Conservapedia.
 * Gavin, the point is that we are similar to Archeologists in that we have the opportunity to catalog and organize seemingly disparate information that future generations may find useful. We have no ESP so we can't begin to guess if a blog about the falsity of Climate Change might be useful to helping someone understand the context of a present day event a few decades down the line. Quite frankly, I can't imagine how any criteria for inclusion or exclusion might be devised which wouldn't be fundamentally flawed with respect to the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So I have a complete autobiography that says I scaled Mt. Everest with one hand, landed on the Moon twice, and invented cold fusion. So we should include that?  The point about third-party sources, at bare minimum, is to assure validity and expert sourcing claims, otherwise, WP would become a work of fiction. And remember, we're not supposed to be the modern Library of Alexandria, our goal is to summarize knowledge, not catalog it. Now, if you want to open a new sister project through Mediawiki to augment WP for biographies or autobiographies, or other compendiums of information, you can certainly try, but WP is not the place to simply data dump information. --M ASEM  (t) 18:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have an autobiography that says it, we should include it. Not as truth, but as something you claimed. Summarize knowledge? Where do you get off believing you have the foresight and intelligence to say what should be recorded/organized and what should not? Seems mightily arrogant. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And thus we go against the entire purpose of a tertiary work (what an encyclopedia is). An encyclopedia is not a random dumping ground for information, and yes, we have to have some editorial discretion to determine what is appropriate and what isn't. That's why we have polices like WP:NOT and guidelines like WP:N to guide that, along with good research editors that have done this type of work before. There is probably value to have something of that scale, but it would be much larger than what WP could be, but it wouldn't be an encyclopedia at that point.  Even the Wayback Machine is limited in what it can do. --M ASEM  (t) 00:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything we should not be an indiscriminate collection of deletion discussions. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree strongly. This is part of my point, if we spend bandwidth and memory by recording and displaying huge history logs, discussion logs, arbitration logs, user pages and so on, why do we deny other information? Masem asked what made a person important enough to have their Diary included in Wikipedia, I counter with a similar question: What makes Masem important enough to have a user page, discussion page, edit log and so on? It's a philosophical problem with a practical solution: Include everything. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're mixing the necessary aspects of the process that is used to build a wiki through consensus editing (thus requiring talk pages, user and associated talk pages, and policy and guideline pages). Most of the normal content policies do not apply to these pages, as they are necessary as part of the process. We do not expect someone researching through WP to use these pages at all. --M ASEM  (t) 19:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys can feel free to head over to Google's Knol if you want to see what it would be like without WP:N and WP:V. Angryapathy (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of those "necessary aspects" can be done away with if you include all coherent information out there. Instead of using memory to record potentially useful data, you're using memory to record policies which are completely useless outside of this specific Wiki. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why bother? Without any content policies, it is just filled with crap. Not only is it crap, but it is the same crappy conent repeated in slightly different articles but by different authors. In short, a content forker's wet dream. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A glimmer of that same arrogance. Deciding what is "crap" is fairly arbitrary. There have even been instances of peer review journals plagiarizing their information directly from a blog, spelling mistakes and all. Are you guys going to even try to refute my points or offer something interesting? Fine, I'll do it for you. The only reason an inclusionist viewpoint is impossible to actuate is because current lack of budget and manpower resources Jimbo has can't be used to organize the entire internet. ie. We are too lazy to apply ourselves to it, and Jimbo sucks at fund raising (sorry big guy). Quod Erat Demonstratum. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The depressing thing is that NineNineTwoThreeSix probably genuinely believes that. He/she seems not to have understood any of the points raised above, so he/she probably won't understand this either, but here is an attempt. If we allowed just anything from anybody in Wikipedia then nobody reading Wikipedia could tell whether what they were reading was of any value or not. Therefore Wikipedia would be of no use to anyone. Because a decision has to be made by someone, and that any one person's judgement must contain an element of arbitrariness does not mean that making judgements has no value: we would not be able to live at all if we never made any fallible judgemants. Because a job cannot be done perfectly does not mean that it is not worth doing the best job we can, rather than not even trying. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If we allowed just anything from anybody in Wikipedia then nobody reading Wikipedia could tell whether what they were reading was of any value or not.
 * because I think the people can handle OR/dubious information if we label it as such
 * if we label it as such
 * if we label it as such they could decide for themselves whether what they were reading was of any value or not.
 * Because a decision has to be made by someone and it would be nice if we didn't think ourselves so flippin' flawless that we could make that decision for everyone
 * that any one person's judgement must contain an element of arbitrariness does not mean that making judgements has no value
 * The fact that I have to repeat this is pretty sad. Read the discussion and try to figure out what I'm saying. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You want Wikipedia to turn into a scribble pad for everyone on the planet to regurgitate whatever they like onto its pages. No thank you, there are blogs, Twitter, and Google Knol for that. Stop trying to turn Wikipedia from being a reference work into a free-for-all, you're wasting your time and ours with this thread. You're like someone walking into a kitchenware store and complaining that they don't sell knitting patterns. WP:V is a core policy; I think editors who refuse to accept that should be shown the door. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop this encyclopedic fascism. Interest to some should be enough for all. Trivia represents the deep and multifaceted knowledge of this planet. it is minutia and hence is only "trivia" to the uninitiated. This is the reason Wikipedia exists.

Think. It is much easier to say a band or movie page has too much "trivia" but it is equally true of a page on mathematics or physics. Certain equations or physical properties are trivial, meaning they only have meaning for someone in the field, just as tiny facts about any movement or discipline only matter to a fan or academic. Does this mean that we should remove mathematical equations that are complex just because they may not be understood by the common user. And if you do not remove these equations than it is unfair of wikipedia to judge other non-scientific trivia with more harshness. Wikipedia is not biased.

I may be wrong but I thought that the original intent of Wikipedia is to provide a universal encyclopedia of universal knowledge. Any good collector of facts must verify the truthfulness of those facts. But to deny certain knowledge and only certain knowledge the right to be listed cannot be thought of as anything other than fascist thought control. Who are you or even WHO ARE WE to decide which knowledge and which information is "worthy of being included. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all human knowledge. This endeavor will eventually grow past all our wildest dreams. Do we really want to support the exclusion of verifiable knowledge this early in the process. What we decide now will determine how Wikipedia grows in the coming years and even in the years after our death. We want to create a precedent of inclusion, of true open source information.

This makes the above statements logically untenable with regards to the Notability requirement. So please remove this new bias in Wikipedia against unimportant facts. It only appears to make Wikipedia uninformed. For it is the small facts that make the world and "the old wikipedia" marvelous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinatown670 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Chinatown670 says "I may be wrong but I thought that the original intent of Wikipedia is to provide a universal encyclopedia of universal knowledge". Later we have "This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all human knowledge." Somewhere "I may be wrong" has been lost: has Chinatown670 meanwhile become infallible? Chinatown670's first statement, however, was right, as he/she is indeed wrong: Wikipedia was never intended to include everything.
 * Then we have "to deny certain knowledge and only certain knowledge the right to be listed cannot be thought of as anything other than fascist thought control". What nonsene. Nobody is attempting to control anyone's thoughts: it is just a question of controlling what is included in Wikipedia. It can easily be thought of as something other than "fascist thought control". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The key point here is to distinguish between mere information, and knowledge. knowledge is organized information, information that is about something worth knowing, summarized and selected so that it can be comprehended, and described so that it can be understood. Otherwise it would be a question merely of adding to  the web by accumulating all information of whatever sort is not already there: that would be the total of information.  There might be a point to having such a data store, but it would be a data accumulation, not an encyclopedia. It would need to be supplemented by some way of making sense of it. That would be an encyclopedia, and that;s what we're here for.  The real question concerns how much of it should be dealt with here, and how much elsewhere. The general view of an encyclopedia is that inclusion in it implies a certain degree of significance or importance-- that it is intended as a discriminating collection. This does not answer the question of what the degree of importance should be, and there can be more than one reasonable answer.    DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - stricter guidelines against plots in articles
Most articles on books, movies, and other works of fiction have a plot summary in the article. Here's the problem:


 * 1) Anyone can read a book or see a movie and write a summary of its plot based on what they saw. That is called original research.
 * 2) Anyone can provide a plot summary straight from some other website. That is a copyright violation.
 * 3) Anyone can write a summary based on what two or more sites say. Still, there is a high risk of synthesis, and the neutrality comes into question.

I think it is better in articles about such works of fiction, that the Wikipedia articles are limited to other facts, such as publish and release dates, people included, adaptions, etc. These are facts that can be neutrally verified. If readers want to see a plot summary, they can be directed to an external link to a reputable site, such as IMDB. Shaliya waya (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries are of dubious encyclopedic value, but they sure are useful in some cases. For instance I recently read the plot summary on Antichrist (film) when a friend suggested that we watch it, and decided that it sounded too gruesome for my tastes. That's not an argument in itself that we should keep the plot summary in this or any other article, but it does make me wonder whether the "unencyclopedicness" of the plot summaries is more harmful than it is helpful. --causa sui (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not saying that your ideas are bad, but Wikipedia will lose a lot if we removed all plot summaries. We cannot write about, say, a movie, if the reader were not informed pf what happened in the movie itself.  Bramble  claw  x   21:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm sorry, but what you are proposing would be a serious mistake. A proper encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction must include discussions of themes, characters and context and without a plot summary at the very start of the article none of this would make sense. This is not school, and readers cannot be expected to be intimately acquainted with a work of fiction (or even to have read/seen it) before our articles are accessible to them. What should be monitored closely is the way in which plot summaries are written: they should not infer details that are not explict in the original or attempt to explain why choices were made, sticking strictly and exclusively to a brief but comprehensive summary of the plot.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose In general I oppose fluff in articles (and the many articles that are entirely fluff), but plots are often extremely useful. People cannot read everything, and having a reasonable synopsis is valuable to understand something of a work. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:PSTS (a section of WP:OR) for why plot summaries are in fact not original research.--Father Goose (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for what others have said above. That said, much of what you're concerned about is dealt with in Writing About Fiction, which should fall in line with your general points, though I doubt you'll get consensus to tighten further. --M ASEM (t) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose yet again. Jackyd101 already said it pretty well, but I'll add: A plot summary that is pure summary is not OR, anymore than our summarizing of any other reliable source is (by that argument, all sourced articles are OR because we're just summarizing what sources say). The copyvio argument is a red-herring, at best. Anything on Wikipedia can be a copyright violation. If it is, its removed, same as anything else. Ditto the issue of neutrality and synth. Again, it is a summary of a source. Claiming that doing it for a plot, versus anything else, is somehow a greater risk if non-neutrality or synth is incorrect. Any calling IMDB a reliable site is a very bad closing statement. It is a user edited site, it is not a reliable source (nor site) and it frequently has completely wrong plots and everything else, particularly for films from before the mass invasion of the internet by the world.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm actually chuckling here. The point has been  well-made above that plot summaries are important,  that clean ones are  not original research, and that IMDB is not reliable. I'm wondering, however, where  this alarmist argument is coming from? Are you seeing a wide array of  articles with unchecked violations? There are plenty of sloppy fiction  articles out there, but most are well-policed enough that copyvios get  noticed pretty quickly. You might next suggest that we shut down  Wikipedia altogether because someone might vandalize it, LOL.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 05:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or because someone might treat it as an encyclopedia, if the thread below is to be believed. It's not quite April 1, so I'm not sure what's going on here.--Father Goose (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for novels, and I imagine most other fiction genres, plot summaries are fundamental to good research on them (think newspaper reviews and scholarly reviews). Excluding such a fundamental part of literary studies from articles ignores a substantial amount of the documentation available on most fictional topics and one of the main reasons individuals would consult an encyclopedia while interacting with the fiction. Plot summaries also allow researchers familiarizes themselves with a piece of fiction alluded to by one work but too bulky or unnecessary for the research itself (for example James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake, many critics talk about it but how many people do you know who have read it?) . The Standard rule of thumb for good fiction articles is that the plot mus be lesser than the "real-world" info, I think that understanding prevents plot from taking over Wikipedia's fiction section. Sadads (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as others have noted, a plot or synopsis section is intrical to an article about a work of fiction. The only real problem, as I see it, is not whether the section is valid but how long it should be; but again, this (iirc) is referred to in the MOS for novels which states a couple of paragraphs. As long as WP is open to all there is really nothing that can be done about quality (until someone decides to properly develop a section), but quantity should be policed in novels, especially re plots which can be overly extensive. But I actually do not understand how the first point qualifies as OR? ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  05:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Any article can have content copied from other websites, that not a reason to get rid of them. If you see something copyrighted, you deleted it.  And its not original research to repeat what was in the primary source.  If you sincerely doubt the accuracy of any information, you can discuss it on the talk page of the article.   D r e a m Focus  05:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While anything can get out of hand, and plot is defiantly not by any stretch of the imagination, one of those things, you cannot assume that anyone can just pick up a book or watch a movie. There are works that are obscure, works that are in a foreign language, or extremely long works that eat up, for many people, too much time. If that is the criteria, well then lots of items in Wikipedia can be removed as you can visit Tokyo to find out about it in the same manner. Uf you complain its a matter of cost, well the same holds true for works of fiction. If you complain its a matter of time, the same holds true for works of fiction, etc. 陣 内 Jinnai 08:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fiction is plot. We just have to not overdo it by adding speculations, personal interpretations and excessive details. --KrebMarkt 08:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, with an amendment. I think the issues raised by Shaliya waya apply to the dubious practise of fictography, i.e. writing biographical articles about fictional elements that are entirely plot based, such as the article about the fictional character Gaius Baltar, or the fictional location of Silverymoon.
 * A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of the coverage of a work of fiction, but changing the perspective and focus of a plot summary to create a  fictography from a synthesis of sources is not acceptable.


 * Fictography gives undue weight to elements of fiction by taking them out of context, primarliy by ignoring the primary sequence of the plot, and by isolating them from the over arching work. This approach clearly conflicts with WP:INUNIVERSE, and it is about time we address the issue here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong agreement here. Fictography is pervasive problem with Wikipedia's coverage of fiction, and stating this explicitly (at least in WP:WAF, but it would be helpful in WP:NOT) might help give editors some insight into what in-universe perspective looks like, and how to avoid it. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also do agree here. But as noted, it doesn't belong to/relate to not. We have WP:N for dealing with unnotable fictional elements, which can be dealt with via WP:MERGE, WP:PROD, or WP:AFD. And while we do have some groups trying to keep that from happening, on the whole most are properly ending with such fictographies (good word) being properly handled. When found, be bold and merge to the appropriate list or main article, and if its disputed, follow the appropriate next steps. Of course, if WP:FICT ever can be restored, we would have that. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I agree with the spirit of this, but this is really unrefined. Most good articles keep plot summaries out of unreferenced interpretation, existing guidelines keep articles from being plot-summary driven.  Other than the mountain of work we have ahead of us on the fiction articles, this is already under control.  Unless I see something more concrete, I can't endorse this.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 11:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose- yes, Wikipedia tends to get a lot of trouble with plot summaries. We get countless "articles" that consist of nothing but plot summary sourced, if at all, solely from the work itself and these should be deleted. Summarizing plot from the work itself can be problematic because it makes it hard to determine where acceptable summarizing ends and editorializing or unacceptable interpretation by the editors begins. It need not be original research, so the nominator is wrong on that count, but the danger is ever present. Writing it in a in universe style is also a frequent annoyance. But none of these are good reasons to avoid treating plot summaries at all. If a work of fiction is covered at all on Wikipedia, then its plot is a vital and indispensable part of that coverage. It is essential to the understanding of that work of fiction. I'll also note that plot summary can (and should, if at all possible) be substantiated with secondary sources in addition to the primary. Reyk  YO!  11:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - First, it isn't original research if there is no interpretation. Original research implies that you are introducing unverified concepts, ideas, and opinions into an article. If I see Jack Bauer kill a terrorist on 24 in this week's episode, and I write in the plot summary, "Jack Bauer killed a terrorist", that isn't original research. It's verifiable, and not subjective at all. Second, if you copy a plot summary from another source, quote it, and attribute the source in the article next to where you are quoting it, then you are not violating copyrights of any kind. In addition, if you take a plot summary from another source and paraphrase what it says, but making sure that everything you paraphrase is easily verified by the original text, then you're doing exactly what you're supposed to be doing on Wikipedia. That's not original research, or copyright violation. Third, if you write a summary based on two sites, then as long as you don't introduce anything new that those two sites don't actually say (i.e. you don't put any interpretation in there), then there isn't synthesis or original research. It isn't a violation of WP:NPOV either, so long as you keep personal opinion out of it and just rely on the facts of the movie being presented.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons people above me have said better than I can. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I can't believe someone would seriously expect such a proposal to go anywhere, but...
 * 1. 'Anyone can read an article or see a documentary and write a summary of its facts based on what they saw. That is called original research.' Even if they cite chapter & verse, their brain still had to do something to interpret it, making it original research and tainted with the original sin. The only valid sources is copying straight from the reliable source, with cryptographic signatures to verify there was no tampering, written in Lojban or the Real Character to ensure that no interpretation or thinking ever allows any possible original research or sin to enter into the virgin article.
 * 2. 'Anyone can provide factual quotes straight from another website. That is a copyright violation.' From WP:ZEN:
 * 'Once, a novice was meditating over a guideline, when Gwern came by. The novice was tossed an unreferenced line. Gwern said, "If you do not reference this, it is unsourced and must be removed. But if you do reference it with a quote from the source, it is a copyvio and so must be removed. Now quickly! What do you do?"'
 * 3. 'Anyone can write an article based on what 2 or more studies say. Still, there is a high risk of some thinking having occurred during the writing, and the article may corrupt our precious bodily fluids.' Clearly, we should delete all articles. The only way to avoid issues about POV, undue weight, OR, etc. is to have no articles at all.
 * IMDB and other sites are not valid arguments; perhaps someone should write WP:OTHERSITESEXIST along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS...
 * There are tons of other arguments against your proposal, but I'll just sum up: your proposal is bad and you should feel bad. --Gwern (contribs) 14:40 17 March 2010 (GMT)


 * Oppose as stated, but support the idea behind it. Strong support to Gavin Collins's suggestion above&mdash;a clear prohibition (or strong discouragement) of fictography should be added to Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (okay Done), and perhaps to WP:NOT. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to be added to NOT (otherwise, then we have to describe what is inappropriate for actual plot summaries, or for fictional locations, or fictional objects, or fiction mythos, or...) Details should be added to WAF with more emphasis on these aspects of course. --M ASEM (t) 15:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Might still be worth it as part of a rewrite of WP:PLOT. Currently, WP:PLOT is wedged into WP:IINFO, which plot-happy wiki-lawyers will point out is illogical and certainly doesn't apply to their plot summaries and fictographies. (I should find diffs for that statement but I don't have all day.) Most of the current debates against WP:PLOT assume it is rooted in nothing and cannot have implications toward other aspects of fictional coverage. While I'm not saying a long list of prohibitions from WP:WAF need be tacked onto WP:NOT, the spirit of WP:PLOT is not well-served with the current treatment. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always felt that PLOT is better under WP:NOTGUIDE, as it is not so much about fiction aspects being indiscriminate (let notability take care of that), but covering them in a manner that avoid it from becoming a Cliff's notes or fanguide (emphasizing plot over real-world substance). In that instance I can the addition of Gavin's language appropriate if placed under GUIDE (with some changes and additions of course). --M ASEM (t) 16:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Oppose per above, the current wiki guidelines are fine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: WP does not contain large collections of data

 * I'm archiving this proposal because it is not going to go anywhere unless radically modified, and further poll responses do not seem necessary.--Father Goose (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP should not contain very large collections of data concerning one subject.

Examples that should be moved to their own wikis include:

David Spector 05:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Atlas (placenames, geopolitical data, hydrology, etc.), such as Passaic, NJ.
 * People, such as Britney Spears and Abraham Lincoln.
 * TV episode lists, such as 7th Heaven episodes.
 * Movies, such as The Third Man.
 * List of movies of a particular genre, such as List of horror movies.
 * (add more here)


 * Apparently you are proposing that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. Good luck with that.--Father Goose (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Second Father Goose here...sounds like you are basically saying Wikipedia should not be Wikipedia? If we were to remove everything to their "own wikis" what, exactly, do you see as being left? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose that we should move the collection of human knowledge to it's own wiki... oh wait there is one... What's its name? Sadads (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Oppose You can never have too much valid information in an article. A Wikipedia with just brief summary articles, would be totally worthless to anyone.   D r e a m Focus  05:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I'm not quite sure I understand what's being suggested here. While I have mild agreement with you about some of the geography articles (ie. some of the poorest ones are not articles at all but contentless sub-sub-sub-stubs), I don't see what disintegrating Wikipedia into lots of little wikis on each subject is supposed to accomplish. Reyk  YO!  12:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Apparently you want Wikipedia to be only one kind of encyclopedia, instead of a sum of all types of encyclopedia, and that latter goal is built into our charter. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I get where you are going&mdash;unwieldy organization and potentially enormous list scope can pose a problem&mdash;but this wording is unclear, and would be applied to (among other things) article length and (see above) general inclusiveness. This should be (and probably already is) handled in the MOS tree, not WP:NOT. For what it's worth, WP:NOT kind of hints at this already. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You must be joking. No. --causa sui (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Slap proposer with a wet trout. Are you being absurd on purpose? —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: How about a small addition? "WP should not contain very large collections of [unorganized] data concerning one subject." Hyacinth (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think we should close this quickly since it will never gain a consensus and I doubt that this is even serious to begin with. I doubt that anyone would seriously say that they want Abraham Lincoln removed from Wikipedia.--76.66.183.14 (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From a quick view of David Spector's recent contributions, it does not appear that he is silly or acting in bad faith. So I assume he just hasn't explained this proposal clearly enough. Reyk  YO!  00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not sure why Abraham Lincoln and Passaic, New Jersey should be moved to another wiki. These are articles one would expect to find in an just about any encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester  00:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Oppose. Its all been said.--Milowent (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Permanent semi-protection?
(Regarding this action)

I would not be surprised if few others shared my opinion here, but I feel that every user is entitled to edit policy pages on Wikipedia, not just "registered users". What vandalism appears here is harmless and reverted quickly. Should we reflexively protect policy pages from editing by IPs? Are they in effect not allowed to shape policy like the rest of us?--Father Goose (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd argue we should only semi-protect if the vandalism level is so high as to be problematic. Hobit (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support unprotection.--M4gnum0n (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support unprotection- If you look at WP:SPARE, the guidelines given for protection are as follows:
 * Pages are protected if:


 * If a page is vandalized more than once daily
 * If a page is involved in an edit war with a lot of people
 * If a page's purpose is seriously misunderstood. For example, the project page Your First Article must have semi-protection because it is mistakenly used a lot as a place to write a first article.
 * Pages are NOT protected if:


 * The subject is part of a current event
 * The subject is of a controversial nature
 * The subject is of interest to a seemingly immature crowd
 * The page has recently received one or more valuable contributions from IP or new accounts
 * You do not want the page (other than your own userspace) changed from "your" version (see ownership of articles) Shaliya waya (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I got here a bit late, but I definitely support this. Thanks for taking the initiative. --causa sui (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose unprotection - While it is true that unregistered individuals are participants on this site, I really think that someone interested enough to shape policy is also interested enough to register. It is a very quick, painless process, after all. Just my 2 cents. Cypher3c (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion/ Wikipeida should be both a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site and a soapbox or means of promotion
Closing as patent nonsense. See this and this edit for explanation in case the proposal itsself won't do. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 14:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel that if wikipeida was to become both a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site and a soapbox or means of promotion that would be a historical improvement for both the wikipeida community and wikipeida as a whole, if this does not happen then the decline that wikipeida is currently experiencing will become even more horrific then at this current moment and not only destroy wikipeida, but the entire worldwide web and even humanity as a whole. A5051790463174 (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(Retracted) Suggestion- Wikipedia is not a place to obtain medical or legal advice
To protect both the editors and Wikipedia itself from any possible legal challenges, I think that articles containing medical or legal information should possibly have a disclaimer at the bottom (something like: "This article is not intended to provide legal/medical advice. Please consult an attorney/your primary care physician before using this information"). Just a suggestion. Cypher3c (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like that idea. It would be a great pity if Wikipedia fell in with the American must-sue-somebody-for-anything that happens-to-me mentality, because we'd have to cover huge swathes of wikipedia with massive disclaimers.
 * Personally, I think that anyone who bases their medical decisions of "something I read somewhere on the internet" is a strong candidate for a Darwin Award. It would be quite unfair of us to put too many obstacles in their path. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See No disclaimers in articles --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Already covered under Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide since that covers that we arent a how-to on how to diagnose or treat any medical condition. Thereby no article should be telling anyone how to treat any disease just as, correctly, the village pump has at least twice roundly denounced any attempt to allow the article on sungazing to have a detailed how-to section on how-to sungaze "safely". Oh, I'm sure other editors now will say "oh we need to have the right to put in how to diagnose and treat diseases, it has to be in there for a complete article"; they are wrong though. We dont need a disclaimer or policy to keep us from being sued if we are simply smart enough not to do anything that will get us sued in the first place (which includes NOT putting in how to diagnose or treat a disease and even with a disclaimer YES Wikipedia CAN be sued successfully).Camelbinky (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also covered by our general disclaimers. --M ASEM (t) 04:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (Retract Proposal) I figured this might be covered in the general policy somewhere, but I wasn't sure. On a certain site discussing legal cases, I noticed that everyone was very careful to say: IANAL (I am not a lawyer), and a disclaimer was present at the bottom. As for the "must-sue" mentality, unfortunately it is very present in America and one must be careful not to make himself/herself vulnerable. I totally agree that anyone who would sue over this has serious problems, but that doesn't change the fact that they can sue. Looking at the General Disclaimer page, I see the notice there. It is probably sufficient, so I will retract this proposal.Cypher3c (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - Wikipedia is not a comparison guide

 * Moved to Village_pump_(proposals) by User:Marcus Aurelius Antoninus --Cyber cobra  (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re NOT#CRYSTAL
I recently made this reversion. On following up, I see that in fact the section does not explicitly address mind-reading, and a quick search in this talkpage's archives shows no sign that it has been discussed. Is this not something that needs to be said, or should it be left to inference from the statement on extrapolation? User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding food related topics
I pretty much have been watching over the Food and Drink WikiProject and would like to make a suggestion about a new topic to be covered in this policy in the not a directory section.


 * 1) Menu while information about notable products a restaurant sells is appropriate, we do not list all the products or prices associated with them sold by the company. Further, lists of all possible ingredients that used in the production of the product should also not be included.

This will need to be copy edited because I wrote it on the fly and it is a bit loosely worded.

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly add a few words to Not a Directory to include menus. --M ASEM (t) 23:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, add a mention of menus at WikiProject Food and drink/Article guidelines. (BTW, the #Terminology_notes there is perfect. Don't change it. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless this is a common problem, it might be best not to add it to the policy, per Not--Father Goose (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of 'exceptions' from ISNOT
Having two unexplained and inexplicable exceptions essentially renders the policy moot. We already have AFDs and IAR to handle exceptions; and these exceptions are unexplained in this context and there's no known rule to cover them. In general, encyclopedias don't have articles on words, that's what dictionaries are for. If there's no rule, then mentioning them implies that this is perfectly Ok, but the actual policy says it is absolutely isn't, and always has done.- Wolfkeeper 00:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If there's the odd article on a word that has gone through an AFD, that's one thing, but we don't have lists of AFD exceptions in any other policies; this is just unacceptable instruction creep.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 00:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Policies aren't supposed to be 100% binding anyway, so these examples are meaningless noise, and they seem to confuse people as to what the policy really says.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 00:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd venture the majority of Wikipedians do not agree with your extreme positions on articles about words. There is a huge difference between a dictionary listing and an article about a word. There is most certainly room in Wikipedia to accommodate legitimate and sourced articles about words. older ≠ wiser 00:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just checked, and it turns out that for more than five years the policy didn't say what you want it to say. Initially it said that if you find an entry that is just a dictionary definition, you should turn it into a proper article. At some point between 2007 and 2008 this was changed to pretty much the current wording, including the exceptions to make it clear that articles about words are allowed, provided they are notable. Hans Adler 01:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For the umpteenth time, most of the community finds articles like thou and Yankee to contain encyclopedic content. It's not WP:IAR, it's having the common sense to distinguish between a dictionary definition and an article about the history, social influences, and impact of a word. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, The general policy is and has always been that the wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and that Encyclopedias are not dictionaries. This is basic, simple policy that has been there since day 1, and is still the fundamental principle of the Wikipedia. This is the community definition, if you disagree with it, you need to AFD WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not repeatedly spam-war this garbage into the policy.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 02:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely all of the policy in the wikipedia is written on this assumption, you do not have general community by-in to try to make the Wikipedia into a encyclopedic dictionary.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 02:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Start a RfC and we'll see if the community "buys-in" to your attempts to get rid of encyclopedic articles about words. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you need to stop spamming single exceptions into policies and start the RFC to show that word articles are AOK. The number of policies that support my interpretation: WP:ISNOT, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:ADJECTIVE WP:MOS, WP:5P, WP:Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia which relies on Encyclopedia. That's just for starters.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 02:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to explain why there are only nouns in the Wikipedia, why other encyclopedias don't do phrases either. You need to explain why the books on Etymology have rules that you can apply to find out whether something is encyclopedic or not; hint: word articles aren't.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You also need to explain why at the very least 99.9% of articles are not about words, why the vast majority of words aren't here, after 3.2 million articles have been written.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 02:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When you've explained that... you might also like to explain why you're deliberately trying to write different contradictory policies into the wikipedia. It's almost like you're WP:Wikilawyering isn't it?- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 02:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't need to explain anything. In case you've forgotten, Wikipedia works by consensus. In every dispute we've been in about word articles, consensus has rejected your views. And I have no idea why you keep comparing Wikipedia to other encyclopedias. Other encyclopedias don't have umpteen articles about the Simpsons. Should we delete them too? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's absolutely not true at all, lots and lots of dictionary articles are regularly deleted. It's a standard AFD result you've obviously not been in very many AFDs.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 02:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, read what I wrote please. In every dispute we've been in about word articles, consensus has rejected your views. Show me an AFD that you and I have both participated in that resulted in a delete. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  03:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I said you were lazy and didn't go to many AFDs, which bit didn't you understand?- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 03:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, has Hans said above, "...it turns out that for more than five years the policy didn't say what you want it to say." Perhaps you need to explain why you're deliberately trying to write policy to fit your views, not the community's. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  03:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No you need to explain why the policy said that all word ("dicdef") articles should be turned into encyclopedia articles, and why there's always been a deletion policy for dicdefs.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 03:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because, there were huge holes in Wikipedia's coverage, in 2001. Some people tried to fill those holes by adding a single sentence "dicdef". That's what is meant by "dicdef" when everyone else uses it. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the ISNOT policy said that was OK, but not ideal. But 'dicdef' just means WP:DICDEF which has always pointed to the policy Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is what is used in deletion reviews to indicate that it violates the policy and requires deletion.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 01:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If the principles of the Wikipedia mean absolutely nothing to you guys, what are you even doing here?- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 03:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We have here persistent use of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It has been clearly pointed out that an article which has a word as its topic is not the same thing as an article that gives no more than a dictionary definition, and yet we ahve repeatedly had arguments that read as though written by someone who has never thought of that distinction. Consensus on this issue is perfectly clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Even a dictionary article doesn't simply give a 'dictionary definition', there's etymology, usage information, pronunciation antonyms, synonyms etc. etc. No, the policy is (and has always been) that wikipedia is not a dictionary not simply that it doesn't have articles that consist of 'dictionary' definitions. In fact Encyclopedias need definitions of things, particularly stubs, and the policy is also (and has always been) that it's not simply a question of length either; dictionary entries can be very long.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 19:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The real problem is that most of the people here haven't thought this through at all.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 19:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See also: illusion of asymmetric insight, illusory superiority. Hans Adler 20:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gee, a personal attack, what a surprise. I talk about policies and what they actually say and have always said, and you engage in personal attacks. That usually happens when you don't have a leg to stand on doesn't it? Because you've run out of anything else.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's see who started with the personal attacks in this thread: Did you write that because you felt under control?
 * I wrote the above because I am feeling exasperated. There isn't much one can do against the disruption caused by an editor who is fighting for the truth, and everything one can do involves more work than I am willing to spend on you. Hans Adler 22:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't forget as well. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wolfkeeper. Almost every single time this gets discussed as a general concept, everybody disagrees with you, and it ends with someone telling you to start an RfC.
 * You are the only editor who is adamantly interpreting the NOTDICT policy differently. Hence your preparation of an afd for Negro. However, the vast majority of the community, understands NOTDICT more closely to User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words. (I conclude this based on the last 2 years worth of discussions you've started).
 * Yes, you are correct in that tiny one-sentence and one-paragraph dictionarydefinitions should be moved/redirected to Wiktionary (eg Hoo-hah is fine). However, encyclopedic articles on notable words (phrases, terms) should not. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's just a common myth. That's not the policy, and has never been the policy. I've checked the policy loads of time, including the history of the policy and AFAICT it has never ever said that. The article wasn't deleted because it was short, it was deleted because it was a word article. In fact the policy pretty much always says that short definitions are borderline OK, but not ideal and need to be expanded and rewritten to be not about words.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 01:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Either start an RfC, where the issue is explained the way you see it (because you'll presumably ignore the results of an RfC if someone else writes it, and it concludes by disagreeing with your perspective); or, realize that 99% [the vast majority] of editors disagree with your perspective, and we're not all somehow 'wrong'. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 99%? You can have your own opinions, but you don't get to have your own facts. I've been doing this stuff for a while, and the numbers in deletion reviews are absolutely nothing like that. You are so totally dreaming.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 01:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The vast majority" then. Hyperbole was meant to be implied. The only supporter I know you have is fartherred (oh, and roux, but he's indef-blocked for gross incivility). Certainly nobody ever agrees with you in these talkpage or policy or ANI discussions...
 * The only afd success you have is with the 1-paragraph-long dicdefs, in which we almost all agree.
 * You are however, almost alone in believing that no words can be "notable" or "encyclopedic" enough. Start an RfC? -- Quiddity (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not even a vast majority.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 02:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the same definition (which I would like to point out that I didn't write) that we use in Wikipedia is not a dictionary is used in the French Wikipedia, possibly they picked it up from us; except they have absolutely no listed exceptions..- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 02:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually on the EN there's quite a few people that evidently actually know and follow the policy, I'm not going to point them out; they're wandering around doing good work, and I don't think they want you lot following them around reverting their edits and generally edit warring.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 02:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaargh! "except they have absolutely no listed exceptions". Exactly. Because it's not necessary to list exceptions. Because in the French Wikipedia, just like here, editors with a clue know what an encyclopedia is and what it is about. And that this includes articles such as fr:Nègre, which starts as follows:


 * Here is a translation for everybody's convenience:


 * This was the first ***ing article I tried out, obviously. Hans Adler 02:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, but that's exactly my point. I don't have a problem with the odd exception; if people at AFD or whatever decide to keep an article that even every single policy in the wikipedia decries, that's fair enough. Policies are thing you should only normally follow anyway. We don't need any exceptions in the policies; that's a given. What I object to is people writing singular exceptions into the policy, as if a couple of exceptions magically make a general rule. No, they don't. The only exceptions you need are ones you can actually write a rule for, but then you don't need the exceptions themselves anyway, except for illustration. But what is the general rule here for these exceptions???????- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 00:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not about odd exceptions, and there is a general rule. Words and phrases that are notable can get an article like any other encyclopedic topic. Perhaps you don't understand the use–mention distinction, leading you to believe that almost every English word is notable just because it is used so often? They are not, because places where they are merely used are no coverage at all, and coverage in a dictionary is trivial coverage. When newspaper articles, scholarly articles and/or books are being written about a word, that's when a word becomes notable. Just like for every other topic. It has nothing to do with exceptions. Hans Adler 04:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand use-mention just fine, but other than that, that's an interesting theory that seems to have no explicit support in the policy. There's certainly nothing in the RS/V policy anywhere that refers to dictionaries as 'trivial', so I don't really buy it. Worse than that though, it doesn't work anyway because there's a large number of books on words, and too many of them are about non noun words. That encyclopedia articles are always supposed to have noun titles is very well established in the literature. Nice try though, no cigar.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 12:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It has to be clear to you that there is no consensus for your change. Stop edit warring on policy pages.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Who is actually edit warring here? You're part of a group that is essentially trying to subvert the Wikipedia. It's a fundamental constitutional principle that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; encyclopedias don't have word-articles, by their very definition.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 13:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Per the above conversation, I didn't include the last edit of the month at WP:NOTDIC in WP:Update/1, but note that if no one argues it or reverts it for a month on the relevant policy page (which is WP:NOTDIC), then at the end of this month, I'll have to assume for the purposes of the Update that it's now policy. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The last edit in April was Maurreen's revert of a policy change that clearly doesn't have any support. Hans Adler 04:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDICT, not this policy. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  05:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Sorry for my confusion: I wasn't watching that page and thought NOTDICT redirected to a section of this one. Hans Adler 22:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination)
You are invited to join the discussion at. patsw (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (Using )
 * The discussion there involves an interpretation of what is indiscriminate according to this policy. patsw (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to repeal WP:NOTNEWS outright.
I am so tired of hearing WP:NOTNEWS mentioned, because every single time it is brought up, it's being used to justify the deletion of something that is clearly not prohibited by it. As I read it, what the policy was really meant to prohibit were vanity and courtesy news reports, like wedding announcements and obituaries, which would never (for example) be picked up by a second newspaper. But the way it's misrepresented half the time, you can have CNN and the New York Times reporting something and the deletionists will still be claiming that it doesn't deserve to be mentioned.

On the other hand, there are a few things the policy prohibits, which are never targeted by those quoting the policy. Sports statistics are prohibited, but we have lots of featured articles like Norwich City F.C. which include a large number of these (and in more detail under included players e.g. Dion Dublin. I don't know what aspect of "celebrities" the policy is supposed to prohibit, but I don't think that works either.  I guess no one applies the policy correctly, in either direction.

One group has tried to make an end run around the policy's actual wordage by trying to change it in an essay, WP:Notability (events), which was recently promoted to guideline with little fanfare. Now I'm being told that:
 * "This guideline is intended to guide editors in interpreting the various preexisting guidelines and policies that apply to articles about events. WP:NOTNEWS was already used to delete articles and WP:GNG was already cited to keep them. WP:EVENT was needed as they are apparently contradictory. This guideline distils the principles already used at AfD and in existing policies and guidelines into a single guide for articles about events."

I disagree with this - I think that if the intent is to subvert WP:GNG that should have been decided there -- but I would far rather simply set up WP:GNG as a solid guarantee of notability with the other notability guidelines capable only of including certain items for consistency. Therefore I would propose:

1: Change the "News reports" section as follows:
 * 4. Vanity and courtesy reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.  Routine announcements such as weddings, obituaries, and school sports scores that are published by one newspaper and unlikely to be reported in other sources do not qualify for inclusion.  Breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects can sometimes be covered in greater detail at Wikinews.

2: Redirect WP:NOTNEWS to a notice that this frequently misapplied policy has been deleted.

Additionally, as a separate issue - the linking of the current version to WP:Notability (events) is intended to elevate that new guideline to the status of a pseudo-policy, undermining the WP:GNG guideline. I ask that this link be deleted even if my other suggestions are not supported. Wnt (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please give examples of articles that you think NOTNEWS is being unfairly used to delete or the like? Without knowing what it is being used against makes it difficult to justify the change. --M ASEM  (t) 12:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To start with, Articles_for_deletion/Hutaree and Articles_for_deletion/2009_New_York_City_airplane_scare. Wnt (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's an issue here, or at least yet convinced this is the right solution. The problem in both AFDs that you point out is that the article is created shortly (e.g. within a day or so) of said event, enough time to have sources appear about it, but not enough to ensure lasting notability. Thus, per NOTNEWS as it stands, we shouldn't yet have an article on it. However, in the course of both AFDs, the articles were improved in situ as more information and deeper understanding of the article impact became reported. Thus, at the end of the AFD, NOTNEWS would certainly not apply anymore, but it would at the start of article creation.
 * WP:Notability (events) was specifically created as a response to the Balloon boy hoax (which itself was nominated for deletion the same day the actual event occurred. The issues mainly centered around the fact that there was no possible way that long-term notability could be constructed on the same day the event occurred - and thus we shouldn't have had an article on it.  Of course, within days, the hoax was revealed, and enough background was made present to support long term notability.
 * WP:N(e) was created to provide better advice of when writing about an article about an event or persons/entities related to it would be appropriate. News coverage that is near to the event may be sufficient to meet general notability guidelines but clearly not the long-term notability aspects. WP:N(e) is not meant to override the GNG, but instead augment it to caution editors on recent events to think before creating an article to avoid calls of WP:NOTNEWS as these AFD discussions have shown.  So I don't hink WP:N(e) is broken or a problem.
 * Thus, coming back here and looking at the changes, I don't think NOTNEWS is broken either. It is not just about vanity coverage (eg weddings and obits) but also about event coverage, and to use common sense to make sure that we're not repeating news stories without clear understanding of what they may lead to. The issues basically come when people don't follow that advice - create news stories too early, and editors jump to AFD them. Now, I would say at the same time that super-current events (within first few days of the event) that those that seek to AFD should wait and see what happens. In other words, even if the event article was created without following the advice of NOTNEWS or WP:N(e), there should be some period to make sure it doesn't go anywhere in terms of added coverage, and then AFD is reasonable to call into place. However, both creation and AFD nominations are difficult to dictate and control, so I see little else we can in these areas. --M ASEM  (t) 20:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The distinction is getting harder to make--look at that afd close for the airplane scare--I see this as an obvious keep, but it was closed keep as a close decision. Anything and everything can be considered potentially part of history, since historians will pick even he most seemingly trivial events to indicate the manner of thought of a period. The distinction asked for is not realistic. I'd   replace it by NOT TABLOID, to cover items of social gossip, etc. We would probably do better to admit that matters of public interest of serious national papers are notable, and just accept it. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What makes this policy absurd is that the Main page has a special section for news items such as Mystery Monkey of Tampa Bay which is currently listed there. It's the shortcut NOTNEWS which confuses editors, it seems - they think it means any and all news when in fact it just means routine announcements such as weather reports and stock prices.  Perhaps, it should be renamed as WP:HUMDRUM, to make this clearer. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the changed wording above for two reasons: (1) the proposed wording is closer to our actual practice than current wording, (2) over the years there's been progressively a lower threshold to be included the Wikipedia. I think that's been a good thing.  I don't like the idea of 2005's criteria being selectively applied in a way that it hasn't been applied since 2005 or 2006. patsw (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal appears to be based on a misreading of NOTNEWS.  The basic thrust, that we don't litter Wikipedia with stuff we happened to read in the newspapers, is correct.  The notion that only tabloid news is of concern is simply wrong.  Wikipedia isn't a newspaper so obviously we don't duplicate news coverage, full stop.  Material must stand on its historical significance, and the due weight clause of the Neutral point of view policy pretty much rules out most material in newspapers, which is of no lasting significance.  --TS 12:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony's right. We have Notnews for a reason, just as we have BLP1E. Editors confuse coverage with significance, and this policy is intended to provide a framework for discouraging trivia. It links, of course, to the larger inclusion/deletion debate, so there will inevitably be an ideological disposition to disagree with neither side likely to convince. Overall practice suggests the policy is working well, I would say. Eusebeus (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think my summary above can be "tl;dr" down to these statements by Tony and Eusebeus. It is simply a product of people rushing to create 0-day articles, and the resulting rush to maintain NOTNEWS, which spawns N(e) to better help editors understand current event articles. --M ASEM  (t) 12:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think even if the proposal isn't supported now, it will be interesting to see near-term how many new articles are tagged for WP:NOTNEWS yet ultimately become articles. I agree with the above statement that if we see a policy constantly misapplied, it's time to revise the policy for both clarity and to have policy and practice roughly align with each other. patsw (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - all the manuals of style are in fact being audited at this very moment (see WT:MOS). Perhaps the notability guidelines ought to be audited either at the same time or soon after the other audit? --Jubilee♫ clipman 13:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the Mystery Monkey of Tampa Bay is the sort of article that I think is very dubious in terms of WP. Such an article is what I mean should be excluded by not tabloid, as the sort of human interest news which is of no real significance whatsoever. Obviously there is room for disagreement, for COl /Warden puts it forth as a good example, while I think tjust the opposite. If we consider such stories as borderline, everything more than this is actually encyclopedic. I wouldnt wait for the MOS--the problem is altogether different--that deals with details, and the question is the relatively technical one of how far to specify them. This deals with our basic standards, and the question is what do we want to include in WP.  However, if people think we should have a broader or narrower coverage, there is a method of accomplishing  this separate and supplemental to the revision of formal guideline on the matter--that of appearing at AfD and giving your opinion in a policy-based manner . Policy is not just the statement of formal policy, but the manner in which is interpreted One of the basic principles of WP is that nobody makes policy for us, and nobody tells us how to interpret it. We decide both ourselves. If that Monkey article shows up at AfD, I will explain why I think our policies should be interpreted to exclude it, and others will explain the opposite. The combined voice of those interested will decide, and will interpret the wording of whatever it is that NOT NEWS says more formally. The decision that will hold, is what is decided there.  DGG ( talk ) 10:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I look for a defensible lines in policies. The principle of the Wikipedia is that it's supposed to be a summary of the worlds knowledge; perhaps a question we could ask is whether this is something that the world itself needs to know? So we could ask whether this is covered internationally on different continents?- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 14:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think w use "the world" in a much more general sense, to mean "anywhere in the world", rather than restricting ourselves to those people or things with world-wide notability. For example, most members of the US Senate are unknown outside the US, but of great importance to hundreds of millions of people in that country. And someone from outside the US, who sees a newspaper reference to one of them, might need some background. If world-wide is intended, it would be easy to do a selective fork, and it wouldn't take all that much server space--or probably need all that much in the way of communications capacity.  DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt forking would work at all. Forks causes all kinds of problems.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 19:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The "mystery monkey" is near the low end of notability, yes - but I don't see any particular reason to treat it differently than other articles with relatively few sources. More to the point for our policy: it actually has encyclopedic value - for example, linking us to claims that the monkey avoids traffic and looks both ways before crossing the street.  The article seems very mergeable, e.g. into feral monkey or feral rhesus macaque, but it's a notability/content issue that doesn't need a prohibition by policy.
 * Also, I don't believe in forking, unless we can fork Inclusionpedia ... Wnt (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another example: Articles for deletion/July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. This followed after some harsh words for the idea on the article talk page... Wnt (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Crazy idea
I had this idea seeing the new fad in which annoying fanboys write deliberately false information into Wikipedia about future works (mainly films), seeking to rally other fanboys in hopes that they will create some kind of mass response and affect the development of the work in case. This probably comes from seeing how some directors do lend their ear to their fanbase, making changes on the fly during production in response to fanboy acclaim. Thus, I thought of adding something about Wikipedia not being a rumor mill, a wishing well or something along those lines. --uKER (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

NOTDIC again
This is just a pointer to WT:POLICY for folks who watch here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Core discussion
I added Profanity/core and it was reverted. That is fine. The concept is being discussed here Gnevin (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can user's indicate if and why they would be opposed to

"Wikipedia:Profanity"
 * being added here ? Gnevin (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What, praytell, are "typical Wikipedia readers"? Are they like snarks? Rivertorch (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask WP:Profanity Gnevin (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The text was not simply added; it replaced existing text. I asked how it would be an improvement. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Refocusing the "not censored" policy
Though I'm not terribly familiar with the operation of this policy, it textually suggests that the human body and sexuality are being treated as offensive, and tolerated only because their informativeness outweighs the offence. Might it be better rewritten as

Wikipedia is not censored
Inherent in the nature of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic, impartially informative work which repudiates the presence of dogmatism and polemic in the presentation of content, no editorial allowance is given to the suppression of information in deference to religious views, moral values not widely shared across human societies, or any similar grounds. For example, the belief that the human body is shameful and should not viewed, that certain religious figures should not be depicted, etc, are not to be promoted in decisions regarding article content. However, generally accepted standards of morality and editorial discretion are to be maintained in the treatment of living individuals. Material illicit in the U.S. state of Florida must not be posted. Emily Jensen (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a pretty strong POV. Wikipedia does not exist to repudiate anything, merely to document.  We're not here to chastise those who believe that the body is shameful, just as we are not here to chastise those who don't.  I think the section is fine as is. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We are, in being neutral, repudiating dogmatism and polemic from our content decisions (though not in any other context). I'm modifying the text above to clarify this. While editorial policies no more endorse the belief that the human body is beautiful than that it is shameful, the text of the policy should be tailored to actual problems -- inclusion of nudity for its own sake does not seem to be much of an issue :) Emily Jensen (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's really important to treat both sides of the issue, however infrequently they might arise, I wouldn't be opposed to a counterpart "Wikipedia is not a shock site" section -- to present the human body as shocking, as material for a deliberate attempt to cause offence, is not neutral, and is ironically a backhanded endorsement of philosophy upon which the pro-censorship view is based. Emily Jensen (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although true, it seems to me that this idea is more appropriately expressed in an essay, on or off Wikipedia. The policy itself is served by simply saying we do not censor coverage of content merely for its being objectionable to one group or another, except that we do fulfill our legal obligations as well as our responsibilities under BLP. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should 'Material illicit in the U.S. state of Florida not be posted'? Censoring that would be no different than censoring material from other places, such as 'Material the Vatican doesn't like' IE contraception. Suppressing information that Florida doesn't like is equal to the Chinese government's suppression of the freedom to use Google to find information on websites. Florida's Laws should not have any preference over other states or countries views. Richard Harvey (talk)
 * Except I believe Florida has geographic jurisdiction over WP. Maurreen (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As Maurreen notes, Florida's laws are given preference because it is where the Wikipedia servers are housed. It is not censorship, but basic legality...if Florida's law is not followed, the site will pretty quickly go down. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 09:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition
While I agree that this ''Nor will Wikipedia remove content because the internal bylaws of a subject's organization forbid that information from being displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion from showing a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.'' being added to policy recently is a correct description of the Community's consensus view on the issue I find the placement awkward and the fact that we actually have to spell it out so forcefully as a bit on the rude side. It seems to almost be slapping Islam in the face. Do we really need to do that or are the gingers forcing us to do it? (South Park reference)


 * I wrote that in response to the Phi Gamma Delta edit war; the mention of religion was an afterthought. I think it's necessary to mention bylaws in there because violation of some group's internal rules is not exactly the same thing as finding something offensive.  I think the use of the word "offensive" more refers to images of naked people, and stuff like that.  If anyone can rewrite it in a way that would be more polite to Muslims, please do so.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think our other policies and guidelines already cover this and in questionable situations a consensus can develop for each particular case. I can imagine situations where by consensus or by up above we deside with an entity's wishes against the idea that we are not censored, and this addition would only be a way used to keep that consensus from being implemented. But if this does remain within the policy, the first sentence would probably be sufficient.  Them From  Space  08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if there was any situation where we wanted to censor something we could just ignore all rules, but if you want we can rephrase it to be less strict. I agree that it can be reduced to one sentence, but we might want to do a slight rewrite first to make it more clear that the word "bylaw" also includes "commandments".  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sports results
I have WP:BOLDly added a reference under WP:IINFO that Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of sports results. Feel free to go through the RD of WP:BRD if desired. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sporting results are well-accepted content. For example, The Boat Race, contains a table of results.  All-time Olympic Games medal table is likewise a tabulation of results.  The proposal is therefore not policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more specific. Sporting results should not be the only content of articles, unless reliable sources have covered the results in-depth (which would include the all-time olympic games medal table. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there are a lot of articles where results are the only content, check out Database reports/Long stubs where there are several included--<font color="Blue">Jac <font color="Green">16888 Talk 13:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this isn't well thought out, because we do have routine coverage of player's personal performance, team season stats, and other examples listed above (this, in part, to WP being more than an encyclopedia but also parts of an almanac, which sporting results would fall into). I think there is some distinction that can be made from sports that have a regular season structure (baseball, basketball), in such that the individual games are rarely notable and thus having per-game box scores make no sense but season-long summaries are appropriate; and non-season-type events like the Olympics or the Boat Race where games are played annually/biannually/etc, are likly to have their own individual box score.  Basically, we're looking at aggregates of results that make the most sense to the reader. --M ASEM  (t) 13:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You forgot Wikipedia is not a republic
statement in header. 24.1.201.172 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As (not) explained in the WP:LEAD
WP:IINFO begins, "As explained in the policy introduction..." -- except that the lead doesn't explain anything, or even address this point at all. I suspect that the text it references is actually the bit at the top of the #Content section. This pair of diffs from late June 2007 added both the "explanation" and the "as explained" text. Would someone more familiar with the workings of this complex page undertake a little copyediting to remove the invalid pointer to the lead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Not a coffee table art book perhaps?
I see a lot of image deletion based solely on subjective aesthetic reactions (bad angle, poorly lit, etc.). Obviously NPOV can be violated with a photograph ("Here's a naked shot of Gordon Brown!"), but I assume that barring that informativeness trumps aesthetics. Or am I wrong? - Richfife (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT snowclone
Nominating " Wikipedia is not X " where X is either not mentioned at all at What Wikipedia is not, or is only loosely, indirectly, tangentially related to one of the items, as a new wikipedia-related snowclone. I've noticed a couple of Talk page discussions where piping the link WP:NOT to a novel assertion of "what wikipedia is not" is the bulk of, or cornerstone of one's contribution. i.e. on a article dealing with religion: "WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a bible", on a page dealing with cooking "WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not your grandmother's recipe book", etc.

I'm not complaining they've been given undue weight or that these contributors might not have more to offer. I do want to call it out, though, as the kind of noise in a discussion that should be ignored or treated with little weight compared to those contributions that have actually considered the topic at hand and applied wikipedia guidelines to respond specific to it. Cander0000 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Florida?
Wikimedia says that operations were moved to California in 2007. So why does this policy talk about servers in Florida? Wnt (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The offices are in San Francisco, the main servers are still in Florida. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointer to discussion on overlapping policy page
I made a small and hopefully helpful change at WP:NOTDIC; see WT:NOTDIC for some discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

While I didn't agree with it, language has been introduced into the policy that indicates that articles that simply cover terms are now (since late 2008) allowed.

Given that, I'm going to declare that the policy is now completely pointless, since anyone can point at the language during a deletion review and say, well, articles on terms are allowed, and hence you can't claim that as a valid deletion reason.

Simplification of the policies we have is desirable, so I'm going to call for complete deletion of the policy WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and complete removal of the relevant section from this policy.

On the whole, I think this policy has completely outlived its usefulness now (as has wiktionary which covers this stuff), since people now agree that words themselves are valid.

Of course we're going to need a whole large amount of new content guidelines for word articles, right now all the content and naming guidelines assume we have an encyclopedic name for example, but we're going to need to extend that to include verbs, adjective, adverbs etc. etc. which are bizarrely not currently allowed!!! We should be able to write a bot to move all the Wiktionary material here, and Wiktionary itself would clearly not be needed any longer.

I mean, it makes sense, words-they're pretty much all notable, they're all in reliable sources like dictionaries and very often other reliable sources as well. And all words were coined sometime, and new words will tend to have had a lot written about them for them to become established, so we just need to check back and dig it out. Also a lot of stuff for children and students will cover words.

So let's give up the charade now, and just do it! You know it makes sense! An encyclopedia is a compendium of all knowledge, right? Right? We need to have all the words from English (and by extension every other one) too!!!! Restricting ourselves to nouns is sooooo restrictive! We can get rid of this silly policy, OK, we'll need a whole new bunch of policies about how to cover words, and, well they might be quite long I suppose, but it's worth it, right, so that we can have longer articles on words than Wiktionary guidelines currently let you!

Please vote DELETE.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 15:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose We still aren't a dictionary, but when there is actually history well beyond the lexicology of the word, then it is encyclopedic. --M ASEM (t) 15:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Then that's not about the term, it's about the history! The policy says articles on the terms are allowed.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, if the proposal is serious (the language seems iffy), and strengthen it to clear out the excessive number of "word" articles, so all of the dictionary articles floating around here with nothing but lexicology and "examples" moved over to Wiktionary where it belongs. Words are not "notable" by nature, nor is it encyclopedic to cover every last one. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal is probably not serious; to this observer it appears to be a sarcastic outburst resulting from some recent AFDs on word articles that have not resulted in Wolfkeeper's desired outcome. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 16:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah...seeing the discussion at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the apparent quite attempt to have it demoted from a policy...I suspect you are right and I can't say as I blame him. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. We don't delete a part of policy because of the defiant whim of a single user on whom it is very slowly beginning to dawn that, maybe, after all, their eccentric interpretation of it isn't supported many others. Hans Adler 16:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand, are you for articles on terms or not? If you're for them, then we need policies to say what is allowed, but right now we just have half a sentence that says that they are, and entire other policies that say they aren't. If we allow them, fine, we need to delete the policies that say we don't; because that's no longer consensus policy. According to you, the idea that we don't have them is not consensus, but clearly these words in WP:ISNOT that say we can have them are consensus. So I trust you will be changing your vote to Delete.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 17:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean how can they be allowed, and not allowed at the same time? Clearly ISNOT is consensus, so we allow articles on terms. We just need to tidy this stuff up.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 17:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose and a trout-slap to Wolfkeeper for the pointy, sarcastic proposal. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we should delete it. Shouldn't we delete it? If they're allowed, they're allowed, there's no point in a policy that says they're not.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 17:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have entries that are strictly about terms but if they can grow beyond that, they can. --M ASEM (t) 18:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We do have articles on terms, it says so in WP:ISNOT, and what about craic, what about half the swear words we have. Also words that aren't nouns like thou, we etc. They're all clearly about the term, and only about the term.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But they are not simply dictionary entries, that's the point. They are encyclopedic articles that reflect the fact that they include aspects of a dictionary but go into much greater detail that even most complete dictionary go into. That's the different that WP:NOTDICT is trying to emphasize. --M ASEM (t) 19:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, pussy is just a more detailed dictionary article and hence is primo encyclopedia!
 * Sure, dicdef has always said it's not about length/detail- and that's why the dicdef policy needs to go! This place is incapable of making fine distinctions! Why fight? There is no difference!- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 19:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pussy is far more than a dictionary entry, since, in part, goes on to explain the double entendra aspects of the word used in comedic and other purposes, in an encyclopedia manner. You would never see that type of article in a dictionary, which is what Wikitionary is limited to. --M ASEM  (t) 20:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd think that, wouldn't you? But wikt isn't actually limited in that way. You could very likely put that in the entry, and as well, the Wiktionary has all manner of appendices and is specifically intended to cover the usage of words, rhyming and so forth. The double-entendre is just a particular lexical trick, and lexical stuff is the raison d'etre of the Wiktionary. Wiktionary is much more flexible than you give it credit for.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 20:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikt's design is meant to be extremely functional over informational; I've never seen an entry akin to the nature of the term articles you cite above because they don't fit that function. Much of the sourced material in the pussy seems inappropriate for Wikt based on other example entries and their guideline pages; but that info is otherwise perfectly suited for use here. --M ASEM (t) 20:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the policy currently says that article are not supposed to cover multiple different meanings of a word. A cat, female genitalia and a coward are linked by what other than a term?- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's valid then we need to rewrite other articles like that as well. For example rocket needs to cover more salad stuff I think... since, as you say, there's nothing wrong with that.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW the way it's supposed to work is that there should be three articles there. But as soon as you did that, they would probably merge pussy (cat) -> cat; pussy (genitalia) -> vagina; pussy (coward) -> coward. And poof, no more pussy. However, that breaks the unwritten WP:NAUGHTYWORDS policy right?.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper  21:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is where understanding flexibility in policy comes into play. The double entendre aspects of "pussy" are an encyclopedic subject. To discuss those, we need to describe the three meanings of the word. "Pussy" as a cat would likely simply be a wikt entry (there doesn't seem to be much else) but as coward and as the sexual meaning could be their own articles. But in each case, we'd point back to this trio of words and the wordplay around them.  Thus, in this unique situation, it doesn't make sense to split, and to be comprehensive, include the "trivial" meaning of the word (refering to a cat) in addition to the other two meanings.  The key thing, period, is that this is more than just the information a dictionary provides, and has encyclopedic merit and is verified. All policies are met to within the allowance that WP:IAR allows. --M ASEM  (t) 21:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose We'd be swimming in non-notable terms if we deleted this- that's why we have Wiktionary. They handle the word definitions, we handles encyclopedic subjects. ALI nom nom 18:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the thing I finally understood though; they're all notable, they're all in the oxford english, and lots of other dictionaries and it takes almost nothing at all else and they simply sail through afds! These policies are just holding us back!- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Wolfkeeper. You're not understanding what this policy does. Words like thou and we have a history behind them that we can report on. Words like pussy also have a history, and since they also refer to subjects, we have articles on those subjects. But we don't have an article named inexplicable or jubilant. Those things are just words. They would only ever be dictionary definitions. That's what this policy keeps from happening. ALI nom nom 20:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's mainly because they're adjectives. It's nothing much to do with this policy.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 20:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Specific words may have encyclopædic entries, but wikipedia <> wiktionary. -- Avi (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, obviously, although I greatly appreciate WK's frustration and wish the rule was more strictly enforced. Powers T 23:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Enough. This is a clear instance of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It is obvious Wolfkeeper doesn't want the policy deleted; he's just trying to portray everyone who recognizes that Wikipedia does have articles on terms as if they logically think there ought to be articles for all terms. There is a very real policy issue that needs to be resolved here: namely the WP:NOT and WP:NOTDIC policies did not agree with one another - but stunts like this distract the community from addressing them.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Subsequent discussion

 * Comment The point of the discussion was to ascertain whether there was broad agreement for the continuation of this policy; in theory we could remove it and turn the Wikipedia into an encyclopedic dictionary (which in spite of its name is not a dictionary but an encyclopedia with dictionary words in as well). It seems clear that the continuation of the Wikipedia as a pure encyclopedia is very well supported, and its removal or any significant weakening of the dicdef policy, such as has been recently proposed seems to be therefore quite unwise.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 16:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are free to draw whatever conclusions you wish from the results of the above straw man proposal; however, I think you will find that they are not shared by a broad segment of the community. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 16:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think when push comes to shove, you're flat out wrong on that, and this poll is further evidence. And this has been shown repeatedly over the entire course of the Wikipedia, at any point we could remove this policy or significantly weaken it. The percentage of dictionary-like articles is extremely small, and when enough people get involved in any particular decision, the articles always get rewritten in a more encyclopedic, less dictionary/word-based ways.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This poll was made in bad faith and the responses reflected that. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that people on balance really do want to remove this policy, but they voted the other way??? That doesn't seem to be credible.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 18:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They agree with the policy. They don't agree with your particularly hard-line/draconian interpretation of it. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My position is that currently 'Word articles are allowed' is the stated policy of WP:ISNOT. Anyone can point to this policy in an AFD and say that. Yet the vote showed that this isn't a very popular position.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The text was deliberately written like that to permit articles on words that were poking fun at G.W.Bush., Strategery anyone? I'm saying it's time to retire this language, it now causes more harm than good.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This hinges upon the definition of "word article". Pure dictionary entires are excluded; encyclopedic entries like you, we, thou etc. are included. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are pronouns. English has over a 100 pronouns. The wikipedia has maybe 20. Should we add the other 80 then? There's a policy WP:TITLE that says that only noun titles are allowed. What is it about pronouns that make them magically encyclopedic? We don't allow adjectives, adverbs, verbs, but pronouns: yes we can!- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 20:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And take Svenne, currently up for AFD. If words are allowed, that's a word, so it's allowed. Should we keep it? At present, after the current policy changes have been edit warred through, I'm going to have to change my call. It's unreferenced but I'm sure that can be fixed. So we keep it then, it's agreed.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 20:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're reading and trying to dig too much into details. In you, the word "you" is the noun in the title; that applies for all cases.  Here's a quick answer to everything though: in proper encyclopedic coverage a topic, we have to, at barest level, incorporate one element of a dictionary, that of defining the term in the first sentence.  Past that, the encyclopedia and direction diverge.  If the topic is not encyclopedic enough but can go in a dictionary, then that's where it goes. --M ASEM  (t) 21:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You is a pronoun, the article says it's a pronoun, and the dictionary says its a pronoun. That article is about the word 'you', its usage and its meanings. That's what that article is, and that's what that article is for. A pronoun, is a word. We don't have any verbs, but we have several solid pronouns. It makes me proud to be here.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 23:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would just like to thank everyone for successfully inverting the policy Wikipedia is not a dictionary so that it now pretty clearly states that the Wikipedia allows word articles; and that it states this probably more clearly than the original ever stated that they were not permitted. Everyone please give themselves a pat on the back. You guys rock, you deserve it! I love you all!- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 23:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your goals are admirable, but your methodology leaves much to be desired. I daresay you're hurting the cause more than you're helping it at this point.  Powers T 13:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WK has announced at WT:NOTDIC he's going to go back to reverting when the page protection is lifted. I need to know whether I should revert him or not; is there a single editor other than WK who approves of WK's edits to WP:NOTDIC up through and including March 31? (I guess those are the ones he wants to keep, although he's calling them "longstanding", which is confusing.) If so, can you tell me what you understand the controversy to be? - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The only controversy as far as I am concerned is whether a policy should ever simply be able to state that totally the opposite of the general thrust of the policy is permitted without giving any practical rules or guidelines for that (this is actually the primary problem so far as I am concerned). Giving a couple of examples doesn't work; you can always give examples of anything (bad), and over time the 'good examples' seem to have suffered considerable churn.


 * I wouldn't mind nearly so much if the people edit warring it in were actually able to come up with some sensible guidelines, but they seem unable to do so.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 21:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're asking for consensus to come to you, not the other way around. Work with editors to strength the language, instead of outright obliterating it. --M ASEM (t) 22:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not asking for consensus, I'm asking for the policy to not be deliberately written to actually contradict itself.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 23:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't make the change without consensus, not just because you perceive there is a problem. Outline the paradox - quote sections of policy if necessay, and suggest new language to change it and see if there's consensus. If you argue your case well enough, it would get changed.  But you can't unilaterially say "I don't like this and I'm going to keep changing it until it sticks."
 * Look back at the comments people have left here and NOTDICT and elsewhere. Consider those that don't see a problem and what they are saying and address why you think there's a conflict with regards to them.  If there's a way to strengthen language to remove the conflict, hey great. But be aware, I think there's also something here that you have a specific vision of how you want WP to be that is not consensus, and you can't force that on people. --M ASEM  (t) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm reverting back WP:NAD to the previously agreed version; you can't force this through when there is no consensus.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 01:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with WK's basic principles, but I am not at all clear on the versions to which you are referring. Can you give diffs?  Powers T 23:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was many small changes over a long time; the point where I finally drew the line and asked people to come evaluate whether the page was being used to contradict NOT was this edit, which moved some text up into the lead. The language "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word ..." is a bit ambiguous; does it mean that encyclopedia articles can't be about words?  It depends a bit on how you emphasize it, and WK was claiming that that was exactly what it meant on a regular basis.  I left it alone for about a month, leaving messages here and at WT:NOTDIC; when nothing happened, I made an edit, got reverted, and then another editor imported the language from NOT that's been in more or less the same form for years, to make sure that NOTDIC couldn't be used to contradict the long-standing policy: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness".  My feeling is that we could argue til the cows come home (I'm old enough that I get to say things like that) about exactly which version of the last 2 years would be better to revert NOTDIC to to make sure it's not out of line with NOT; I think the better solution (and I believe only two editors have disagreed so far over at NOTDIC) is just to keep that line from NOT so that the page can't be misinterpreted, until and unless we want to change the wording here at NOT ... which would be fine with me, I think it wouldn't kill us to have something more nuanced, and I even like some of Wolfkeeper's ideas.  But I'm not happy with letting a policy page degrade to the point where it contradicts, or is used to contradict, the page it spun off from many years ago. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow!!! That guy Wolfkeeper that deliberately kept changing WP:NAD to make it different to WP:ISNOT must be a total scheming bastard!!!- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 04:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nahhhhh.... it's a cute theory but it just total, total, total bollocks. Even the intro of WP:NAD and the body of WP:NAD said, in detail, pretty different things over their entire life, and WP:ISNOT something else again. And I mean entire. There's been nothing to make them converge, they just tended to drift off in different directions. And they were never been the same to start with, except in the vaguest sense imaginable, not even at the very beginning. Read: Early WP:ISNOT in 2001 WP:NAD in 2001. I think it's fairly clear what they were getting at, and they seemed to be disclaiming describing idioms, usage, and common words, and only covering word stuff in the context of an encyclopedic entry.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 04:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually tried hard on multiple occasions to simply make all the policies closer or even the same, and they're probably much closer now than they've ever been.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 04:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When you try to bring policies together, at some point some part of the policies have to change a bit. I could have just rewritten the whole of WP:NAD to say that word articles are completely fine... that seems to be the intent of the offending language. But that didn't seem to be the original intention, and it doesn't seem to be the way the wikipedia really works, and it makes no sense. That's not what encyclopedias are for- dictionaries do that, they cover word usage. By way of contrast, encyclopedias are supposed to summarise things, ideas, concepts, not words- in fact encyclopedias were invented because of dictionaries' deficiencies, but dictionaries are always available as well, so you don't duplicate them in an encyclopedia, they're different, different things. Even the literature on lexicography says that, and there's actually a published rule in the literature for deciding whether an article is encyclopedic or not.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 04:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That version you linked is not, to my mind, significantly different from what's currently there (diff). I actually think the current state of the policy is pretty good.  The main deficiency is not in policy but in the application of it; editors are far too quick to say "Keep" when faced with an article about a word that is long and well-referenced.  To the extent that practice deviates from policy, we have a problem; I would prefer that practice change, but perhaps the policy ought to reflect the practice instead.  Powers T 12:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with all that, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that Powers' assessment is accurate. There is a disjoint between written policy and practice here. But that would be easy enough to fix, just some wording teaks probably, if it were the only problem. I think the real issue is that we actually have two policy pages, which say (or are frequently interpreted as saying) two different things. What we need to do is try our best and figure out what the community really wants and update the policies accordingly. My reckoning is that the community roundly rejects dictionary entries as Wikipedia articles. However, I think there is a feeling that not all articles on words and phrases are necessarily dictionary entries.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I've even in the past been willing to acknowledge that some content like what we have at fuck is quite encyclopedic even though it's about a word. Conversely, the community is quite willing to delete simple articles about words and phrases that contain little more than definition and usage notes.  Where I disagree with what seems to be the prevailing sentiment is when we have an article-about-a-word that goes into great detail about the word's origin and history, with plenty of references; to me, such an article is still inherently a dictionary entry, but the prevailing sentiment is that such an article is too long to belong in a dictionary and should be kept here.  Powers T 17:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not really encyclopedic if you analyse it carefully, it's just an essay style dictionary definition. You can't rename it to a different title name.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 18:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If it was up to me I would create an article like 'Swear words associated with sex', or something and do a redirect.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 18:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically, nearly every encyclopedia article should include a definition of the word in order to establish context, but cannot stop just there. If all that can be said - in an encyclopedic manner (w.r.t. reliable sources, etc.) - is that definition, then its a dictionary entry and should be moved to Wikitionary. --M ASEM  (t) 17:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But isn't there a difference between "Rocket is a word..." and "A rocket is a vehicle...". In the first case, the word rocket is the subject, and you would expect the article to cover all meanings, in the second, you're talking about a class of *vehicles*, not the word for the vehicle, a type of vehicle.
 * And the other thing is that properly written encyclopedia articles can be renamed to use different words in the title without any major problems, and when we do that, almost none of the article needs changing. If an article is talking about the word in the title, then it's a complete rewrite.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 18:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But we don't have articles on words (negating your first example), we have articles on concepts at worst. Eg, the article on pussy is written towards the concept of a word that has multiple meanings that play into double entendres, as opposed to a word with multiple meanings.  It is a subtle difference, but one that is clear from usage. --M ASEM  (t) 18:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article pussy covers: cats, female genitalia and cowards. That these are referred to by the same word is an accident of English in that it's the same word. If you were a martian or chinese or Russian, they'd probably be different words and they would be bemused by this. That's why it's not encyclopedic; it shouldn't depend on the article name like that.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 18:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen the articles on words that are kept are ones that have some other encyclopedic discussion beyond what you'd find in a dictionary. Fuck contains a lot of social context you wouldn't find in a dictionary. Macedonia (terminology) contains a lot of discussion you wouldn't find in a dictionary.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of those are good examples (although I daresay Macedonia (terminology) ought to be at a different title), but there are countless examples that are what I mentioned above -- long, referenced articles that nonetheless contain little but definition, etymology, and usage. But because they're long and because they're referenced, folks seem to be unwilling to delete them.  "More than a DICDEF" is the common phrase.  Powers T 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Macedonia (terminology) seems to be really about shifting national boundaries and the peoples within them; I don't think it's about the term 'macedonia' at all. Perhaps other languages would have a different word for it, in the same way that the French have a different word for England. I mean, Macedonia isn't the native word anyway, it's an English word. The article could be translated without changing anything. That to me says it's not really about the word m+a+c+e+d+o+n+i+a at all. It's not a word article.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And are you saying that we should add 'social context' as a valid reason for a word? As long as it has some social context you get to keep it? Doesn't almost every word have social context?- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" stops being deletion criteria when an article stops being a dictionary entry. I think there is a feeling around Wikipedia that not all articles on words and terms constitute dictionary entries.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly; the problem is defining how much encyclopedic content is sufficient to keep an article as an encyclopedia article. Powers T 16:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's it in a nutshell, I think. By and large I think the community has no trouble with this: we can tell articles that are obviously encylopedia articles about words from dictionary entries with no problem in most cases; the former are kept and the latter are deleted. It's for the more borderline cases like the ones you mention that clarification would help.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary; people are completely shit at this. If they were that good we wouldn't need the policy. We could just write, 'don't write dictionary entries' and that would be it. The reality is that people generally have no clue at all. Some people kinda get it, but can't explain it; they mostly get pushed into doing the right things by the WP:MOS guidelines, which in turn got beaten into shape by people who tried to emulate encyclopedias. That's why there aren't many verbs or adjectives for example.- <font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">Wolfkeeper 04:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)