Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day/Archive 1

Early discussion
This should be a proposed policy. Ashibaka tock 23:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that! JoaoRicardo 06:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I third it. Excellent set of guidelines. - Wezzo 15:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think what it says is already policy elsewhere. I don't like the idea of having to many policy pages, as it makes it far to easy for changes to be made, proposals are made which get consensus of a limited group, and after they sit around, its hard to change them later.  Obviously what's here at the moment, is non-controversial and would receive consensus support, but what if somebody else changes it in the future.  I doubt lots of people will keep this page on their watch list.  More signficantly, keeping this page, if it were made policy, would encourage other redundant ones.  Sorry to be the spoil sport.  Just to say the obvious:  everything on this page is quite correct, but I still don't see the need for it.  We just need to keep policy centralized and concise.  --Rob 22:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is written as well as it could be. Seems a little derogatory to the reader for me. Plus, the group it's being aimed at won't ever find it anyway. Just my opinion. :/ Hedley 01:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The group in question will see it when they complain on AfD and someone needs to explain to them why their article is up for deletion. That's why this page was made, primarily (although I linked it on WP:NOT for you). Ashibaka tock 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyway for this article to be rewritten so it’s less condescending?--Virulent 78 23:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, probably not. Note that the target audience is (a) Wikipedians and (b) adolescents.  The former generaly find it funny, the latter will never read it because it does not say "go right ahead and make a Wikipedia article for your newly-invented schoolyard game!" - :-)
 * OK, that may be unfair. I will read it with my newbie hat on. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 23:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So your point is if something is made up one day in school you cannot put it on wikipedia, plenty of good things have been, like bands and some important other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepher25 (talk • contribs) 07:57, August 24, 2006
 * It's not encyclopedic that day, no. But if the band becomes famous, or the mathematical theorem is proven right, or whatever, then it becomes encyclopedic, sure. We're just talking about recent, unproven/unreported ideas. See also No original research. -- nae'blis 21:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be a joke...
I need to agree and amplify what Hedley and Virulent 78 said above. Could someone please explain to me how this is not a grotesque violation of WP:BITE? I am referring mostly to the title, which is the first thing — and as JzG points out, probably the only thing — most newbies will read. Why is it acceptable to demean good faith contributions (even ones with subjects that are far short of WP standards for notability, verifiability, etc.) by calling their authors children? People already act disrespectfully on AfD, this guideline just serves as validation, and as a tool to help them do so. ×Meegs 06:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The title doesn't say anything about the authors at all. It very clearly addresses the article subjects. Uncle G 10:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Who else but children make things up in school? The title make a strong statement about the author. I can tell you for sure that children don't like being called children in this manner, and adults really don't like being called children. ×Meegs 08:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur - This article is ageist and as a student, I find it offensive. People of all ages make things up, it is part of the creative nature of human beings. Pyrotix 07:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole of Wikipedia is ageist. Compare the number of articles on Pokemon with the number of articles on knitting.  This is one of the very few articles whose bias is towards maturity, and none the worse for that. Just zis Guy you know? 19:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And discriminating against schoolgoers as a class in the title (yes, I'm fully aware that the substance of the text is about article subjects, but the title is not) is, of course, a hallmark of maturity. This sets a terrible example. Nach0king 09:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Move proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus with three yea and three nay. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (old)
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day → Wikipedia is not for things made up one day - This article was condescending, ageist and offensive. It targeted youth as the only group likely to create Wikipedia articles about things that are ineligible for inclusion. I have edited the article to remove instances of ageism, but the title is still discriminatory. Pyrotix 09:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~ 


 * Strong support. Doesn't fix all of the WP:BITE, but is a tremendous step in the right direction. ×Meegs 12:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yesterday JzG removed Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline from the page. With the official-looking stamp gone, I care much less about the title and contents of this article.  Without it, there is no sense that Wikipedia is backing the page's use in AFD discussions, and hopefully people will be less bold in its abuse. I still think softening the title — this way, and/or eliminating one day — is a good idea, but I no longer feel it is urgent.  ×Meegs 17:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. As a student myself, I don't really buy into the fact that this page was particularly ageist; however, changing the title will expand the scope of the article so people will know that Wikipedia is not for things made up at the office, at the pub, at the football game, etc.. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. And I do not agree with the recent changes either. -- Krash (Talk) 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support.  Places of learning are home to some of the finest ideas of all time.  I agree that there are plenty of stupid students, but by that token, those stupid students become stupid members of society.  They inhabit other places and come up with questionable ideas in much the same way they used to.  We shouldn't single out school as being the source of ignorant thoughts on Wikipedia.  24.189.46.89 03:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I think that loses the context (of utterly unverifiable stuff) and sounds a bit too biting. Things that are made up can eventually be in Wikipedia, if they're written about in good sources. And generally... guys working on the assembly line or selling widgets aren't terribly likely to make up games that they just have to share with Wikipedia. It's kid stuff, kids go to school. Is it a generalization? Of course. I just don't think the proposed title is much better. --W.marsh 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, do you have a better suggestion for a name? Personally I would like something that conveys the meaning of the article without generalizing about a certain group, namely students. People of all ages and occupations are guilty of creating this kind of content, and by the numbers I'm sure we'd find students or people "in school" make up a minority of these cases. Just look at WP:AFD. Pyrotix 05:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a take on existing policies and guidelines, tailored to apply specifically to a known class of problem articles.  For the more generic case, WP:BAI is likely valid.  I think we need this to stay light, humorous and specifically directed at the bored student fraternity. An d for the record I, too, dislike some of the recent changes.  UncleG's comment that There's no way that the rest of the world can verify your account of the new thing your friend said or did one day. It's not recorded and it's not documented. Indeed, there's no way that the rest of the world can verify that your friend even exists at all is much more easily understood than the current version.  We all know what [{WP:V]] means, this document was intended for those who can't understand it. Just zis Guy you know? 09:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You said earlier that you don't think most adolescents will read the policy, so why hurt that chance further by giving the it a condescending title? ×Meegs 22:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They don't read it beforehand, but they will read it when it's handed to them in a deletion debate. Just zis Guy you know? 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest this entire page be deleted; not only is it condescending, it doesn't say anything already said.--Lkjhgfdsa 18:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You can take it to WP:MFD but I suspect it will be kept. Just zis Guy you know? 11:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

I can't find any Wikipedia policies that deal specifically with racism, ableism, homophobia, sexism, ageism, etc. However, I believe that because Wikipedia is primarily a non-adolescent community, we ought to ensure that they are not marginalized. Ageism is a form of discrimination that many people have trouble accepting as a "problem"; however, Wikipedians should practice inclusionism. Pyrotix 05:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (this is mostly a reply to the above, moving it down to discussion to reduce clutter) Of course it's all anecdotal, but I've looked at thousands of new articles doing newpages patrol. It just is very common that a guy creating this stuff is from a school IP... I mean it's literally an every day occurance. You see articles about math teachers, classmates, school cafeterias, etc and all the resulting injokes, stories, games, etc. I don't know if it's a majority, but it's certainly very common. Anyway, I don't buy the idea that this is discrimination. This page isn't saying people under the age of 18 can't contribute, all it does is clarify basic policies that we are all supposed to follow - expecting students to follow WP:V too simply isn't ageist or whatever.
 * As for a better title, I'm not sure. The current one leaves a bit to be desired, I've felt that for a while, but I really can't think of a good alternative... so I'm fine keeping it as is. --W.marsh 23:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My opposition to this page is not primarily based on the assumption that calling someone young is insulting; it is the made up one day part that I find far more offensive. Accordingly, this page is insulting both when it is applied to an article about an older person's creation, and when it's applied to an article about a more substantial work by young person (e.g. fan fiction). It's also pretty bad when it's applied to something that's not made-up at all.

I can't view the deleted articles, but looking through the list, the made up in school characterization occasionally hits the nail on the head, but not usually. Whatever its intentions, I've all too often seen this page's title used as a weapon to add insult to AfDs that are already clearly headed down the drain. In any case, there's almost always a better policy to link to, or a better way to explain what the problem is. Finally, look, none of our other pages, policies, or templates used to communicate with newbies start-out with a joke, why does this one? ×Meegs 23:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that "Wikipedia is not for things you and your buddies made up" might apply to a broader spectrum than just kids in school, while still addressing the same type of stuff. Just a thought. It's awfully hard to come up with wording that doesn't sound snarky... --W.marsh 17:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "Wikipedia is not for &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lkjhgfdsa (talk &bull; contribs) 18:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC).


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Guideline status
I've removed Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline from this page as it was never proposed or widely adversed for comment before it was listed as a notability guideline on 2006 January 19. The proper procedure is outlined on Policies and guidelines; if anyone wants to peruse making this into an official guideline, they can tag it accordingly and open an RfC. ×Meegs 20:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the green check from the top of the page – that is the iconography of, just as , , and have theirs.  I suggest replacing box at the top of the page altogether with , but I'll leave that to one of the page's proponents. ×Meegs 18:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
Changed several spurious use of the conoined ae in encyclopedia. That usage is standard in some places, but not on English Wikipedia - the spelling "encyclopedia" is at the top of every page. —This unsigned comment is by 128.12.51.36 (talk • contribs) 2006 March 15.

Examples
This page lists examples of pages that have been frivolous enough to be deleted. This would be useful to those of us new to WP, and we could look through them and compare them to articles which 'made the grade' as an indication of the sorts of pages we should be making. Unfortunately though, because they were frivolous enough to be deleted there isn't any way of seeing what these pages looked like, making the listing of them a little pointless... Is there any way these pages could be restored somewhere where we could look at them to compare.. without being normally accessible to someone who isn't specifically looking for them? Kaid100 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 02:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day → Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The current title wrongly suggests that you can't add things that are made up in school, but that if you add things that are made up anywhere else it's okay. Voortle 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~ 


 * Oppose. This is an essay, not a policy or guideline. The spirit of the essay is what's important, not the letter of the law (because it's not a law). It would be a pretty foolish person who would argue that the nonsense they made up is okay because they didn't do it at school. No administrator considering deletion would make an exception for that kind of reasoning. Kafziel 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per previous discussions. This addresses a particular issue.  Feel free to write a more generic essay. Just zis Guy you know? 19:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment while the title is misleading, perhaps just adding a section to the effect of "this does not just apply to schools", along with the bit about teachers. -- nae'blis 19:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kafziel above. And I always just refer to it as WP:NFT, I couldn't even have told you what the full name was. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, did not the prior discussion indicate something? --Dhartung | Talk 10:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Well written
I like this essay, it's very objective and provides copious precedent. If only more AfD precedents were this well documented. I made a small change, emphasizing verifiability by placing it before the other, more shaky reasons for avoiding such articles. Deco 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea - should be policy - but it doesn't just apply to schoolkids
I'm gonna echo some other people and call this essay a bit ageist. Arguments that it's not "official policy" are moot against this. It's ageism is a large reasona s to why it's not official policy. I can think it might be the only reason it isn't. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day is a very smart idea.

While I admit that a lot of content MU1D (Made up 1 day) is contributed by school/univerity kids - it's not necessarily made up by them or originates at school.

Mini-mammoth was started by Triple J announcers Jay and the Doctor.

I'm currently lobby for deletion of PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments, which originated on a generally respectable blog - but still fails notability, primarily because it was MU1D. Alot of MU1Ding goes on, on the internet, and can be totally excaserbated (sp!) by Wikipedia.

How do you start yet another discussion on moving/chenging/editing this essay?--ZayZayEM 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Another note is that none of the opposition to the move really has any guts. It generally is "The title doesn't really matter" (which it does) and that "this isn't actually a guideline", to which I'd at yet, one of the arguments against it becoming a guideline is its condescending ageist attitude which is perpetuated at the start by the us.--ZayZayEM 00:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with notability
This has nothing to do with notability, so why is it associated with it? This page is all about original research, so .. why not associate it with that instead?

Btw, is this actually an official guideline? looks more like an essay to me. Fresheneesz 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, "things made up in school one day" are not notable. Even if they are written about in the school's newspaper. Also, this page refers to WP:OR so I fail to see your point. And yes, this is a guideline, official or otherwise, based on its heavy usage (and efficacy) in WP:AFD.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a guideline. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is for things made up in school one day? —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Radiant, my point is that the tag at the top refered it to notability - but that point is moot now that someone changed this to a proposal.


 * And Centrx, i'm not suggesting that, thanks for asking. It wasn't obvious to me that this is a guideline, it looks like an essay. Please assume good faith. Fresheneesz 20:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a guideline
This is not a guideline; it was never proposed and has not been discussed by the wider community and accepted by consensus. Radiant tagged it as one on January 19 after a very short discussion that was unknown to the community at large, and again today after no discussion.

I think it is best to leave it as an essay — it is adds little to existing guidelines and is frequently used to bite newcomers in AfDs — but if anyone would like to push for it to become a guideline, they should follow the instructions at How to create policy. As the page has been very controversial even as an essay, I would suggest skipping straight to the RfC. ×Meegs 03:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. First, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so the suggestion that a guideline must be "proposed, discussed and accepted" through any formal process is false.
 * Second, according to WP:POL, a guideline is (1) actionable and (2) consensual. This is obviously actionable. Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day shows that it is heavily in use, and draws little if any criticism, and AFDs in which it is invoked tend to get their article deleted. Hence, it is consensual.
 * And third, I have seen zero objections to the content of this page, there are only some objections on technical grounds. Find me a single established editor that thinks Wikipedia is for things made up in school one day and I'd be happy to discuss it. Also, please point me to the alleged biting and controversy, because I'm not seeing it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The title of the page is potentially insulting, and often used deliberately to have just this effect. It violates WP:BITE, a long-standing guideline with far greater support. This is not a technicality. It would be truly embarrassing for us to have an official guideline by this name. Just because no one disagrees that schoolyard-type content does not belong in Wikipedia does not mean this gets a free pass. There are many legitimate complaints similar to mine throughout this talk page. ×Meegs 10:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree with that; the title is factual (if you make something up, don't put it in Wikipedia). Many a newbie's first article ends up deleted for reasons other than this - the problem there is not in the "rules" that allow deletion of such, it is in the fact that many newbies write a pointless article or two. (by the way please cite evidence of this page "used deliberately for this effect"?) Nor does this get a "free pass", it is provably extensively in use already. But okay, since the problem seems to be with the title, what would you suggest as a better name?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I looked through the last month or so's AfDs and did not see any malicious uses; that's good. Sometimes the title fits the article like a glove. Other times it's applied to articles about cultural phenomena that were not made-up by the author or their acquaintances, or to topics like a student's film, novel or research that were not created in a day, or to something that was created by an adult. You can chalk those up to misuse if you want (every policy is subject to that), but it seems to me that anytime it is applied to a topic that the author takes seriously — even one that was made-up in school one day — the observation may be received as demeaning.


 * I have not been able to think of a great name that does not widen the scope substantially. Even your parenthetical "if you make something up, don't put it in Wikipedia" would be an big improvement, though, at least in this dimension. Incidentally, the majority of incoming links are now due to nonsensepages, which refers to "nonsense articles". That is brash, but at least it is not a joke at the author's expense.


 * I am trying not to be hyperbolic; the harm done by this page is not terrible, especially by the standards of what goes on at AfD. I want to see the blue stamp of approval kept off of it largely because I see no benefit to balance out what little harm there is. We do not need NFT to be actionable, as anything failing it surely fails WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NEO, or notability. It need not be a guideline to be a reference point in deletion discussions, either. Complete bollocks is linked just as often, and it is an essay. ×Meegs 13:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I would think it wouldn't qualify for labelling as a guideline is that it is relatively informal and not a usual subject of a guideline. The problem is that essay is often applied to both reasonable, widely agreed explanations of existing policies, and also to pages that really are just personal essays that a handful agree with. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which might warrant classifying such well-agreed but less formal essays as guidelines or removing personal essays from such Wikipedia classification or perhaps from Wikipedia namespace. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that this article is "relatively informal" is exactly why i questioned its status as a guideline. Apparently I was right to do so. I disagree with this page becoming a guideline - as it is 100% covered by other guidelines. This is an essay, plain and simple. Fresheneesz 20:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I might add: "Guidelines" and "Policy" is not anything and everything that the community agrees on. Guidelines and policies should outline how people use wikipedia in the most conscise and clear way possible. Making policy out of millions of essays that are in principle agreed upon is NOT a good way of running wikipedia. Fresheneesz 20:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, Centrx. I don't think we can plausibly classify "personal" essays as anything other than essays, but it's definitely worthwhile to classify essays as guidelines when they're actionable and consensual. Simply put, misclassification confuses new editors, and to established editors it doesn't generally matter either way.
 * Meegs - it is true that misquoting this page can be (mildly) insulting to editors. However, that is not the fault of this page, it is the fault of the misquoting editor (indeed, one can abuse almost any guideline as an insult by misapplying it. However, we could rename it from "made up in school pme day" to "you made up yourself". The point of this page is that, unlike WP:BALLS, it occurs really often. New editors tend to get less upset when an unsuitable article written by them is rejected because of a clear rule, than if it's rejected because of what people say. The latter looks personal - the former looks reasonable since any website has rules.
 *  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  02:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of keeping it around precisely because it's a situation that comes up a lot. I've quoted it a few times - maybe misquoted a few, who knows - but there are a lot of articles that, sure enough, are things someone made up in school one day, and state this fact prominently in the text. If it's a policy, fine; if it's an essay, fine, but it should remain either way. Crystallina 07:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)