Wikipedia talk:Not Wikipedia

Audience?

Who's going to be the audience for this guideline? As it stands now WP regulars appear to be the audience. (→Netscott) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was intended for regulars - as an alternative to just telling people 'Wikipedia is not a <whatever>'. --CBD 18:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, the reason I was asking is if the plan is to send n00bs here then the language'll need to be adjusted in line with that, no? (→Netscott) 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I second that. >Radiant< 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think of 'alternatives' as things which have a similar general goal as Wikipedia, but work differently. Pretty much what this page has in the 'other options' section. Wikitravel, Yellowikis, and the like are not 'alternatives' to Wikipedia in that sense... they don't just work differently than Wikipedia, they contain entirely different kinds of information. Alternatives are things people would use instead of Wikipedia, whereas most of these are things to use in addition to Wikipedia. --CBD 18:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Although, given the reality of Wikipedia's actual content - some of the factual Wikis to which this page links do overlap to a certain extent. Perhaps the main point aught to be stressed here that Wikipedia is for factual encyclopaedic information, that conforms to its notability conventions, and this list be limited only to those sites with mandates that clearly no not fall within Wikipedia's scope. --JamesTheNumberless 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Going ahead with this. Seems like a good idea. WP:BOLD. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind some recent discussions...

Although I definitely fall on the "chill out" side of the recent practical joke user banner, the "see also" to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Outtakes might raise some eyebrows. Many of the links are, shall we say, creatively named, particularly Bananas. I do like the idea of this new page, thanks for developing it. Risker 04:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a TV episode guide?

I beg to differ and I cite List of South Park EpisodesList_of_Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series_episodes List_of_doctor_who_episodes List_of_friends_episodes and I could go on citing, but I won't.

Each of these lists in turn, link to Wikipedia entries on the episodes themselves, many quite extensive in terms of themactic analysis and plot summary. (e.g. City_of_Death)

I am not arguing that Wikipedia is a TV episode guide, nor am I arguing that Wikipedia is the correct place for such lists and articles. However, Wikipedia clearly does contain material of this kind and in some cases (see list of south park episodes) recognises such lists as of sufficient quality to merit a gold star.

I have therefore removed the misleading claim that Wikipedia does not accommodate articles of this nature. If this were true then all of the aforementioned lists would at the very least be flagged as unencyclopaedic. As it stands, the community does not seem to see a problem. --JamesTheNumberless 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikimagine

Just an idea I had. It would be a collaborative attempt to write appropriate fiction. Here are the differences:

Must be fiction

Is censored

The creator of a page may revert any edit to that page.

Sources are taboo

ONLY THINGS YOU MADE UP! NOTHING THAT IS ALREADY WRITTEN OUTSIDE OF HERE!

Although it still must be written in an encyclopedic style. Anyone can make it with Wikia if they'd like. Not an anon anymore!!!! Yeah!!!! 23:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)