Wikipedia talk:Scope

This guideline as written is makes no sense. What happened to the old definition? Mugginsx (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Who determines the scope of an article? Sources or editors?

I am not sure I agree with the first sentence:

• The scope of an article is the topic or subject matter, which is defined by reliable sources.

"Scope" and "topic" are intimately related... but I don't think they are the same thing. And I think the scope of an article is determined by a consensus of Wikipedia editors, guided by our policies and informed by reliable sources... but it is not "defined" by reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. I wonder if scope needs better defining. I see it as being details relevant to the topic, and those details being decided by reliable sources. Would editors decide if Yoko Ono was part of the scope of The Beatles article, or would editors consult sources and see that independent experts make her part of the topic? If editors are making decisions regarding what parts make up a topic, then would they be dabbling in original research? I don't see that we can define; I think we gather and present what has already been defined. However, what editors can do is decide how best to organise and present the details. Sometimes there is too much detail for one article, and decisions need to be made as to when and how best to create sub or sister articles. Could we clarify the difference between scope and detail? Scope being the boundary of a topic, and detail being the amount of information within the topic. Using Yoko Ono as an example: source define her as part of the scope of the topic, The Beatles; editors decide how much detail regarding Yoko Ono goes into The Beatles article and how much goes into the Yoko Ono article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, editors would certainly look to reliable sources to fill out the details... reliable sources determine what you say within an article. But before you decide what to say, you have to decide whether to say it at all.

Given the role she played in the band's break up, it is likely that Yoko would be considered within the scope of an article on The Beatles... However, the editors at the article might reach a consensus to omit discussion of "reasons why the band broke up" (perhaps leaving that sub-topic to another article). If you omit discussing the reasons for the break up, then I could certainly see editors making the editorial decision that Yoko is somewhat irrelevant... not within the scope of the Beatles article. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• You've returned the essay to a place where it doesn't fit policy, and is encouraging Original Research. Wikipedia editors can not decide by consensus how to define subjects. What Wikipedia does is to summarise reliable information about already defined subjects. It is a corner stone of inclusion criteria that we do not decide notability of a subject, let alone actually define a subject. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think in the original essay, that you have returned to, there is a confusion between "details" and "scope". The scope is the range or boundary of a topic - and that can't be decided by Wikipedia editors - the defining of the scope is part of the knowledge of the topic. Reliable sources define the topic and the scope of the topic. What Wikipedia editors do by consensus is decide the amount of detail, within the scope, to include in a given article. The decisions on the detail will be informed by reliable sources - but the exact amount is decided by our house style on the size of articles. Does that help you? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting... my concern about your version was that I thought it confused "details" (which I agree are determined by sources) and "scope" (which is determined by editors). As editors, we routinely decide what the boundary of our articles should be... for example, let's say we want to write an article about the atomic bomb... before we add any information (details), we first need to determine the article's scope... will the article focus on the bomb from a historical perspective (talking about how the bomb was developed, decision to use it, it's impact on society, etc.)... or will the article focus on the bomb from a scientific perspective (discussing the scientific principles behind the bomb, how the bomb works, what its effects are, etc.)... or will the article try to do both? THAT is an editorial decision. Once we determine the article's scope, then we can fill in the details based on what the sources say. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thinking some more on this... the disconnect between us may stem from a difference of opinion over the definition of the various terms being used. So, let me use my example another way to try to explain my viewpoint ... take two possible articles: History of the Atomic Bomb and Science of the Atomic Bomb. In both articles, the topic is the Atomic Bomb... but the scope of each article is different. One is limited in scope to history (and we would not include scientific details), the other is limited in scope to science (and we would not include historical details). Does that distinction clarify my concern? Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wandered away from this. Came back now, as I followed a link to the page and remembered our discussion. The topic is what the article is about - in its entirety. So the topic of an article called History of the Atomic Bomb is exactly that. No more no less. The topic of an article called Science of the Atomic Bomb is also exactly that. They are different topics. They are not the same topic, which is why there would be two different articles. Each article has its own unique topic. The topic is the subject of the article. When we wander off topic we are going away from either the history of the atom bomb or the science of the atom bomb, depending on what the topic is. There is no editorial consensus regarding the topic, as that would be original research. There is and can only be focus on the topic as defined by reliable sources. If in Peloponnesian War editors agreed by consensus that the scope of the article should include sword-wielding skeletons, and someone objected, they could point to the current version of this essay and say: "Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus." But we all know that articles should only be based on reliable sources, so what the essay should say is, as in my reverted version, "Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is defined by reliable sources". It comes down to should an article's contents be determined by consensus of a group of editors or by reliable sources? I think we know the answer to that. I am restoring the reverted version. If you continue to have objections, please let's tackle them line by line rather than by reverting the whole thing. I think it could do with improvement. With building on. But simply reverting it halts progress. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I've got to say I oppose these recent changes to the essay. Consensus is the basis of article scope, and that in turn is informed by reliable sources - as the reader can discover by following the wikilink to WP:CONSENSUS. -- Director (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Duplicated sentences in this essay

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Out of scope. Jarble (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)