Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 23

< Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Soundvisions1 in topic Proposal - deletion of WP:NOT#WEBHOST
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 → Archive 30

"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". But it does have scaling issues

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments8 people in discussion

"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" has been used as a mantra to justify unlimited growth. But Wikipedia does have scaling issues. It's not storage that's the problem. It's editor attention.

Unlike a paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles don't remain static if ignored. They change, not necessarily for the better. Random vandalism occurs. Promotional links and articles are inserted. Plausible but wrong info is injected. There's a steady input of noise into Wikipedia. Each article requires some fraction of a good editor and of an admin to resist this entropy. Gradually, the processes for resisting entropy, like lists of articles needing cleanup, fall behind.

That's the real limit on Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The flaw in this logic is that there is no sign, on a wide scale, of this "resisting entropy" occurring. Obviously with 2.6 million+ articles on Wikipedia not every one is going to get detailed attention 100% of the time, however I have 800 pages on my watchlist. Most serious editors have substantial numbers (there are probably editors with thousands of pages on their watchlists). There are tools in place that are capable of accurately catching and reverting vandalism without human assistance. There are policies like WP:BLP that provide easy outs for anyone to justify removing any piece of dubious information (granted it can and has been abused, but there's been many cases of libel averted thanks to BLP). There are people who do nothing but look at new pages when they are created. Point I'm getting to is I don't feel the limit you've described as yet exists, not so long as thousands upon thousands of people are still dedicated to the project. 23skidoo (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    To see some scaling issues on a large scale, you may have a look at User:WolterBot/Cleanup statistics. --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
And those are only the ones where someone flagged the problem. --John Nagle (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
True. But let me comment a bit on the numbers. Let's pick WP:BLP as an example since it was mentioned by 23skidoo above. We certainly have highly popular, highly watchlisted articles (say, Barack Obama), where hundreds of editors are willing to enforce WP:BLP in every detail, fight vandalism and POV-pushers, etc.. But on the other hand, there are ~15.000 BLP articles flagged as having no sources at all, and another ~15.000 flagged as containing unsourced statements, about which nobody cares, unless in some kind of emergency. (I can provide more exact figures if necessary.) They stay in the backlogs for years. That's were the scaling problem becomes visible. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have been reviewing TV episode articles for over a year now for potential mergers, and I'd say 90 percent of them are absolute crap that should be AfDed or speedy-redirected, and at least half of the rest is still better off merged into LoEs or season pages (usually hard data like viewership figures). But one-new-ep-per-week scenarios, fanboy filibustering and (most importantly) the lack of willing cleanup editors made me come to the same conclusion as John Nagle. – sgeureka t•c 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I started this discussion partly because of what's going on over at WP:FICT. There's an effort to write a guideline for articles about fictional works that permits the inclusion of material that doesn't meet the usual WP:N notability guidelines. (Some call this "fancruft"). The proposed wording is currently "Elements within a notable fictional work are often split from the main article for size reasons or topical considerations. These daughter articles may not strictly meet the general notability guideline but their deletion would harm the reader's ability to understand the fictional work." This is troublesome. --John Nagle (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • We have to make a balance here. We are a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias: that includes coverage of fiction. But we clearly know we don't want an article for every character, episode, world, and so forth. Now, what the suggestion is right now is that most of these non-notable elements can be merged to list articles - they may not be notable, but it is better to have a single list to summarize 10 or more potentially non-notable articles than not to cover these elements at all. That is, between having 0 articles about fiction characters and X for each and every single one, the midpoint is log X articles - list articles. That helps with scaling and maintanence as well. --MASEM 22:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • John, if you find something troublesome with WP:FICT, it may be a good idea to express your concern at that proposal's talk page instead of the talk page of this policy. --Pixelface (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Fanboy filibustering" isn't lack of attention to an article, it is just attention by editors with a different philosophy from your own. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • True. That philosophy would be "let's have as many articles as possible to prove my TV show/videogame/anime is the best in the world", not "let's create a quality encyclopedia [in the GA/FA/FL/FT sense]". WP:POKEMON were among the first to realize that franchise popularity never lasts long enough to assure continued article improvement, and that scalability is an issue. – sgeureka t•c 10:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
We also have the option of shipping the fancruft to Wikia, which has become the home of most of the fan wikis. They have Star [Wars|Trek|Gate|Craft], Warhammer, Halo, etc., and welcome fancruft, which they try to monetize with ads. That's a useful destination for entertainment-related material that doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. --John Nagle (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time understanding you. Do you remember starting this thread at the village pump on January 1? Do you see all the mentions of "conflict of interest" on this talk page? --Pixelface (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the OP, but... where are we going with this? The current wording seems pretty clear that "[t]his policy is not a free pass for inclusion". Fletcher (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I still think the wording could be improved. "There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover" seems misleading: There are limits; but they are usually not of a technical nature, the limitation is in "human resources".—By the way, is this really a difference to traditional (paper) encyclopedias? What would stop Britannica from doubling the number of their articles - is it the mere printing cost, or rather a lack of editing capacity? Me thinks it is the latter. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at the discussion over at WP:FICT, where an attempt is being made to define notability guidelines for fiction that are looser than WP:N. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I know. The debate about WP:FICT has been going on for a year or so, and there has never been the slightest indication of consensus. And while I strongly disagree with those attempts you mention, I have just stopped following that debate. It's not worth my time. Don't call me sarcastic, but I think the best way to handle it is to keep the discussion at WT:FICT, and not carry it here. That way, I know at least which page not to put on my watchlist. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did John Nagle propose adding "but does have scaling issues" to WP:NOTPAPER or did I just stumble on a forum? --Pixelface (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR is being rewritten in practice

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Just figured you guys should know. We don't censor articles, unless the Crown asks nicely. For the less snarky summary, please see this AN thread and this BLP talk thread regarding the deletion of a sourced and accurate BLP at the request of the scottish police (not an WP:OFFICE action). Protonk (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty troubling. I hate to see Wikipedians thinking censorship is "doing the right thing." Fletcher (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Without rehashing elements of the discussion that are being discussed elsewhere - in regards to this policy, I find [this most disturbing. I never got a straight answer on this but as far as I can see, an editor could have edited that page in accordance with policy and been blocked for breaching the laws of the UK. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not being close to the issue, my thoughts are: "But I thought (pretty much) ANY editor could edit (pretty much) ANY article for (pretty much) ANY reason!" If someone asks an editor to make a change, and the editor thinks that is a valid reason and makes the change, so be it. Don't like it? Change it back. Three revert rule? I think we've got a method for that! Again, not close to the issue but that was my reaction.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

New section in "indiscriminate"

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There is a new section in the indiscriminate part of this policy--point #6. I disagree with this point (or at least its wording) being placed here because it appears to stray from the idea of indiscriminate and more toward notability. There is an essay that sort of parallels my concerns. I agree that a list or collection of information may be discriminate and it may still not be worthy of inclusion because of other reasons such as notability, neutral point of view, copyvio, etc. However, I don't think the wording quite encompasses that idea. I know... what do I propose? Still thinking...--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. There should be consensus to add it before it's added again. --Pixelface (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm ok with removing it. It's not clear what problem it was trying to address (the sections for lyrics databases, plot summaries etc. are more specific), or why our existing content guidelines are not working, or how we know what topics are only of minor interest. Fletcher (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The aim was at pages which are clearly indiscriminate collections of information (the recent Gundam gamecruft being what I had in mind) but are not explicitly specified — arguments (which I consider specious) were raised that "it's not listed on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, therefore it's not indiscriminate. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I would respond with it is unreasonable to expect a complete list of what is indiscriminate. That's why we have policies, guidelines, and even essays to address the issues. But I'd also say that "Gundam gamecruft" likely is not indiscriminate because it is limited to that particular game. I haven't looked at the articles in question. My "guess" is that where the issue really lies is in WP:N and not WP:IINFO.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
True. I'm going to try another attempt at boldness by adding that the examples are not intended to be exhaustive. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

censorship

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I don't understand the claim that Wikipedia is not censored. It obviously must be censored according to the laws of where its servers are hosted. This claim that Wikipedia is not censored seems like a delusion or a distortion. Caviare (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED explicitly takes this into account. It means Wikipedia does not voluntarily censor itself, and that we are opposed to the spirit of censorship, but it is true that some level of censorship is inevitable as a consequence of hosting the servers in a given jurisdiction. The US constitution does give some of the strongest protection for free speech, but is not taken very seriously these days by lawmakers or the courts. In practice, however, our NOTCENSORED policy has less to do with law, and more to do with stopping people from deleting content they find offensive for some reason. Fletcher (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

However, i have had comments erased from talk pages, simply because they opposed the admins of the article. Not insulting in any way, just different, justified comments.You say you are not a democracy.So you are bound to the will of the few regarding the content of your articles, and that is a form of censorship.Alfadog777 (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages of articles are not subject to this, and while removing talk page comments is generally discouraged, on high traffic talk pages or ones with lots of content dispute, removing comments that are not directly related to improving the article itself are often remove per WP:TALK. --MASEM 12:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOPRICES

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Prices are extremely important. Writing about any product that can be bought and not including a price, is like writing about a battle or war not including the number of casualties. 87.116.213.111 (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Only when the price is notable for some reason, necessary to understand a certain part of the article, and covered on reliable independient sources. For example, Xbox#Price_history, PlayStation_3#Sales_and_production_costs and PlayStation_3#Sales_and_production_costs. And, for example, the launch of consoles that broke selling records and caused statements from governments: Super_nintendo#Launch. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit the description of 'Wikipedia not textbook'

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The phrase "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks[...]" is problematic. Mathematics is not a collection of facts, but a practice. If you already understand the practice of mathematics, it might appear as though one could simply present math as a list of facts. Mathematics only has meaning if its notation is learned (and taught) and its theorems used (with examples). Anyway, if you check the articles on mathematics and physics, you'll notice that most do not follow wikipedia's "not a textbook" convention (Quantum decoherence reads like a textbook on quantum mechanics, and could benefit from more textbook-like explanation). Either this sentence needs to be carefully edited, or we've got a lot of sections to delete. Perhaps what we really want to express is that a wikipedia article shouldn't sound like a *poorly* written textbook. 141.214.17.5 (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not even a well written textbook. A textbook and an encyclopedia seek to accomplish different aims, with a textbook seeking to educate specialist readers to a given level of proficiency in the subject matter, and an encyclopedia seeking to give the general reader an overview of the subject. Quantum decoherence is a textbook case of an article being taken over by people who are passionately (or professionally) interested in the subject, and edit the article from their perspective, rather than attempting to provide something useful for the general encyclopedia reader. Deletion of such articles is not strictly necessary as they might be moved to the Wikibooks or Wikiversity projects, if they can't be improved upon here. Quantum decoherence literally loses me at the first sentence, and I don't think that is supposed to happen. Fletcher (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is developing in a different direction with respect to treating math encyclopedic-ly, and I don't think any amount of policy can prevent that from happening. The community of Wikipedia's users are continuously making edits and comments to math and physics related articles that in the end are turning Wikipedia into an online textbook. Wikipedia is blossoming into a full fledged resource for learning mathematics and physics, as we can see by the expanding scope of articles, the improvement of explanations aimed at a variety of readers with different mathematical proficiencies, and the growth of sections explaining the practical uses of these theories. The community of math and physics contributors are making this thing into a textbook, and trying to invoke "Not a textbook" in math/physics articles is like trying to enforce the 18th amendment at a speakeasy in the 1920s. We need smart regulations, style tips, and guidance, not a ban on detailed explanations & teaching subject matter.141.214.17.5 (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The battles we had at FAC over acid dissociation constant might be useful here. Nutshell: we're all in favor of adding new kinds of material to Wikipedia, if we can do it right. The problem comes when you don't have a critical mass of people who meet all 4 of these qualifications: they know their subject very well, they are adept at explaining the subject to beginners, they are comfortable with an encyclopedic writing style, and they either know a lot about how to write on Wikipedia, or work well with others who do. We do have a lot of physicists and a lot of good physics articles on Wikipedia, but the word "additive" (in that context) in the first sentence of Quantum decoherence tells me that the editors of that article either are assuming their readers will have read another article before that one, or they are not adept at explaining the subject to beginners. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a not-HOWTO either

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yes Wikipedia is not a HOW TO, but at least mention one is allowed to say one should e.g., call the fire department and/or get water if one spots a fire, etc. The current wording of this (What Wikipedia is not/Archive 23) makes it seem one must remain mum. Jidanni (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should say that. Maybe it should say something like "common responses to spotting a fire are calling the fire department and/or obtaining tools for fighting the fire". But to offer advice? I don't think that's an encyclopedia's place. JulesH (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a directory: {{Infobox church}}

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, we're having a discussion over at "Template talk:Infobox church#"Address" parameter" over whether it is appropriate to have an "Address" parameter in the infobox. Your comments on the matter are welcome. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

censored?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This sentence was added in November: "In particular, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored." Isn't there a risk that someone will add a cited quotation that has content that we don't want for one reason or another, but someone will read this sentence and say "WP:NOT says that you have to keep it, you can't censor that because it's in a quotation"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That should be read as "it should not be removed on the grounds of offensiveness." I don't think rewording is really necessary as its implicit in "should not be censored," but I guess making it more explicit couldn't hurt. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page subdivisions?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could subpages of this talk page be developed to discuss each of the sections of the article page? Thus we'd have

The name could be abbreviated by what Wikipedia is not.:

—Markles 21:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

  • We don't get nearly enough traffic. They would eventually just be redirected back here. Many project, help and template talk pages for 'sub-pages' are redirected to the 'main' talk page. See WT:AN, Template talk:Db-meta, and so forth. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTDIR and TV schedules

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Can someone explain to me why exactly these articles, List of United States network television schedules, are an exception to NOTDIR and shouldn't be deleted, they don't seem at all historically significant, have little to no commentary about the schedules and minimal sourcing, not to mention the american bias.--Jac16888 (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I support keeping these lists; the lack of consensus to delete them sort of parallels the lack of consensus to delete glossaries -- they are navigational aids and convey useful information for anyone researching the topic of historical television. Fletcher (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In answer to Masem, the fact that most of these lists are unsourced is a good indicator that they are synthesis. As regards his point of view that that these lists somehow contain encyclopedic content, I think he may confusing an realiable secondary sources whose subject matter is TV schedules with summaries of trivial information. These schedules are basically a summary of a summary; the TV schedules are one step removed from the notable subjects of the television programes and TV networks which they are derived from; the lists themselves are once removed from the TV schedules.
    Although Masem argues that they are "highly specific schedules", in reality these lists of TV schedules are non-encyclopedic stuff that is far removed from the context, commentary, analysis or criticism that an encyclopedic article would be expected to contain. The fact that notability for each schedule is unproven means that there is no defence against the charge that they fail WP:NOT#DIR. His analogy that "we can outline what areas a certain chain store may operate" is misleading; what these lists are like is similar to listing what time a store is open, or what we can expect to find in their stock shelves.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I also support keeping these lists based on there being no consensus to remove, as shown in many AFDs. And as Pixelface's links show, there was also a consensus specifically for saying there may be an exception for historical listings. I pretty much agree with Masem's reasoning for the usefulness of these lists. Bill (talk|contribs) 12:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just checking

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At WP:Update, I list only the changes that arguably change the meaning of the guideline. "... good definition and description of a subject ..." was changed to "... good definition and description of one topic ...", but the following paragraph seems more definitive on this point: "... encyclopedia articles do not usually contain multiple distinct definitions of a term." So, was there a change in what we're recommending? If not, I'll leave it out of the update. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting PLOT

Latest comment: 15 years ago42 comments10 people in discussion

There is a good point that Colonel Warden has brought up in response to an AN/I I put on Pixelface for the latest removal of PLOT.

A key issue here is that PLOT, as written, makes a plot-only article the same type of article that would not allowed per the general notability guideline per WP:N since it will lack secondary sources and thus fail that. WP:N is a valid reason to delete an article, but not WP:PLOT. Now, as Col. Warden points out, the main reason PLOT is here is because plot retellings (including character descriptions and the like) are derivative works, and as such can harm the free content mission of WP. However, we know we have to have some plot description to thoroughly cover the work at hand. We also strength the fair use aspect of a derivative plot summary by adding other factors that are academic and educational, such as the development and reception of the work or elements therein. Thus, presuming that PLOT is not present to create reasons to delete articles (leaving that to WP:N) but instead to make sure we are providing minimal but sufficient non-free descriptions of a fictional work and in context of the encyclopedia, maybe we need to reconsider calling it PLOT, and, as Col. Warden suggested, considering it as a means to avoid excessive copyright issues from the standpoint of free content (not, and I repeat not, from any legal standpoint; we should not worry about the copyright cops, only the philosophy of free content).

Col. Warden suggests a NOTCOPY, but maybe this is better spelled out like it is: Wikipedia is not a collection of extensive derivative works (DERWORKS for the time being). The ideas remain the same: plot summaries are concise, and we want such augmented with secondary information. However, an article that is presently a extensive derivative work of a work of fiction can nearly always be fixed

Mind you, this still leaves articles that may contain a concise plot, but only a concise plot, as ripe for deletion through WP:N (pending a possible FICT rewrite that has been floating around). I don't see any way of directly separating what may happen from WP:N from PLOT, or DERWORKS, or whatever - WP:N asserts a plot summary of any time cannot exist alone. I think we're always going to have this perceived overlap that occurs for articles on fiction. I agree that we should ween the use of PLOT/DERWORKS as a reason for deletion -- though certainly cleanup is necessary.

To the point: an article that has extensive plot summary will fail this reworked guideline - that doesn't mean deletion, it means trimming the fat of the long summary and adding some context to dilute the use of the summary for academic and education goals. This doesn't prevent a deletion challenge from WP:N, but should prevent articles from being deleted outright due to failing WP:PLOT/DERWORKS. --MASEM 18:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think is probably a more concise way of saying what has generally been practice all along. That is, we've always had overlap between WP:NOTE and WP:PLOT about the existence of articles that are just plot summaries, not matter how short the summary is. I think rewording the the section will help keep editors from using both in tangent when they are proposing an article for deletion (as is often down with the current WP:PLOT).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Derivative works is something of a legal term of art that, I think, would require some explication (or linkage) and thus be less accessible or comprehensible to editors. "Extensive" is also a troublesome adjective, as I can imagine editors disagreeing if a given article is too much of a derivative work (is "extensive" an absolute number of words, or relative to the size of the fictional work, or relative to the size of our Wikipedia article, or what?) . In addition, I don't feel much better about extensive retellings of public domain plots; I think the underlying problem is a failure to summarize and condense information into an encyclopedic article, balanced with other aspects besides the plot. So personally I favor NOTPLOT as it is now. Nevertheless, perhaps there should be clarification as to the scope of WP:NOT -- that is, it's intended to apply to article content, not the article topic, and violations of WP:NOT only require modifying the content (in the worst cases, that may require a merge or delete if there is no other content to save, but WP:NOT doesn't require that per se.) Fletcher (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
If WP:PLOT is not a valid reason to delete an article, it doesn't belong in this policy. This is a list of things Wikipedia is not, "content not suitable for Wikipedia" — referred to in WP:DEL#REASON. And WP:PLOT as it is currently written, is just an attempt to shove "notability" into policy. PLOT WAS NOT ADDED TO THIS POLICY BECAUSE OF ANY CONCERN WITH DERIVATIVE WORKS. That is not the reason PLOT is here Masem. I would tell you to ask Hiding himself, but he hasn't edited in a month. Email Mike Godwin yourself if you're so concerned about fair use and derivative works. He'll tell you the same thing he told Father Goose in February: said "You're missing the fact that we are not receiving DMCA takedown letters regarding plot summaries, and that plot summaries, in general, are not taken to be copyright infringement so long as they do not include any great degree of the original creative expression." You say derivative works "can harm the free content mission of WP", yet you continue to ignore that WP:PLOT poses a conflict of interest. Wikipedia, a non-profit project, has no business having a policy that encourages editors to ship fiction content off Wikipedia to Wikia, a for-profit website founded by the same person who founded Wikipedia. A policy that forbids, on Wikipedia, content used to build Wikia and generate a profit for Jimbo Wales, can and may harm the non-profit status of Wikipedia itself. --Pixelface (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
You do realize I am trying to help address your concern that PLOT is being used as a reason for deletion when it is only a content guideline? You are not helping your case. --MASEM 21:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
So perhaps a move of WP:PLOT to WP:WAF would be in order? --Pixelface (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know - I believe there's a content policy that has to stay here. The point I've been trying to make is that regardless of the existence of PLOT or wherever it sits, articles that only have plot and nothing else are going to end up at the AFD queue due to WP:N - we can't avoid that, PLOT or no PLOT (and the RFC on WP:N suggests we cannot weaken the GNG in any SNG, so a new version of FICT isn't going to make plot-only articles workable). Ignore this case for now, leaving us with the other type of articles that PLOT generally targets, those that are (x)% plot and (100-x)% out-of-universe detail. (X is uncertain, but I'd say its not much less than 50% - however, I dare not put an exact number to it simply as that would allow gaming of the system both ways). These articles should never be deleted on the grounds of WP:N (though there are cases where combining or merging articles produces a better result - but that's not because of notability), but when the plot outweighs what can be said about the out-of-universe stuff, trimming and condensing is the preferred option. That's why this is a content aspect - it's about how such articles are approached, and not about if they are worthy to be on WP. The unfortunate side effect of the goal of balancing in- and out-of-universe details is that an plot-only article, even if it is a wonderfully written, concise plot, is going to have its sights set on by WP:N, but under the presumption that PLOT asserts deletion; there's a logical fallacy here that isn't apparent until you look at the problem.
Elsewhere on the page you claim that PLOT is an attempt to shoehorn WP:N into policy. Digging deeper, you can see that WP:N, created in Sept 06, was, around Nov 2006 has the inklings of the current wording (see, for example [3]) - note that it was independent sources, but nothing on secondary - this morphed over the next 7 months to May 2007, this edit that introduced the word "secondary" (though clearly the changes were going there); this has stuck pretty much since. Now, what this has to do with PLOT is that, as has been pointed out, is that it was added to here in July 2006, before the current notability guidelines were developed. If anything, to me, PLOT may have influenced WP:N, not the other way around. Now, given that, we are all a little older and a little wiser - we know that PLOT, as part of NOT, should never be a reason to delete things and it may be a matter of fixing the wording, educating those that use PLOT (and not WP:N) for deletion reasons, and the like.
Now, let me tie this all up for what I feel is the working solution here. The key word in all these policies is should, not must. There is flexibility, an WP:IAR-type consider, that needs to be made for fiction articles. The RFC on WP:N even suggests that there's a class of limited exceptions where a plot-only article makes sense in light of WP:N that it won't get deleted. This still means the article should strive to meet PLOT's request for concise summary of the works, and that there are going to be plot-only articles that fall outside of the case of limited exceptions. That doesn't mean we don't cover those topics, just that we cover them in light of the work itself instead of as a separate entity which makes everyone's lives happier. This is why I am strongly behind the effort to try to make sure lists of characters and episodes are considered hands-off from WP:N - these are perfect homes for concise summaries (per PLOT) of elements that would otherwise be targeted by WP:N but can be targets of redirection pages and thus be searchable, making sure that all aspects of a fictional work are still covered. To use your examples, of course we should have descriptions of Yoda, Baldrick, and Cosette; I would even argue fairly that each of them should have an article based on WP:N, but these are the types of articles that I assert PLOT is meant to address - each is excessive in plot information but they can be fixed. (I will say Baldrick is missing some secondary sources, but I'm pretty confident that they do exist, I'd even check my own DVD copy of Blackadder to verify that if push came to shove). But then (to peruse the AFDs for fictional characters) articles like Gary oak's cheerleaders are the type that even if they could be cleaned up to meet PLOT's need for concise plot details, will still be targeted by AFD. That doesn't mean WP can never mention Gary Oak's cheerleaders - just that they would be mentioned as part of Gary Oak's character, with a redirect to that.
So to restate what I'm trying to get this: PLOT should only be used to help trim and cleanup articles that are plot-heavy, including plot-only articles. Unfortunately, running at the same time is the fact that WP:N will be used to delete plot-only articles - we just need to ween people off of the mistaken premise that they fail PLOT thus must be deleted, and that might require restating the need for PLOT or something else. When you take PLOT being used for deletion out of the equation, and only consider PLOT as a means to keep plot summaries concise and ideally with out-of-universe information, I think its clear this reflects current practices and is part of the policy. There is a way we can cover all aspects of a fictional work (including all characters and all episodes) while staying true to covering the work from an encyclopedic manner, and understanding that PLOT's goal of keeping the plot descriptions to a reasonable minimum is part of that. It's a matter of making sure that this approach meets with WP:N (and more specifically the results of the recent RFC on it) so that we don't discount fiction as something that some takes as "not wanted here" approach. We should be inclusive, but also smart about we include material. --MASEM 23:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that was long, let me state this clearly. I think that PLOT - in the aspect that plot details should be concise and should be married with out-of-universe content - and absolutely not as a reason for deletion - is an aspect under the mission and five pillars, and thus moving it away from one of the key policy pages to a guideline (WAF) weakens it. However, the key words are should - there is flexibility in it that, if we can get everyone to agree to limited exceptions per WP:N, that allow for a good complete coverage of a fictional work that is appropriate for WP's goals and other topics of interest. --MASEM 23:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I more or less agree, although I am somewhat puzzled by your view that PLOT should remain, but should also not be considered a reason for deletion. PLOT can be a reason for deletion; but it must be understood a reason is not a requirement, and can be strong or weak depending on context. The deletion policy specifically asks editors to consider if the article can be improved. Similarly, WP:NOTSCANDAL can be a reason for deletion, but if an offending article can be revised to meet WP:BLP, we don't have to delete. I'm not seeing a reason to single out PLOT for revision. Fletcher (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The starting point is that NOT is a content guideline - it doesn't say anything about articles, but only on how topics are approached (mirroring this, WP:N is about the worthiness of an article given a topic, but doesn't say how the topic should be covered once there, leaving it to other policies). An article failing any part of NOT should be attempted to clean up first - even if a full article is used as a SOAPBOX for example, that doesn't mean something more comprehensive could be scavenged. Only once a good-faith effort at cleanup has been attempted and it is clear that the article still fails NOT (likely because the article would otherwise end up empty after removing the failing NOT material) should deletion be considered per WP:DP. So, technically yes, PLOT can be a reason for deletion, but it should only be one if no way to get the article to meet PLOT has been able to be found. But, I would think that a majority of the time, content in articles that are claimed to be failing PLOT can be merged elsewhere - rarely is deletion of the content itself outright needed, just the fact it was kept in a separate article. --MASEM 13:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, there's no disagreement. Fletcher (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The policy in question is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." So what do plot summaries have to do with that? Articles that are plot-only are not necessarily all going to be nominated for deletion. WP:N advises that topics should be notable, all because the term "non-notable" was frequently used as a reason to delete in past deletion discussions. WP:N lists evidence of notability, evidence of notability for any topic, evidence of notability that is accepted by nearly every editor as far as I know. But that is not the only evidence of notability.
The RFC on N suggests that Randomran should avoid creating any RFCs in the future, or, at least, it suggests Randomran needs to let other people edit the thing before it goes live. If PLOT is a style issue (and back in April many people said it was) it belongs in WAF. I removed PLOT from NOT in April saying it belongs in WAF, and you reverted me. There is no logical fallacy here. There is you, and your colossal lack of understanding. The current language of PLOT *is* an attempt to shoehorn "notability" into policy. It says "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works." Since this is list of things that Wikipedia is not, any mention of "notability" in WP:NOT is an attempt to make "notability" a policy. PLOT may have influenced N, N may have influenced PLOT -- who knows -- PLOT and the first summary of SNGs came from one editor, Hiding, who has now pleaded that PLOT be removed from this policy.
I don't know why you wrote so much, when you could have just said "How about we add "An article being plot-only is not a reason for deletion" to WP:PLOT?" But adding that would totally contradict "Articles are not simply...plot summaries." In order to educate those that cite PLOT in their AFD nominations, you have to remove PLOT from NOT — because NOT is a reason for deletion. And you still don't understand WP:N and I'm starting to think you never will. Which is pretty sad since you've been an administrator for nearly a year now.
It doesn't matter if articles like Gary oak's cheerleaders are nominated for deletion. If someone nominates it for deletion, they think Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. The community then has a discussion on whether they think Wikipedia should have the article or not. But when an article like Uther the Lightbringer is nominated for deletion, and both of the editors who argued to delete cite PLOT, and the article is deleted, and on November 7, 2008 Uther the Lightbringer is a featured article on WowWiki (the biggest wiki on Wikia), and whenever someone does a Google search for "Uther the Lightbringer", instead of seeing the Wikipedia article as the first hit, they see the Wikia article and no Wikipedia article whatsoever, the result is that Wikia's revenues go up. Jimbo Wales makes a profit, all because of a Wikipedia policy that benefits Wikia.
Now, I don't know how notable that character is. I've played Warcraft 2 and I don't remember him. I've never played Warcraft 3 or World of Warcraft or Wrath of the Lich King. Those who have would know more than me. But if the article is going to be deleted, let it be because of the fickle opinion of Wikipedia editors, not because of a policy telling them to delete articles about fictional characters that are just plot summaries. Not because of a policy on Wikipedia that increases Wikia's revenue.
With WP:PLOT as a policy on Wikipedia, Wikia doesn't have to spend any money on marketing because WP:PLOT disallows plot-only articles on Wikipedia, articles about fictional characters on Wikipedia are more often than not plot-only, and Wikia is built on fiction content. I know you weren't listed as an involved party of E&C2, but I also know you made 34 edits to the E&C2 /Workshop, the 17th most edits out of 86 unique editors. Count how many times Wikia is plugged there. It's really no suprise that WowWiki is the biggest wiki on Wikia, after AFDs like this. Now count how many times WowWiki is plugged there. Surprise surprise, the reason for deletion cited PLOT. Look at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. Count how many times Wikia is plugged there. Are you seeing a pattern yet?
If PLOT should only be used to trim and cleanup articles that are plot-heavy, it does not belong in this policy. This policy lists things that are unacceptable on Wikipedia. You say "we need to ween people off the mistaken premise that they fail PLOT thus must be deleted." Then you must remove PLOT from NOT. I don't know how many more times I can say it. When you remove PLOT from NOT, *then* you take PLOT being used for deletion out of the equation. If PLOT is just meant to influence editors to keep plot summaries "concise", it doesn't belong here. And where is the evidence that editors read PLOT and actually do trim articles that are plot-heavy because of it? We do not allow propaganda on Wikipedia as long as it's "concise." We do not allow advertising on Wikipedia as long as it's "concise." One of these things is not like the other, and it's PLOT. --Pixelface (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You have yet to show evidence that directing content specifically to Wikia is a COI on Wales' part. Sure, it makes sense not to promote any one service over another if users are going to relocate material (and thus Wikia is not mentioned in any policy or guideline pages that I'm aware of), but as long as users voluntarily move content that is inappropriate for WP to Wikia and not under any cohersion by WP itself, I cannot see a COI. If you think there is, you should point this out to Mike Godwin because it would be a very important legal issue to consider (ie should we ever mention any type of transwiking).
In the example you give, as I tried to point out above, PLOT is one of the reasons for deletion, but it is not the only reason for deletion - it cites notability and a whole bunch of other reasons. The reason effectively states: "this article fails the notability guidelines, and its content and style are so far from established norms that it likely cannot be rescued, thus should be deleted". PLOT is a content guideline with a hint of style (it mentions conciseness but does not spell it out - other projects do spell this out in their MOS like the films one). As with every single other NOT clause (all based on content), if you have an article that violates that content, and you cannot rework that content to avoid NOT issues, then that content should be deleted - if that ends up deleting the article, well, that's a reason for deletion. --MASEM 02:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Masem, this policy page mentions Wikia. It has mentioned Wikia for over a year and a half — from before you even became an administrator. Paranoid added Future Wikia to WP:NOT#CRYSTAL on May 21, 007, and except for a few pageblanks by vandals, it has remained in this policy to this day. Ixfd64 added Scratchpad Wiki Labs to WP:NOT#BLOG on June 6, 2007, and except for a few pageblanks by vandals, it has remained in this policy to this day. And the word is spelled "coercion." Nobody is "coerced" to move content to Wikia, but if a Wikipedia policy says content X is not allowed on Wikipedia but that Wikia explicitly welcomes it, what do you think is going to happen? I've emailed Mike Godwin again.
WP:FICT also used to mention Wikia explicitly. For 7 months, from August 2007 to March 2008. It was added to FICT by Deckiller on August 10, 2007[4], removed a few times by pageblanking vandals, then removed by White Cat on March 8, 2008[5], reverted by Sgeureka[6], and then finally removed on March 8, 2008 by Sceptre[7] (although the guideline still mentioned Wookieepedia at the time). FICT continued to mention Wookieepedia until some edits around April Fool's Day 2008[8][9][10][11], but FICT continued to mention Wookieepedia until November 21, 2008, when Phil Sandifer imported his userspace proposal to FICT.
FICT explicitly mentioned Wikia from August 10, 2007 to March 8, 2008. PLOT contained a link to WP:FICT during this time, except a few short times when it was removed. As far as I can tell, the link to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) was first added to PLOT by Elonka on May 17, 2007. It was removed a few times when vandals pageblanked this policy. But also:
  • August 9, 2007, Deckiller moved the link to FICT down within the PLOT section [12]
  • September 9, 2007, G.A.S removed the link to FICT [13]
  • November 28, 2007, Father Goose edited PLOT, including a link to FICT [14]
  • November 28, 2007, Ned Scott reverted, so the link to FICT was gone [15]
  • November 29, 2007, Ursasapien edited PLOT, including a link to FICT [16]
  • December 2, 2007, Ned Scott edited PLOT, removing the link to FICT [17]
  • December 2, 2007, Wikidemon reverted [18]
  • December 3, 2007, Ned Scott edited PLOT, removing the link to FICT [19]
  • December 21, 2007, Ned Scott edited PLOT, adding a link to FICT [20]
  • December 21, 2007, Arcayne edited PLOT, removing the link to FICT [21]
  • December 21, 2007, Ned Scott edited PLOT, adding a link to FICT [22]
During the time that FICT explicitly mentioned Wikia for 7 months (from August 10, 2007 to March 8, 2008), PLOT had a link to FICT the entire time except September 9 to November 28 and December 3 to December 21. From then on, PLOT continued to link to FICT until I removed PLOT for the first time on March 10, 2008. As far as I can tell, the link to FICT was finally removed from PLOT on May 12, 2008 by Hiding. PLOT currently links to WP:WAF, which links to Wikia multiple times in the "Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles" section — like 24.wikia, buffy.wikia, dcanimated.wikia, dragonball.wikia, dnd.wikia, finalfantasy.wikia, harrypotter.wikia, marvel.wikia, Memory Alpha, starwars.wikia, WowWiki, runescape.wikia, etc. In fact, WAF has mentioned alternative outlets (like Wookieepedia) since it was created on March 27, 2006 until now. This is a problem. Those "alternative outlets" are quickly becoming blatant substitutes. Are we here to write an encyclopedia or write articles and watch them be deleted off Wikipedia and put on Wikia because Wikipedia policy and guideline plugs Jimbo's for-profit website?
The only way to "fail" the notability guidelines is to not be notable. But notability is a subjective opinion, a perception. There are various levels of notability. And the perception differs from person to person, place to place, and time to time. You said "if you have an article that violates that content, and you cannot rework that content to avoid NOT issues, then that content should be deleted." But people are arguing to keep plot-only articles like Fictional history of Spider-Man [23][24], List of minor EastEnders characters [25], and Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) [26]. There's no consensus that plot-only articles don't belong on Wikipedia.
No policy or guideline on Wikipedia should say "Put this on Wikipedia, put that on Wikia." But WP:NOT currently does. And PLOT encourages people to nominate articles about fictional characters for deletion, fictional characters that in all likelihood appear on Wikia. PLOT currently links to WAF, which explicitly plugs Wikia. Reception information is not a requirement for articles on Wikipedia. It's just that if an article contains analysis, it should be attributed to a published source. --Pixelface (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning specific examples of non-WP wikis for purposes of where information may be more appropriate (specific for future history at Future Wikia and Star Wars at Wookiepedia) is not the same as stating that any inappropriate content for WP should be moved to Wikia. Now, I do know at one point, the proposed FICT contained a specific mention of moving content to Wikia (no specific example) which was removed per concerns and changed to "any GDFL compat wiki". Further, this point seems have to been discovered over and over before (see here) and again, the conclusion is that translocation of inappropriate content to GDFL is completely appropriate, we shouldn't name any specific service though as part of that. Mind you, we will see what Mike Godwin says, but my reading of the previous topics suggest that as long as we don't mention the Wikia service for the generic move case, we're not in any COI case.
Plot-only articles are ok as long as the larger coverage of the topic is not plot only. That is, it seems perfectly acceptable to have episode lists and character lists as with the Spider-man and Eastenders cases because the works themselves are notable and those would be reasonable content as part of their coverage. There is cleanup issues per PLOT since these are not concise and they should better meet WP:V, but deletion doesn't make sense. Again, I've tried to explain the very subtle but significant different between the content issues of PLOT and the inclusion/deletion issues of WP:N - and how the general results of AFD for articles on fiction work out (lists of non-notable topics are accepted, which include character lists, episode lists and its variants - which include what you point out for Spider-man and Eastenders - but single non-notable characters and episodes are not.) --MASEM 06:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Not commenting on this whole thing, but Wikia content is a substitute for Wikipedia content. Wikia is a substitute for Wikipedia editors. Whether or not WP:NOT says "wikipedia doesn't host plot summaries" doesn't matter. Memory Alpha competes with wikipedia for a number of reasons. Among them are policies on wikipedia that limit content which would be allowed on Memory Alpha. But less bureaucracy, fewer editors, stronger focus, more control, looser fair use rules, and others all play a large part in why they compete for editors and readers. I don't agree that wikipedia guidelines should be rewritten solely out of concern that we are losing editors and readers to wikia. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not WP:NOT forbids plot-only articles does matter. You said "Memory Alpha competes with wikipedia for a number of reasons. Among them are policies on wikipedia that limit content which would be allowed on Memory Alpha." WP:PLOT is that policy. PLOT is that bureacracy you refer to. I haven't proposed removing PLOT because we are losing editors and readers to Wikia. We are losing articles to Wikia. But the policy/guideline push of content to Wikia is just of many reasons PLOT should not be in this policy — the most important being, there is no consensus that plot-only articles don't belong on Wikipedia. Articles like Fictional history of Spider-Man, articles like Storylines of EastEnders (2000s), articles like George (Blackadder character). The William Riker article doesn't conform to the current language of PLOT — so you can check that one off in the Memory Alpha column. It's PLOT that's incorrect. --Pixelface (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
PLOT is among the reasons. But is isn't like we can just remove WP:PLOT and then everyone will come back from wikia. It isn't like some intransigent batch of deletionists inserted PLOT (and WAF and N) in order to drive articles and editors away. These happen to represent community standards for articles and content. Removing the language from PLOT does change those standards, it just eliminates the force of policy behind them. But even if we magically changed community standards such that PLOT no longer reflected them, those editors (which are the really important part) aren't coming back. The articles I could give a shit about, frankly. If an article goes to Hammerwiki and later we decide that it may meet the guidelines for inclusion, it is pretty trivial to transwiki it back. The editors--the irreplaceable resource--aren't coming back. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I already told you, I don't care about losing editors to Wikia. I don't care if someone decides to work for free at Jimmy's for-profit wiki and volunteers to fill his wallet. What I do take issue with, is editors who want to make it so all TV episode articles, all fictional character articles, anything and everything related to fiction — is relegated to Wikia. Some people want to write about those topics on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not Wikia. They don't want to go from volunteering at a library to volunteering at Walmart. Hiding proposed PLOT based on WAF, and based on some articles related to the Comics WikiProject. Comic books are just one of tons of different topics related to fiction. Over 1 in 4 articles on Wikipedia fall under Category:Fiction.
The tragedy is, I'm sure Hiding, and Amcaja, and Radiant! had good intentions when they created PLOT and WAF and N. But they are now gone or inactive. Those pages have formed this bureaucracy that is not conducive to a collaborative volunteer project. They don't really represent community standards. Six people agreed to make PLOT policy. Six people. Sixteen people agreed to make WAF a guideline, during one week in June 2006. Radiant! made N a guideline by himself, and then edit-warred over the tag. The only reason anyone thinks they are community standards is their presence on pages marked "policy" and "guideline." I don't care if an editor has left Wikipedia and gone to Wikia and isn't coming back. I can totally understand why they would do such a thing. PLOT is one of those reasons. Snobbery concerning pop culture is another. TTN telling people to go to Wikia is another. Hatred of "fans" is another. But all of Wikipedia was written by fans. Everybody has bias, things they like and don't like, but we are supposed to try and approach things with as little bias as possible.
People who are against articles about Warhammer use policies and guidelines when it suits them, as a cover for their real reasons: "Who gives a shit about Warhammer?", "Only people interested in Warhammer would be interested in Warhammer", "Those people who play Warhammer are fucking dorks", "Nobody cares about Warhammer", etc. And yet the underlying business model of Wikia is built on the knowledge that people do care about Warhammer (or Warcraft, or Star Trek, or Star Wars, or Bleach, or Naruto, or Digimon, or One Piece, or Stargate SG-1, or Xiaolin Showdown, pick your topic), and that fans will work, for free, to write about it. Ditto for any other subject. The people who like to write about Warcraft were driven off Wikipedia long ago. With AFDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters (2nd nomination). Now count how many times PLOT is cited. And now WowWiki is Wikia's biggest wiki — and it's going to be moved under the wikia.com domain name in order to increase Wikia Inc's revenue.[27]
The "guidelines for inclusion" (BIO, BAND, etc) on Wikipedia were made in the first place so teenagers would stop creating articles about themselves and their bands. Then came FICT, then WEB, then NUMBER, then CORP. Then they were renamed "notability" guidelines because an editor (who is no longer here) wanted them to have a consistent naming scheme. The term "non-notable" was, and continues to be, a common reason for deletion in deletion debates. And it usually meant "Well I've never heard of it." The reason the phrase "non-notable" is so successful is that is has so many synonyms: Not worthy of notice. Not famous. Not well-known. Not noted. Not noteworthy. Not significant. Not important. Not remarkable. Not renowned. Not great. Not illustrious. Not prestigious. Not prominent. Not distinguished. Not esteemed. And most are opinions.
You could give a shit about the articles? Really? Then why the hell am I even talking to you? We're here to write articles. Removing PLOT from NOT won't bring any editors back, no. The editors aren't coming back — because of these mindless policies and the brainless people who look at them and decide to dress up like Judge Dredd and "enforce" them as self-styled Wikicops. Removing PLOT is not intended to bring any editors back. PLOT does not have the consensus required to be policy — that is why is must be removed. And the person who proposed PLOT in the first place has asked for it to be removed.
So, you're saying we can take everything that's been moved to Wikia, and transwiki it back to Wikipedia? Now there's an idea... --Pixelface (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Tl;dr. PLOT isn't going anywhere. It doesn't matter that the person who wrote WP:PLOT is gone now. No one, outside of a small group of editors seems to be interested in treating PLOT as a conspiracy to drive revenue to Wikia. I don't care why people are "for" or "against" warhammer articles--it certainly stretches WP:AGF to assume that they mean "Warhammer is for nerds" when they say "this ludicrously parochial sub article on warhammer fails WP:PLOT". I don't know why you are talking to me. I'll repeat I don't care about losing or gaining articles. Articles are just words. Article writers are the important ingredient. If we delete an article I can undelete on request. We can even create an article from a version on wikia and just place the wikia page history in a talk page sub-page (can't physically import it, but it meets the GFDL). That's trivial. Continually remarking, in every forum possible that PLOT has no consensus doesn't make it so. Protonk (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
How many words would you like me to use? I have never claimed that PLOT is a "conspiracy to drive revenue to Wikia." But PLOT does drive content (and revenue) to Wikia, and it encourages it. Do you see the difference? PLOT, which is now protected for a month, links to WAF and WAF lists Wikia sites multiple times. In the past, PLOT has linked to FICT, and FICT mentioned Wikia from August 2007 to March 2008 — during E&C1 and E&C2 — after Deckiller, who is a bureaucrat and admin on annex.wikia.com[28][29], added the Wikia link to FICT.
Wikipedia's greatest strength and greatest weakness is that anyone with Internet access can create an article on anything they want and edit any article they want. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. So if someone wants to make a "ludicrously parochial sub-article" on a species of prehistoric bird from North America, they can. Especially if they donated to Wikipedia after reading the appeal from Jimmy Wales who said "We share a common cause: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's our commitment." Article writers shouldn't have to deal with people saying "This belongs on birds.wikia.com, not Wikipedia." The same can be said about fictional characters. If a fictional character is well-known, an editor should be allowed to create an article about the character — and it will contain a plot summary.
I don't know what's worse — if someone says "Warhammer is for nerds" or if someone insists on a dogmatic reliance on some words written by an anonymous stranger on the Internet and called "policy" because six people out of 8 million agreed to it, saying an article written long before those six people agreed to it now "fails" that "policy" — in this case, PLOT. At least the first person is being honest about their opinion. The second person can hide any bias they may have about a subject under the guise of "policy." If PLOT is driving article writers from Wikipedia to Wikia, and it is, and article writers are the important ingredient as you say, PLOT should stay? I know that saying PLOT has no consensus to be policy doesn't make it so. Multiple people saying PLOT shouldn't be in this policy makes it so. Multiple people questioning whether there was ever consensus to add PLOT to this policy in the first place makes it so. Thread after thread after thread in these talkpage archives questioning PLOT since it was proposed in Archive 6 makes it so. The person who proposed PLOT asking for it to be removed from this policy makes it so. There being no consensus to delete plot-only articles nominated for deletion makes it so. Six? people out of 8 million loosely agreeing among themselves to make something a policy (in this case Hiding, JzG, Will Beback, Rossami, MartinRe, and Deckiller), and ten people (Bignole, Cameron Scott, Collectonian, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Jack Merridew, Masem, Moreschi, S@bre, Sceptre, and Sgeureka) reverting four people who have removed it from policy (Colonel Warden, Hiding, Hobit, and Pixelface) since March does not a consensus make. --Pixelface (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Your contention that PLOT is designed to drive people to Wikia is a fiction, as is your contention that PLOT has no consensus. You may use as many words as you like so long as you make them count. Protonk (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say PLOT was designed to drive people to Wikia. Right now that appears to me to be an unintended consequence. In April, the editor who proposed PLOT said "I proposed WP:PLOT. The intention was that it be used as a tool to improve articles away from being plot, rather than a tool to delete articles about plot." And I personally have read PLOT and improved articles based on what it says, many many many times. In July, the editor who proposd PLOT suggested a wide reaching poll. In November, the editor who proposed PLOT pleaded for it to be removed. But PLOT has been latched onto by parties of E&C1 and E&C2 because TTN "enforces" PLOT.
As to whether there is consensus for PLOT to be in this policy, I can give you links to all the threads in the archives about PLOT since it was proposed, or you can look yourself in the archives for the word "plot" starting at /Archive 6. Unless you want those links, I don't I have anything else to say in this thread at this time. --Pixelface (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If you like, I will start a policy RfC on the question of PLOT's inclusion in WP:NOT. Protonk (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
You could, but there's a disagreement. I started an RFC on PLOT almost a year ago on January 30, 2008 and no change to this policy came of it. I removed PLOT the first time in March 2008 and two threads resulted, /Archive 17#Plot and /Archive 18#Suggested change to PLOT. My interpretation of those threads was that there was no consensus for PLOT to remain in NOT, so I removed PLOT on April 16 and I was reported to AIV for vandalism. On April 24, I explained my removal of PLOT in this thread and started another RFC on PLOT at that time. One disagreement that came up was that I felt there needed to be consensus that PLOT should remain in this policy, another editor felt there needed to be consensus that PLOT should be removed. I think that issue needs to be settled before another RFC on PLOT is attempted. If you're interested about the threads in the archives, I've created a subthread below. --Pixelface (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we need some version of NOT PLOT, but I have never seen a wording that would succeed in demarcating the appropriate and the inappropriate content even to my own satisfaction, let alone to that of any reasonable consensus of Wikipedians in general. Policy is meant to be something that has very general agreement, and the one think I think we can definitely say about this section, is that is does not have the necessary degree of general agreement--not as much as the rest of the page does. It therefore does not belong in policy. The very most agreement there seems to be is to call it a disputed guideline. What's the point in saying "almost everyone agrees" when it is clear from reading the extensive archives of this and the other related pages that this agreement is not present. if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If a good faith argument supported by reasonable and experienced people here can be made that something is not accepted policy, then whatever the merits of it, it is not accepted policy. DGG (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I generally agree with User:DGG on this subject. It seems clear that some amount of plot summary is necessary for wikipedia to have adequate coverage of works of fiction. What is an appropriate amount of summary? That's a very hard question to answer without reference to specifics. Therefore, any rules we have on the subject should, I think, be guideline rather than policy. And they should be dealt with in a manner where it's understood that different fictional topics merit different levels of discussion, where particularly important and large works may in fact merit articles that consist entirely of plot summary, especially where there is too much plot to cover in adequate detail in the work's main article. I would say also that a plot-only article is a reasonable stub for any notable work, with the understanding that it will later be expanded (at the very least by addition of a critical reception section, which all fictional works should have, IMO). JulesH (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In answer to DGG, WP:NOT#PLOT is simple to understand: plot summaries on their own are just not encyclopedic, as they are merely a transcription of flap copy that you can get on the back of any book, DVD or TV guide. On its own, plot summary lacks the real-world analysis, context, or criticism that an encyclopedic treatment of a fictional topic requires. Unless there is some compelling argument along the lines that plot summaries on their own are somehow superior to articles that provide encyclopedic coverage, I don't think removing WP:NOT#PLOT or claiming that it is disputed is correct, even if a lot of editors like writing artilces made of only plot summary to the exclusion of all other coverage. In all the discussions to date about plot summaries, I have not seen any arguments or proposals that that elininating WP:NOT#PLOT would actually improve article quality, because there does not seem to a superior alternative to treating fictional work in an encyclopedic way. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
PLOT is not intended to tell you how to find the right balance, just that there is a balance to be found. PLOT sets a lower bound, precluding content that is nothing but plot summary. But it does not forbid plot summary!
If WP:WAF tells you which is the salad fork when you sit down to dinner with your in-laws, PLOT just tells you not to sit down at the table naked. Fletcher (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It forbids plot summary on its own, in large or small amounts. To use your analogy, WP:NOT#PLOT tells you not to sit down at the table naked, even if you use a fig leaf hide your lack of coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a plot summary as currently written permits a brief synopsis drawn form secondary sources, but indicates against lengthy plot summaries written directly from observation of the original work of fiction. That's just a common sense application of other policies (WP:V/WP:RS/WP:NOR). A lot of plot summaries on Wikipedia rely exclusively on the observation and judgement of Wikipedia editors as to what constitutes a significant plot element, because they are drawn from the original by direct observation. That is not how we are supposed to work, and it's not a surprise to me that a number of people find it a problem. Masem's right in that the guidance here is stylistic and applies mainly to content within an encyclopaedic article, but equally if an article consists solely of a plot summary then if belongs somehwere else, and that's been the way it's handled for a long time. Wikipedia is not Cliff's notes, after all. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Cliff's Notes represent the essentials of a topic such as a Shakespeare play and have a clear educational purpose in distilling such a work. They are therefore a good model for our coverage which is likewise intended to be an educational summary of topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Except that 90% of a Cliff's Notes booklet is interpretation and analysis of the work (and most of the time unsourced). From an education standpoint, yes, that's great, but we can't write articles as Cliff's Notes without the secondary sources to back up the analysis of the work. Furthermore, while there is an educational value in how Cliff's Notes gives this information, that type of coverage is not the same as the education value sought for encyclopedic articles; even if deeply sourced we shouldn't be providing a lengthy interpretation and analysis of a work of fiction but we can provide a summary of what others have stated are themes, allegories, allusions, and other aspects that are described in more detail such as in Cliff's Notes. --MASEM 11:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see An appeal from Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales where he says again, "But Wikipedia is more than a website. We share a common cause: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's our commitment." Notice that he doesn't say "except for fiction". We cover other topics, such as medicine, mathematics and geography, in great detail and it is our commitment to do the same for fiction too. The extent to which we summarise and break out topics is only subject to the availability of reasonable sources which allow the content to be verified. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No one is saying that we limit coverage of fiction, and in fact I do believe that some editors' current views on limiting fiction even further than what is now going on is too far in the wrong direction. We should be as inclusive as possible, but as you state above, how much we discuss such topics is only subject to the availability of reasonable sources which allow the content to be verified. For the majority of fictional works (particularly contemporary), the only sources available are the primary works. Does this mean we don't cover these? Of course not, we should be covering these, but we have to realize that for many of these topics, there is a wall that we can write to and go no further to avoid original research and other issues (which unfortunately a large fraction of our body of fiction articles do).
  • PLOT is a small part of a much larger problem that requires us to almost reset notability, inclusion, and the like to meet what, to me, seems like the happy medium. Part of this is recognizing that PLOT says nothing about plot-only articles, only plot-only topics. "Articles" and "topics" are two very different things, but unfortunately there's a lot of editors that use them synonymously. If WP was a paper encyclopedia, "topic" and "article" would be synonymous, as a topic would have a single (possibly very large) article about it, and for a work of fiction, this would likely include the characters, episodes, and other aspects of the fictional work, all cross-referenced in the index for easy searching. There's no reason we can't have the same on the electronic version as long as we recognize that per WP:SIZE that very long articles are inappropriate and that we split content into supporting articles, using redirects and disambig pages as our cross-referencing. Unfortunately, the "topic"/"article" synonymous approach that many editors take leads to trying to trying treat these subarticles as their own topics. As with our definition of "notability", a lot of what editors take for granted right now is leading us to a bunch of language red tape that we have to write around in order to justify larger coverage of fiction, and unfortunately fixing it is not simply going to be done by removing PLOT, changing WP:N, or any other single change, but instead by completely rethinking how WP organizes content and inclusion guidelines.
  • Until this big reset can be addressed (as it is certainly not trivial and we want to make things as transparent for non-policy-involved editors as possible), we still need to consider current policy and guidelines. PLOT as it stands right now says that we don't cover a work of fiction simply by reiterating the plot; it doesn't say anything about "articles". If it can be accepted that subarticles (primary lists, based on the WP:N RFC, though this point still needs hashing out) and the main article on the fictional work summarily combine to be the coverage of that topic, then as long as there is real-world coverage somewhere between those articles, PLOT is satisfied. Works of fiction rarely fail this - if it was published, there's likely a review of it somewhere to satisfy it. Elements of fiction (characters, episodes, etc.) are different, as if they are presented as their own article, then one should expect that the coverage of that element is complete in that article, and needs not to be considered part of the enclosing work's topic. If this is the case, then the element has to stand alone and thus needs to have the real-world aspects to be more than just plot summary derived from the primary source; if not, then the element is likely better covered as part of the work's topic instead as a standalone topic. The key here is that we don't remove the coverage of that element but instead merge it to a more appropriate location such that it is covered in as much as we can with the sources available, redirecting for ease of searching. And of course regardless of it is a work or an element of fiction, we need to recognize that it does take time to perfect an article and thus PLOT's goal is to present cleanup as to expand the coverage of a fiction topic to include more than just a summary of a primary source or to find a place for the content that associates it with existing real-world information in order to make a very comprehensive topic on fiction. PLOT is not meant to exclude anything, just to make sure that we cover fiction in a manner appropriate for the best sources possible for a topic as to maintain the five pillars.
  • Unfortunately, due to the "topic"/"article" closeness, I can see how editors see PLOT as a means of deleting fictional content. This, unfortunately, is due to how WP:N is currently used at the "article" space, even though the RFC on WP:N suggests that certain topic organizations that use list subarticles would allow for a subarticle on a topic to "fail" WP:N but still be allowable per what we want to include. That's why there's this whole mess around fiction, inclusion guidelines, and the works. How we currently do things and the way forward (that I believe satisfies all sides) doesn't require us to change what we are doing, but does require a massive rework of policy to get it exactly write, breaking down some policies and introducing others to make the changeover. That's not going to happen quickly, so the interim solution is to find a wording of PLOT that tries to make it as clear as possible that PLOT is not a reason to delete content (at worst, it merged content to an article with larger scope) and is a reason for cleanup. --MASEM 18:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I just looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica to check its treatment of fiction. Their example of Macbeth is interesting in that, after a brief introduction, it is just plot, written in an in-universe style. For example, here's a paragraph:

Macbeth and Banquo, who are generals serving King Duncan of Scotland, meet the Weird Sisters, three witches who prophesy that Macbeth will become thane of Cawdor, then king, and that Banquo will beget kings. Soon thereafter Macbeth discovers that he has indeed been made thane of Cawdor, which leads him to believe the rest of the prophecy. When King Duncan chooses this moment to honour Macbeth by visiting his castle of Dunsinane at Inverness, both Macbeth and his ambitious wife realize that the moment has arrived for them to carry out a plan of regicide that they have long contemplated. Spurred by his wife, Macbeth kills Duncan, and the murder is discovered when Macduff, the thane of Fife, arrives to call on the king. Duncan's sons Malcolm and Donalbain flee the country, fearing for their lives. Their speedy departure seems to implicate them in the crime, and Macbeth becomes king.

This confirms my previous perusal of an academic treatment of Pride and Prejudice - that it was mostly plot too. Our proscription of plot-heavy articles is thus shown to be mere prejudice - the policy equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The author of WP:PLOT has disowned it now and there is no objective basis for it. It should go. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not convinced that britannica's editing standards should be our gold standard. Nor to I find compelling the bare assertion that the existence of plot summary means that the policy plank constitutes "ILIKEIT". I also suspect that Wikipedia's entry Macbeth provides a better encyclopedic portrait. Protonk (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This example, showing an extremely brief summary, also suggests that that is the extent of coverage of MacBath in the encyclopedia: no separate MacBeth character article, no MacDuff, etc. etc. This would be contrary to what those that would like to see wider fiction coverage would want. I doubt this is the goal here. --MASEM 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comparing the coverage and following links in both places, I notice that we say that the 3 witches in Macbeth are based upon the Norns while Britannica says that they are based upon the Fates (and gives a source). This is the issue that matters - accuracy. This is the essence of our core principles - WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. WP:PLOT is an irrelevance which distracts from our proper business here and so fails WP:IAR. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? Is there some problem with the editing function on that page that prevents you from correcting an error? Is WP:PLOT stopping you from writing that wrong? I don't get it. The Macbeth article seems to have a reasonable amount of plot summary in it, enough to give the reader an understanding so that the other details (history, adaptations, themes, controversies, superstitions) are contextualized. What is the trouble? Should it be all plot summary? Should it be none because we want to maliciously comply with WP:NOT? I also think that you are confusing "rule which stops you from improving wikipedia" with "rule that you disagree with". Also, IAR doesn't say "remove the rule". It says "ignore it". Should you wish to ignore WP:PLOT when improving an article, that is your business. Be advised that others may not see the change as an improvement. Protonk (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PLOT threads in the archives

These are threads related to PLOT (the section on plot summaries in this policy) currently in the archives. Indented threads are subthreads (but I've sorted them by date, not threaded). Threads in italics are related to plot summaries. (Date - Creator - Thread)

--Pixelface (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I've added 24 subthreads to the above. --Pixelface (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

statute versus bureaucracy

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

While well-intentioned, the "not governed by statute" and "not a bureaucracy" sections are redundant. This was a concern when the section was initially proposed. The "statute" section was added more recently. There's something ironic about two rules that both say "avoid having too many rules". Maybe even hypocritical. Although I agree with the underlying spirit of one... both... one. I think we can preserve the shortcuts, and even some of the language from the "statute" one. But all in all, having two "avoid rules" sections is just sloppy and excessive. I'd like to see the sections essentially merged, and I hope we can collaborate on the phrasing. Randomran (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it seems redundant; reading that earlier thread you linked to, I don't agree with Scolaire that there is a need for a new section. Blind adherence to rules is a common symptom of bureaucracy in addition to instruction creep and procedural nitpicking; indeed they are all manifestations of the same top-down mindset. I do like the first two sentences of NOTSTATUTE but the rest is kind of weak. I'd favor subsuming them under NOTBUREAU.
Somewhat ironically, now that the page is protected we need permission from the admins to change the wording about Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy. Fletcher (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I actually laughed out loud. Otherwise, I agree with you 100%. Randomran (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just based on what Fletcher is saying, here's an attempt to merge in the first two sentences of NOTSTATUTE (I agree the rest is weak):

  • Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies, and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

I think that maintains the overall spirit, while reducing redundancy. In fact, this policy would probably call for us to reduce redundancy. Thoughts? Randomran (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  • As compared with the current policy paragraphs, Randomran's version omits two sentences:
  1. Editors and administrators alike should seek to uphold these rules only when doing so would produce a better result for the encyclopedia, never simply because they are "rules".
  2. Insisting that something must (or cannot) be done simply because of policy is a form of wikilawyering.

The first sentence does seem to duplicate the sense of the sentence which has the WP:IAR link and so might go. The second sentence should stay because it provides a useful link and emphasises the point that arguing rules for rules' sake is not just mistaken, it is improper behaviour. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Improper behaviour? Something an editor could be admonished for? What wording would be considered 'insisting that something...' -- would 'fails ....' be improper and wrong then in an edit summary? What does policy mean if policy can't be used as a reason to argue that something should or should not be done. If I admonish someone, or even block them, for breaking our BLP policy, will I be in trouble? Is this in fact rewriting policy? dougweller (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dougweller and Fletcher. The second sentence is unclear and not useful. Moreover, it links to an essay, rather than a policy/guideline. We shouldn't really be promoting essays in policy pages. Randomran (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The tricky thing is that correctly citing policies and guidelines, and arguing rules for rules' sake, are not the same thing, but they might be phrased in much the same way. Only when people explain their thought process do you see whether they are plausibly applying the rules to a situation, or whether they are caught up in enforcing the rule, without considering the ideas behind it. (Though some situations are too obvious to need explanation).
I don't agree with Colonel Warden's view that we should keep that second sentence, but the issue of how to cite or not cite policy seems like it could come up often. Possible additional sentence in bold:
Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law. Although you can cite policies and guidelines in discussions, a rationale is often expected so that others can understand your thought process, particularly in complex or contentious situations. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies, and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
The new sentence would allow citing policy without explanation (e.g. you're dealing with a vandal, why waste your valuable time?). But it suggests appealing to rules without reasoning them out is often not a good practice. Just some thoughts. Fletcher (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems kind of weird to get all meta about "how to cite policy". I'd much rather just drop it. But if we really insist on having a sentence in there about Wikilawyering, let's at least use the wording that's found in other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Gaming the system. "Avoid following an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy." Randomran (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on WP:TRAVEL

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What are editors take on the guideline against TRAVEL? In some place articles, it has become important to tell how the inhabitants travel (infrastructure). This is fine. However, many places do not have significant or sometimes sufficient infrastructure and are required to leave the area for it. How far outside the boundaries (if that is the right question!) should the article go to claim what they believe to be essential descriptions of travel facilities? Should some use by inhabitants be documented? That is, if people supposedly go to inordinate distances to use travel facilities, how credible is it? I had hoped that the guidelines on TRAVEL would make such arguments unnecessary, but this has not proved to be the case.

These editors are not satisfied with articles on metropolitan areas which contain descriptions of all the pertinent infrastructure. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Document the facts, not the implications. Unless sources emerge discussing the problem of transport provision, such matters would be hard to verify and would be highly subjective (consider car owner versus a carless wheelchair user). Let the absence of mention imply the problems to the reader. Note that this issue is not specifically with respect to WP:TRAVEL, which is more with respect to travel guide-like information and highly specific directions. This rule does not preclude appropriate mention of transport infrastructure, only excessive. LinaMishima (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, you tend to believe that transport should be omitted from place articles if not within the boundaries of the place. The "Car owner vs careless wheelchair user" example sounds interesting but I didn't quite understand the reference.Student7 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If I could rewrite PLOT

Latest comment: 15 years ago23 comments10 people in discussion

(Note: I've copied this over from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pixelface as this is a policy discussion, not an issue at the RFC/U, as to garner further discussion -Masem)

"Please do not create articles that are just plot summaries. If you see an article that is just a plot summary, first check if the article is a copyright violation, copied directly from somewhere else. If it is, list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If it's not a copyright violation, if it appears to have been written in an editor's own words, help improve it! Look for sources on Google, Google News, Google Book, or Google Scholar. If a critic or reliable source has written something about the topic, read what they have written, summarize it, add it to the article, and attribute that information to them. Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Try checking the work of fiction out from a library and using it as a source. Articles with just a plot summary really could be better. If you don't have time to improve the article, consider putting a cleanup tag on the article. Wikipedia has over 150,000 active editors. Maybe they know something about the topic that you don't. If you're familiar with a certain area of fiction, help improve that area of fiction.

If you find an article that is just a plot summary, and you don't think Wikipedia should have a separate article on that topic, try proposing a merge of the plot summary into another article on the article talk page. Was it split off from another article that was getting too big? Discuss the merge with other editors. Try making more people aware of the discussion. You could try templates like {{mergenote}} to notify the editors who have made the most edits to the article, which can be found with this tool. If you think a merge might be controversial, try suggesting a merge at Wikipedia:Proposed merges. Endeavour to preserve information. Remember that someone else added that information to Wikipedia because they thought it makes Wikipedia better.

If you don't think a merge is appropriate, and you think Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic, and you think Wikipedia readers or websurers are likely to search for the term, consider turning the article into a redirect. Don't go too fast though; Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. It will still be here tomorrow, and hopefully long after everyone here is gone. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Check "what links here" in the article's sidebar to see what other pages have wikilinks to the article. Editors of those articles may know something about the topic. If you have read the deletion policy and think the article cannot be improved and needs to be deleted, read what to do before nominating it for deletion. When deciding to delete an article from Wikipedia, the question is not whether Wikipedia should have the current article, but whether Wikipedia should have an article about that subject."

I guess some might find that too weak, but I think PLOT should teach new editors how to write better articles — not be used as a bludgeon. We were all new once. With policies we can encourage volunteers to do better and teach them how, or we can lord them over the inexperienced. I know what I think would do more to improve Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but then I guess I'm not one of the folks who needs to be impressed. :) BOZ (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If I'm reading this correctly, Pixelface, this reads that you agree with the core aspect of PLOT - that plot summary-only articles are not appropriate - but you very much dislike the fact that some editors (names need not be named) regularly quote PLOT for AFD without doing any of the legwork recommended in WP:BEFORE before nominating them. If this is truly the case, the issue is more the process issue specifically with AFD than the content issue of plot summaries. This is not to say PLOT can't be rewritten - not as verbose as the above because most of what you describe exists in other policies/guidelines and need not be repeated here - but instead that we should focus on improving the process for when editor propose articles for deletion as to encourage fleshing out and retaining information via merge/redirects rather going for the complete wipe (thus making BEFORE more mandatory, or changing "AFD" into "Articles for Discussion" as to encourage "merge" as a valid decision, two example paths) - and, most importantly, retaining PLOT in NOT. Or, importantly, the process is the problem, not the content guideline. --MASEM 15:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
No, you're not reading it correctly Masem. --Pixelface (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a little verbose. But if I had to summarize it, it sounds like you agree plot-only articles are inappropriate, but that you don't think they're given enough time to float. Maybe the best thing to do is add a generic WP:NOT#DEADLINE. I agree that sometimes people are too eager to delete/merge/redirect articles that could use a month or so to find sources. Randomran (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Plot-only articles are appropriate, as long as the article isn't plagiarised from a copyrighted work. --Pixelface (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • This is confusing, given your own words above that state "Please do not create articles that are just plot summaries." --MASEM 17:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
        • The fact that editors think plot-only articles are appropriate is shown again and again and again at AFDs. Personally I think plot-only articles are okay and so do other editors; it's not just my viewpoint. And it takes little effort to add something to a plot-only article and make it more than plot-only. But a handful of editors appear to be very strongly against plot-only articles — some even going so far as calling the article creators "vandals" — hence the polite request for people to stop creating new plot-only articles. But I didn't propose the above rewrite on this talkpage. It was a reply by me to a comment about rewriting PLOT that Randomran made. You copied my comment here, I asked you to remove it, but I guess Collectonian wants it here now, so here we are. --Pixelface (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
          • For what it's worth, this is a more productive discussion than talking about removing it. But it *is* a discussion we should be having here. (The RFC/U is for behavioral issues.) Randomran (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I still read this to say that you agree to some extent with the spirit of what PLOT is trying to get to, but completely disagree with its use as a tool to push articles to AFD - again, the problem in the process, not so much the final result. There is room to fix the text of PLOT, but I do note that PLOT does not say anything about "plot-only articles", only that the coverage of a topic should be more than just PLOT, which is a lot more leeway that does allow for certain types of plot-only articles as part of the scope of a topic that includes more than just plot summaries (and for myself, what I believe to be the non-notable lists that we encourage merging to (characters and episodes) and certain other types of fictional supporting articles (background/descriptions of fiction universes, and background/large-scale story arcs/timelines of such)). The problem is that other editors do not agree these should exist at all, which is why I'm encouraged that the WP:N RFC suggests there's a place for these so that there can be consensus to fill out when such plot-only articles can and should be written to support the larger topic. --MASEM 14:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
      • We are back to square one then. If the bit above is just a TL;DR way of saying "plot summary articles are OK unless they are copyvios", then we aren't further along in the dispute. Protonk (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a reasonable look at things. Trouble is, when we find subjects which are likely to be nothing but plot summary, we delete them (or merge or whatever). In the breech, that is how this policy is applied. We have a problem with people confusing current state for potential, but we also have a problem that people create PLOT only articles. Protonk (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We know you want to write that article about that single that's going to be released next month, or that great episode of a TV show you watched last night, or the exciting happenings in the latest issue of your favorite manga. But think: is it possible to write an article that meets our policies and guidelines today? If not, then don't create the article today. Wait. Sooner or later, the missing things will come about— that single will chart, so it will meet WP:NSONGS, or someone will write something meaningful about the show so that the article won't fail WP:PLOT. There's nothing wrong with writing a stub if another editor could sit right down and expand it. If the article you are creating is going to be a policy-violating or guideline-violating article and there's nothing that anyone can do today to fix it, do Wikipedia a favor and don't create it at all.
—Kww(talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • View one is a little namby-pamby for my tastes. I favor deleting articles unless it can be unambiguously demonstrated that it can be improved to meet guidelines with currently known and available sources. The improvement itself can wait a little bit until someone has the time to do the writing, but this business of "well, a source may be available, but we don't know, so we'll keep the article anyway" is ridiculous.—Kww(talk) 17:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it okay for the improvement to wait 19 months? --Pixelface (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If you're going to climb on my ass about GTD-5 EAX again, don't bother. It was one of my earliest pieces of work, and no one ever took it to AFD. If it had been taken to AFD and I had defended writing it based on primary sources alone, you'd have me on a case of hypocrisy. It was a mistake to create the article, and, after Google Books gave me access to secondary sources, I fixed it.—Kww(talk) 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • <sticking nose in> Unless there is an issue involving WP:BLP, copyright, or some other issue that could result in legal challenges, I am aware of no Wikipedia policy that sets any deadline for improvement to any article. And I'm not even referring to the deadline essay. An improvement can be made in 5 minutes or in 5 years, it doesn't matter. And if someone gets impatient, that's why God invented WP:BOLD; if an editor feels and article needs sourcing, and given that the continued existence of the article means some consensus must exist to keep it, then that editor should take it upon him or herself to do the additional research. That's why there's an entire protocol around requesting articles. 23skidoo (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Pixelface, I agree with much of what you have said, but I think experience has shown that this [policy page is not the place for long explanations--they go better in guidelines. DGG (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't start this thread, Masem did. I responded to a comment Randomran made at the talk page of my user RFC, then Masem copied my comment over here. I asked him to remove it and I got jumped on. It looked to me like Masem was trying to advertise my user RFC here so I removed the mention of it, but I guess Collectonian wants it here. Protonk baited me into removing PLOT again on December 30, and then Jack Merridew, who agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned, reverted me calling my edits vandalism — the same thing Sceptre did on April 16, which got me blocked. Incidentally, Protonk started editing on April 17. Sceptre was indefinitely blocked twice in 2008, and Jack Merridew was indefinitely blocked once in 2008. My two blocks in 2008 both came after interactions with Sceptre, and both had to do with PLOT and Sceptre's view of vandalism. Incidentally, Sceptre lost his rollback rights multiple times in 2008. --Pixelface (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I support a terse policy that Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries. Guidance on striking the right balance of plot and other elements can go in the guidelines, naturally. Fletcher (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
AFD results don't match the view that articles are not simply plot summaries. --Pixelface (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a ton of plot-only fiction articles that get deleted. Can you show me more than a few outliers that get kept? I'm almost positive that most things being kept around now are, at worst, WP:IMPERFECT versions of articles that would otherwise have WP:NOT#PLOT information, or articles that just haven't attracted a recent AFD discussion that have resulted in a clear consensus. Randomran (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

This section of the article is kind of vague about whether editors are allowed to practice self-censorship. Would it be okay to import a sentence from Wikipedia:Profanity into this section to clear this up? Here's the sentence: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." Disclaimer: I recently had some discussions about censorship regarding the article Virgin Killer, but I have no intention of going back there.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm unclear exactly on what you would look to clear up. What do you want to change? Protonk (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm just suggesting adding the sentence here that already exists in Wikipedia:ProfanityFerrylodge (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not catching that the first time. You just want to insert the first sentence from the lede in WP:Profanity to WP:NOTCENSORED? That seems ok with me. I would put it in the last paragraph, with the bit about quotations. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ at Talk:Abortion continues to say that no images are allowed showing what is aborted, either after the abortion, or even before the abortion. This seems to me like a clear case of unwarranted censorship. Is there a particular Noticeboard for this sort of thing?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the topic that is going to encourage very POV-ish edits, the decision to avoid introducing a pre- or post-picture that can be interpreted either way as pro-life or pro-choice seems to balance the needs of WP:NPOV verses censoring. And it really isn't not censoring - we're not blocking discussion of the topic, we're opting not to show an image of it. --MASEM 20:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're saying there: "it really isn't not censoring." What I was wondering is whether there's a Noticeboard for this sort of thing. Wikipedia definitely takes the position that omitting images can be censorship.[30][31] Additionally, how can a decision to ban images of what is aborted possibly be considered "pro-life"?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any censorship noticeboard -- this page is more for general discussion of the policy than specific issues. Really the first thing to do is voice your concerns on Talk:Abortion, and if the responses don't satisfy, consider an RFC to solicit wider input. From looking briefly at the talk page, it's likely you would be pointed to past discussions where the consensus seemed to be against adding images. Given that anti-abortion activists have used graphic images to try to garner support for their POV, you may find it difficult to convince people that images can be presented in a neutral way. However, perhaps you can do so, if you can overcome the objection to "shock" pictures. Fletcher (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Opponents of anything often show images of the thing they oppose. For example, opponents of a candidate often show images of the candidate. I don't think that should cause the images to be banned from Wikipedia, however. People opposed to smoking often show images of cigarettes, but that should not mean images of cigarettes are forbidden on Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't really disagree. Perhaps it would help to identify the image you want to use and explain (on the talk page) how it would contribute to the article. Some of the pictures I've seen in the past are really revolting and possibly people do not want to commit to supporting images in the abstract, and then have to backpedal if they find the image objectionable. Fletcher (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any particular images right now. It's very difficult to obtain this sort of image, and I don't want to spend the time doing so if they've already been banned from Wikipedia. Maybe I'll visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship#Notice board to discuss it some more.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, there is an unofficial noticeboard at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship#Notice board. hmwithτ 17:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out. Fletcher (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising nor is it a torrent link site

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  • It should list that that wikipedia is not an advertising outlet. "Do not try to advertise products or websites on wikipedia."Smallman12q (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It should say that listing "certain" torrents is not allowed. "Wikipedia is a torrent tracking service."Smallman12q (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    The first one is addressed by Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The second one is better placed at WP:EL. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a daily tally sheet

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I have created (and used) {{Historical election article}} to be placed on the Talk pages of election articles. Looks like this:

Can/shoud we create a "What Wikipedia is not" rule to say something like, "Wikipedia is not a daily tally sheet"?

Sounds like instruction creep. I don't really see the need for it. Fletcher (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
We are already not an indiscriminate collection if information. Chillum 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
We can be a daily tally sheet. It's a good thing if Wikipedia is updated day to day as new information about an event is learnt. The goal in your example regards keeping historical information as opposed to deleting it favour of current information. This goal would be better served in a discussion of what Wikipedia is (a historical record) than in a discussion of what it is not. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. Thank you.—Markles 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "Journalism" vs. "First-hand accounts"

Latest comment: 15 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion

As User:Fuzheado has pointed out, "journalism" covers a very wide range of material, and much of Wikipedia certainly is journalism of a sort. While the associated description of what what Wikipedia is not (first-hand reporting and the like) is appropriate, the bullet point that Wikipedia is not journalism is misleading. Furthermore, it was added without discussion by a relatively new user, and simply never reverted until Fuzheado attempted to do so on January 7. That line should be changed back to "First-hand accounts" or the like, as saying Wikipedia is not journalism (period) is pretty indefensible and not in line with the spirit of the project.--ragesoss (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what kind of work we do here that is journalism? As a tertiary source it seems more like we filter and collate the work of journalists rather than doing that work ourselves. Fletcher (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Fletcher. Any sort of journalism conducted on the Wikipedia level would be a violation of WP:NOR, and precedent has been overwhelmingly set that "first-hand accounts" without source are not allowed per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I am very vocal in my opinion that WP:RS needs to be updated to be more blog-friendly, especially with regards to news-related issues, but I don't suggest for one minute that Wikipedia itself become a news source. If an attempt at semantics is being made here -- it could be argued that all research is journalism, and research is part of what Wikipedians do -- I think that's just splitting straws. Wikipedia's article on journalism clearly connects it to the reporting of news. 23skidoo (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
What is an article like US Airways Flight 1549 if not journalism? Journalism is not limited to first-hand accounts and original reporting of news (which, of course, violate the basic policies of the project). Books and articles that bring together published work to create an overview of a topic are also considered. See The Foundations of Participatory Journalism and the Wikipedia Project. Wikipedia is pretty clearly engaged in a type of journalism. The Wikipedia article definition makes this clear; from the lede of journalism: "the craft of conveying news, descriptive material and comment". It says nothing about primary/secondary/tertiary sources in the definition, and Wikipedia is a project that is based on conveying news (originally reported by others), descriptive material and comment (by others). Similarly, the first Merriam-Webster definition is "the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media", something that is an important element of what goes on here. Other definitions don't even specify "news", since journalists often present stories that are not about current events but past ones, or explain complex topics that aren't news per se.--ragesoss (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's an encyclopedia article, relaying what others have said about the topic. If there is anything in that article that is a) a first-hand account added by a Wikipedia contributor or b) anything that involves a Wikipedia contributor interviewing someone and putting that information into the story, then it must be removed per WP:NOR. Now that you've brought it to my attention I'll be checking the article and removing such information if it exists. On a cursory glance I don't see any. Recycling information collected and reported by others is not journalism. 23skidoo (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm unconvinced by an argument whose principal claim is that editing an encyclopedia is an act of journalism where the sole justification comes from the lede to Journalism. I'm not convinced that NOTNEWS applies any more or accurately describes the majority of content creation on this site (more likely it describes the content creation we would like to see...humorously contradicting WP:POLICY). But I'd need something meatier than "journalism isn't just first hand reporting of news". Protonk (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Then please point me to a reliable source defining journalism in a way that excludes, say, our articles on US Airways Flight 1549 or Virginia Tech massacre. I've pointed to academic work by a journalism professor citing Wikipedia explicitly as a type of journalism, and shown that some of what Wikipedia does is consistent with a dictionary definition and our our article's definition. I'm not suggesting any change to the policy of what Wikipedia is not, since it does a good job of explaining why Wikipedia is not the place for certain types of journalism. I'm just suggesting that we roll back an undiscussed change that is contradictory to both the spirit and practice of WP:NOT.--ragesoss (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Until WP:NOR is repealed, I will continue to argue against this. 23skidoo (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Why? It is painfully obvious that collaborative effort to distill information (gleaned from secondary sources, even) into a coherent narrative of a subject represents some kind of authorial work, even though wikipedia denies this (The mantra, plagued by cognitive dissonance, is that we simply and neutrally recapitulate available information). It is likewise obvious that "journalism" is not simply first hand reportage of facts. I could go one step further and admit that editing of content on wikipedia is novel and creative yet directed by constraints on tone and sources in a manner very similar to what we would describe as journalism. What is missing for me is the takeaway. What does that knowledge empower us to change about NOT? Because editing on wikiepdia is de facto journalism does not immediately lead us to the conclusion that rules on wikipedia must allow or priviledge certain types of content. Should we change the word "journalism" to "first hand reportage of facts"? Should we attempt to make less explicit the other half of NOT#NEWS, that wikipedia is not the forum for muckracking, even if the subject is covered by sources peripherally? I don't think so. So what should we say? Protonk (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I have to agree with Protonk's point, wikipdia is in denial. There are vast numbers of articles on wikpedia the authorship of which are solely the product of collaborative OR; irrespective of the number of sources they might cite. Measles (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Seems fine how it is. Fletcher (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree. Unless some new wording crops up that produces more clarity, I can't imagine changing it. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • One can take advantage of semantic ambiguities to state WP falls under the definition of journalism, as indeed we do convey "news, descriptive material and comment." But this glosses over an important difference in that we are putting together the work others have done; we're not reporting, describing, or commenting in our own words. There may be some overlap but I think we can still distinguish WP from journalism at a conceptual level. Fletcher (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't walk too far down that path. Insofar as editors avoid plagarism, they use their own words. The implications of that in practice (assuming that the spirit of NOR is followed) are minimal, but the distinction is more than purely semantic. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • That's true enough, we do create something here, I just think what we create is different from what journalists create. Fletcher (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is thath "journalism" is an extremely broad term that includes on-the-spot reports, investigative journalism, editorials, interviews, etc. - none of which are WP's business. In addition the journalist's Holy Grail is a scoop, getting there first, and that is also not WP's aim. Conclusion: labelling WP as "journalism" would cause confusion among editors and readers, and is a bad idea. --Philcha (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that no one is proposing labeling Wikipedia as journalism, just replacing "Wikipedia is not journalism" with something more precise and accurate.--ragesoss (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Replace it with what? What, exactly, is the language you want to replace NOT#NEWS with. As I said above, I could be swayed to agree if the policy did not lose clarity. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Replace the bolded word "Journalism" with "First-hand accounts" in #5 section of "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought", since that's exactly what the following text describes. I'm not talking about NOT#NEWS (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #5), which only mentions "tabloid journalism" rather than journalism-full-stop.--ragesoss (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
But limiting it to "First-hand accounts" actually seems less precise, because as you have noted yourself, journalism encompasses a broader range than first hand reporting. If we rule out "journalism", using common definitions of the word, we rule out not just first-hand reporting, but also other things Wikipedians should not be doing, such as interviewing witnesses (second hand reporting) or doing one's own research to explain the facts. In that sense ruling out "journalism" has a little more punch to it than just proscribing first hand accounts. Fletcher (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines journalism as the following:

The aggregating, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles for widespread distribution, typically in periodical print publications and broadcast news media, for the purpose of informing the audience.

I think this is summaries what we do pretty well, so saying that Wikipedia is not journalism is very silly IMHO. I recommend we change it to something along the lines of "Wikipedia is not a publisher of first-hand news reports". If we have to also tell people not to do things like interviews, we should give that its own bullet on the list. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The distinction you are missing is that we don't create news reports; we create summaries of what actual journalists have created. In essence the job of a journalist is to explain the facts; our job is to explain what is widely believed to be the facts. There's some overlap, but we are still performing different roles. It would be interesting to survey some professional journalists on the question. If you told one that you sit at your home computer with one browser tab opened to edit Wikipedia, and a few more tabs opened to CNN, Google News, etc., and by updating Wikipedia after clicking through these news reports you can fashion yourself a journalist, despite having never hit the street to report on an event as it happens, or tracked down witnesses to ask them questions, I would not be very surprised if he laughed in your face. Fletcher (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we are not journalists in the same way as a CNN reporter. However, we do "write, edit, and present news media", which by Wiktionary's definition makes us journalists. It is because of the ambiguity of the word that I think saying "Wikipedia is not a publisher of first-hand news" would be more accurate. By the current wording, which seems to forbid any definition of journalism, we should not have an article about anything, any event, or anyone until it or they are completely out of the news. Since this is clearly unreasonable, I think we should change the wording. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't write, edit, and present news media. We write, edit, and present encyclopedia articles. It is only because we are not a paper encyclopedia that we can write encyclopedia articles about current events as they happen. But one should not mistake us for a news outlet (cf. WP:NOTNEWS). Even though, admittedly, a major event will rapidly spawn a Wikipedia article as editors rush to update it, the article is gradually sculpted into something more well rounded and comprehensive than you would see in most news stories, and at the same time lacking in some of the minor details the news media will keep you updated on. You seem to have adopted an extremely broad definition of journalism such that anything written about something in the news is ipso facto journalism. A student writing a school report about Obama is a journalist under this definition. No, in relying on a simple dictionary definition I think you're missing the difference between WP and journalism. And please note the current wording of the policy specifically allows encyclopedia articles about current events, so there is no danger whatsoever of such articles being deleted under this policy. Fletcher (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
IMO, Fletcher gives an accurate and useful synopsis of the issues under discussion here. (I set aside a couple of statements like "You seem to have adopted... " and mentally substituted something like "One should be cautious about adopting ..." , leaving intact the rest of the summary Fletcher just gave.) In this light, WP writing can quite reasonably be said to resemble journalistic writing in some respects, e.g., objectivity (WP:NPOV) and dependence on reliable sources (WP:V). But in other respects WP articles deviate very substantially from models for journalism. For one thing, any kind of content must not be introduced here first (WP:NOR). For another thing, articles should meet WP:NOTABILITY. In that respect, WP is rather the opposite of most journalism, in that rather than seeking to be the one with the "scoop", WP articles must be derived from already published reliable sources. In general the best practice, I think it's fair to say within the three core content policies and other relevant WP policies, is to summarize topics based on the second or third generation of reliable summary sources regarding the topic being written about (WP:PSTS). Of course there are exceptions where WP users quite appropriately pick up the story from the first generation of reliable sources, particularly w.r.t. current events. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I am using a broad definition of journalism, yes, but the word can be interpreted that way. As per the Wikipedia Weekly episode, I think that some people are using the overly broad definition as a justification for deletion when the policy was never intended to be read that way. We here each agree with what the policy is meant to say, so why not eliminate the possibility for ambiguity and change the wording to specifically say that? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you be more specific in your example? Fletcher (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about a sentence under the crystal ball section

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The policy states that, in regards to a future event, "speculation about it must be well documented." That seems sort of vague, and I was just wondering if anyone could clarify or expand on exactly what's meant by well documented speculation. Timmeh! 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • If news organizations or other reliable sources are discussing the speculation, then CRYSTAL doesn't really apply. Take the Watchmen movie. There was news coverage of it well before it was a feature film or even entered principal photography (the WP:FILM standard cutoff). In that case, it wasn't speculation to have an article on the future event. Protonk (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    If so, then what is the point of having the phrase "speculation must be well documented"? Also, would the reliable sources need to have articles devoted to the subject to be considered well documented speculation, or would they just have to mention vaguely and/or in a single sentence in an article with a different topic that they think "this might happen in (insert year or multiple years) years"? Timmeh! 13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    Because we get lots of articles with user speculation or fan speculation about some album or movie (usually an album). The album, when it comes out, will obviously be notable (it's from some A-list star and some big studio, or something), but the only people saying it is going to be an album are kellyclarksonisthebestever.blogger.com and some editors on wikipedia. We want to say that is not wanted (explicitly, even though it is kind of redundant to NOR), but allow articles on future events. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete content to prove a point (1)

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Please add your comments to the section below, not this one. This section is now obsolete/moot.

I added a new guideline in the Wikipedia is not a Battleground section which says "... do not delete content or articles just to prove a point....". I added this without prior discussion because I think consensus on it is pretty obvious. I included a line that says "Examples include ...". If you can think of better examples, by all means add and/or replace. RoyLeban (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I object to it. It doesn't belong on NOT. If anything, it sounds like it belongs on POINT. but frankly it is redundant to WP:BEFORE, alludes that editors who delete content or pages are inherently doing something wrong, and doesn't really assert a position on editing that I could see a large percentage of the community getting behind. Also, please note that Wikipedia:POLICY#Changes_to_guideline_and_policy_pages suggests that discussion precede editing on policy pages. Protonk (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You (protonk) said in your reversion that this was a "substantive change to a policy". That was not my intent and I don't think that's the case. Rather, I was clarifying existing policy and adding some examples. I guess I was a little too bold. But I wish you had not reverted. So, I've made a much smaller change, just adding "or delete content or articles". Assuming you do not object to the text that was already there, I hope you will agree that this is just a useful clarification.

But, I do think some examples would be helpful. I thought this was a good place for them, but I could see your point about putting them in WP:POINT instead. But WP:POINT already has numerous examples. Maybe a better thing to do would be to add "when not to apply" sections to many policies. I would appreciate it if others would weigh in.

For the record, here are the two versions of the earlier change:

Previous RevisionMy Revision
Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems.[1] Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems.[2] Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.

Do not create or modify articles just to prove a point.

Similarly, do not delete content or articles just to prove a point. If you find content on Wikipedia which you think is inappropriate (including things listed on this page), but which is close to appropriate, do not simply delete it. Fix it instead, or tag it as needing to be fixed. Deleting content, especially content which is close to acceptable, does not help Wikipedia grow. Examples include long plot summaries (when a shorter one would be appropriate), numerous examples (when fewer examples would be fine), and information which is in the wrong place (move it to the right place).

RoyLeban (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I still disagree with this. If a user thinks that content on a page is not appropriate, then they plainly aren't removing that content to prove a point. Likewise, I think that it is impossible to say here that "long plot summaries should not be shortened" or that "reducing examples" is bad. We should not revert additions of content, even if it is malformed (so if someone add an example but doesn't spell it properly or doesn't reference it, we should fix the spelling and add the reference). That suggestion doesn't belong in NOT. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I also am uncomfortable with it because people could be acting in perfectly good faith by removing inappropriate content in those cases. The examples given are more about somebody's editing style and decisions which can be discussed on the talk page of the article to decide what is appropriate. It doesn't fit in BATTLE. --Bill (talk|contribs) 21:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think adding this is the epitome of assuming bad faith. People who engage in clean-up are not trying to "prove a point", let along "create a battleground". I'm sure that a few people at some point or another have pushed to remove content just because they hate another editor, but we shouldn't tie everyone's hands for the actions of a few bad editors. Randomran (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about editors engaging in cleanup, though I can see how my comments could be interpreted that way. I'm talking about people damaging articles in the guise of following Wikipedia guidelines. Using the example of a plot summary, imagine a long plot summary of Star Wars that begins "The credits roll in" and an editor shortens it to just that. This is a slight exaggeration, but not by much. And a plot summary is not wildly inappropriate. If a plot summary has been in an article for years, edited by many editors, and one person comes across it and summarily deletes it, without discussion, then, unless that edit is noticed relatively quickly, all that work may be lost forever. You can argue that a plot summary should be shorter, but just deleting the long-term work of multiple editors is not a way to improve Wikipedia. Here is a recent example: Near Dark history where the plot summary has largely existed for two years, through 75 edits (note: none of them mine) and was just truncated to a nonsensical opening by someone who had never previously edited the article. And he claims it's justified by WP:NOT.

I have searched for and could not find a specific Wikipedia policy to point to in cases like this. Put another way, I'd like to see something like this somewhere: "The intent of policies is to improve Wikipedia. Do not follow policies just to follow them, especially if following them does not improve Wikipedia. If you find content which is appropriate but does not meet guidelines, you should improve it or tag it rather than delete it. For example, do not simply delete content and expect others to come in afterwards and complete the work." (I can see consenus that it doesn't belong in WP:NOT -- but does it exist already and, if not, where should it be?)

Note this deliberately sidesteps the whole issue of whether Wikipedia should have plot summaries or not. I know that there's contention there, but it's not my point here.

RoyLeban (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That isn't an issue of NOT, that sounds more like vandalism or editors being beyond ridiculously zealous (as appears to be the issue at Near Dark. Not plot doesn't mean no plot summary at all, certainly for a film article. Looking at that article, DreamGuy appears to being pointy rather than acting in good faith. The article should, at most, be tagged for overly long plot though it really isn't that long (only 150 words or so over the max allowed by the MoS) and someone work to cull it down to the appropriate length, but that does not mean ripping the entire thing out in this case. I've left him a 3RR warning and a discussion has started at the talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not news source

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to see a heading something like: "Wikipedia is not a news source." This is touched on in the section on original research --> journalism...but I think it extends beyond this, since material exists that is not original research, and that is notable as news (not in the wikipedia sense of notability), but not notable for an encyclopedia.

I think the use of wikipedia for current events is very problematic, primarily because it leads to the inclusion of material that is not notable in the long-run, and because the quality of material entered hastily as news unfolds is usually questionable. So I propose adding "Wikipedia is not a news source". If no one objects, let's add it. Cazort (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have it: see WP:NOT#NEWS. Fletcher (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahh I found it now! It's buried in there. Don't you think it maybe warrants its own heading? It seems this issue comes up very frequently. Cazort (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Lots of items in WP:NOT come up frequently -- what you see depends on what types of articles you edit most. I think people are pretty familiar with WP:NOT#NEWS and it doesn't need to be a top-level heading. There's also an essay WP:NOTNEWS which you can also refer people to when appropriate. Fletcher (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What does anti-leech mean? Plus... on devoting time

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

The Wikipedia is not a battleground section contains the following text

  • Wikipedia is not an anti-leech community. Users should not criticize others on not devoting time to edit.

I have two issues:

  1. I understand really well what the second sentence means, but I don't understand the first one. The double negative doesn't help, nor does the use of an uncommon term not normally associated with a negative. If I interpret it to mean Wikipedia, as a community, does not care if people leech information from it, it has nothing to do with the second sentence. Does anybody know for sure what the intent is? (and what this has to do with the "battleground" section)
  2. I like the second sentence, but I suggest the addition of "You should not create work for others or direct others to do work."

RoyLeban (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no rule against creating work for others or directing others to do work. We're a Wiki. We work by collaboration. Randomran (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Some editors make a habit of proactively assigning work to others. Sometimes they pop in, tell other people to do things, then vanish. Absent a prior agreement, that is not collaboration and is appropriate. If you have a better way to phrase this, I'm open to suggestion. But, now that I think about it, it probably belongs somewhere else. Where? RoyLeban (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Are we going to start banning and blocking people who assign work to others, who haunt the talk pages, or focus on meta-editing meta-editing like tagging? If not, then we should leave this out entirely. Randomran (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can see where this is going. The statement just means that people are not obligated to spend a certain amount of time editing, as it's a volunteer project and people have real-life concerns that take precedence. I do agree with RoyLeban that the "anti-leech" phrasing sounds a bit odd. But it's a given that we create work for each other by editing, tagging, or making comments in discussion. That's part of the collaborative process. Fletcher (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not my intent to take it "where it's going". Yes, we absolutely create work for others by editing. Every {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) tag is creating work for others. When we ask for consensus, we're creating work. And I ask people to do work all the time. For example, I've recently left notes for a bunch of people who edited the Ambigram page asking if they would comment on some pending actions on the talk page. I'm referring explicitly telling people what they should do. My response is "Do it yourself -- you're not the boss of me" :-) That's all I'm getting at. RoyLeban (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fair to add something about not bossing others around, since this is a volunteer community. Randomran (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a version without the "anti-leech" wording:

"Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users."

Not feeling bold tonight, sorry. Is that any good? Fletcher (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Randomran (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I like it. I could also see appending "When editing, think about whether you are creating new work for others." (note: think, not do) but I'm ok without it and this is certainly an improvement.
I'd love for it to say, bluntly, "Don't criticize others for not doing work that you're not doing either", but there's no "Be Blunt" policy :-)
Thanks RoyLeban (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Good call, Roy. I've removed the bit. It's cryptic for anyone not versed in the jargon and generally unnecessary. If anything, attempting to volunteer other people for work one is unwilling to do onself belongs in the civility policy, not here. DurovaCharge! 03:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the sentence written by Randomran (oops!) Fletcher, without the addition of the extra things I commented on. I'm going to look at the civility policy and see if the other stuff might be appropriate there. Thanks, everybody. RoyLeban (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the credit goes to Fletcher for the wording. But agreed -- good job everyone. Randomran (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The passage -- "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely." -- is rather misguided and is not policy. Turning the other cheek or addressing only the literal factual content of personal attacks only works some of the time. There are other alternatives - removing or consolidating the disputed text, closing discussions, bringing the matter up for administrative review, cautioning the user to stop, etc. The first half, that incivility should not justify incivility in return, is reasonable. The imperative language on what editors are supposed do next is simply not the case. Wikidemon (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is policy -- I don't think I made any substantive changes to that part of the wording, just altered slightly it for readability. It's certainly true that turning the other cheek doesn't always work, but there is a progression indicated in the text whereby one might, at first, consider turning the other the other cheek; then one might warn the user about no personal attacks; and lastly one might consider the formal dispute resolution process, which is wikilinked. It sounds like you are only focusing on one sentence rather than the paragraph as a whole? And some of your alternative suggestions sound like they are geared towards admins -- do we want to encourage the average user to delete or modify someone else's comments in a discussion? That sounds like it would further inflame the situation. People should not generally do that unless they really know what they're doing. Perhaps however we should wikilink to WP:ANI which is a more common path than going to mediation or arbitration. Fletcher (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete content to prove a point (2)

Latest comment: 15 years ago24 comments7 people in discussion

Sigh. I tried to make a clarification to the Wikipedia is not a Battleground section. That got reverted and other editors thought it was more than just a clarification (see above section). I then made a significantly smaller change which was pretty clearly just a clarification, but now another editor has changed it to something that is even less emphatic than the original, whereas I was trying to make it clearer and a bit more emphatic. I would like others to weigh in.

Original version: Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point.

Version by RoyLeban: Do not create or modify articles or delete content or articles just to prove a point.

Version written by Fletcher: Resist the temptation to change Wikipedia just to prove a point.

The differences are: "Do not" vs. "Resist the temptation"; "change Wikipedia" vs. "create or modify articles or delete content or articles".

What do others think? RoyLeban (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First, blech over the Near Dark mess. I realize now that said editor is doing this to dozens of film, book, and play articles claiming that WP:NOT forbids plot summaries. *sigh* That said...hmmm...right now either version seems fine to me, though I learn more towards "Do not" rather than just "try not to, eh?" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Right on blech. I was looking for something to point said editor (and others) to. It's not just plot summaries, but that is the most obvious and egregious example. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viridae#Regarding_your_unblock_of_DreamGuy RoyLeban (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Roy, if you disagree with me, the answer is not to stalk me and attack me. In fact, multiple editors have told you the things you were doing were wrong, so showing up here just because someone is comlaining about me just to say "me too" is not at all helpful. Give it a rest, and take the time to learn how to work within Wikipedia rules instead of trying to team up with disgruntled people. DreamGuy (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do we need nine words when two will do? You might scroll up the project page to WP:BURO which reminds us to avoid instruction creep -- we do not need rules to govern every possible action a user might take. Saying "create or modify articles or delete content or articles" is bad prose and sounds like something you'd see on the back of an insurance policy. We can convey the same essential meaning in far fewer words. I added the verbiage about "resist the temptation" because we already have two "Do not" imperatives in that section, and it seems preachy and repetitive to keep saying "do not do this, do not do that", etc., like we're lecturing a bunch of five-year-olds. Fletcher (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Because at least one editor, DreamGuy, is running around using WP:NOT as a justification for ripping entire plot sections from dozens of fictional arguments under the claim because NOT is a policy and it says "concise" summary, his view of concise (2 sentences) is the only valid one so he is justified in vandalizing articles and making personal attacks against multiple other editors trying to correct him (and then claiming that because he was unblcoked for his edit warring, that his view has been validated). Which brings up issue two, does WP:PLOT need tweaking to clarify that "concise" does not mean 1-2 sentences and that there are actual guidelines spelling out what is concise, including WP:MOSFILMS and WP:MOSTV. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've always felt that plot could use some tweaking so it's not used to simply erase plot summaries, or turn them into two sentence teasers. But any discussion about clarifying PLOT is always jacked by a handfull of editors who want to remove it entirely. Randomran (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not true Randomran. Please don't make false claims like that. For example, there was this thread that you commented in — just two weeks ago. And people want to remove WP:NOT#PLOT from this policy because WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy. It never did have consensus to be policy. Yet Hiding added it anyway. So the talkpage archives are full of threads with people saying WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed. And when the editor who proposed WP:NOT#PLOT and first added it to this policy removed it in May, Collectonian re-added it. --Pixelface (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
... jacked by a handfull of editors who want to remove it entirely. Randomran (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Wrong, Randomram. --Pixelface (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a strange claim, after you open your mouth and prove me right. Randomran (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
No Randomran, I proved you wrong, by linking to that thread from two weeks ago that you commented in. Can you reply to anything I said? --Pixelface (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest you both back off a bit instead of rehashing the past. The future is more important. I would be happy to assist in working on WP:PLOT / WP:NOT#PLOT which, for those who aren't familiar, are two names for the same thing. Is it possible to come up with a list of alternatives for PLOT that could be discussed for consensus as opposed to a super wide-ranging discussion as I've seen? Personally, I think PLOT is vague enough that it is ripe for distortion (and we've seen examples here). Does there need to be an entire policy on just PLOT? In the short time, I have made a minor change that points to additional detail: The definition of "concise" varies depending on the context: movies and films, television shows, novels, and general fiction. I hope this is a non-controversial change as it makes no change to policy. RoyLeban (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I can live with that. Let's see if anyone else says anything. Randomran (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Good lord, talk about someone freaking out and misrepresenting what other people do and say to try to make a point. I never said two sentences was my definition of concise, but point by point plot details certainly are not. The Plot tag template spells it out, NOT spells it out, but some people just insist upon doing the OPPOSITE of what the policy says. We need a clarification to specifically say plot by plot summaries are not allowed. Unfortunately WP:MOSFILMS and WP:MOSTV, like a lot of specific subpages concerning policies, often are written by people who do not have consensus for what they put and violate the main policy... we also have the same problem with, for example, the naming policy and the people coming up with flora article naming rules. It has always been WP:NOT's stance that we are NOT Cliff Notes, etc., and if some subpages suggest otherwise, those are in error, not this page.
Also, when something is in violation, deleting is preferred to leaving it the bad way. It's not a question of POINT it's a question of being more in line with policy. Closer to good is always better than bad, even if it's not perfect. And assuming that it was done as some sort of WP:POINT violation is a violation of WP:AGF. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of trimming bloated summaries down to size, but when you remove large blocks of text, some attention is needed to ensure the resulting language still makes sense and is informative. So if you have five paragraphs of plot and want to trim it down to one, you don't just delete the last four paragraphs, but rather you cut out the minor detail and bring up the ending into the first paragraph, leaving just enough information to preserve the story arc. I'm not sure how you are doing it, but if you're truncating the story arc I can see why people would find that disruptive. Fletcher (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Story arcs in and of themselves are violations of WP:NOT. We do not do detailed blow by blow descriptions of fiction. Does the phrase "Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot." mean anything to you? That's our template for the plot section not following policy. That's what we need to do. Any attempt to do something else is not what Wikipedia is here for. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:AGF usually goes out the window when you keep edit-waring without completing or engaging in the WP:BRD cycle. After the first revert, you should have made your case on the talk page. There are, after all, other ways to deal with the issue other the wholes removal of the plot. But instead making your case and discussing the matter, you reverted, reverted again, and again while at the same time spreading the conflict to other articles.
Besides, this isn't the first time someone attempted to make a WP:POINT by removing plot summaries from articles. There was a similar incident a couple of years ago during the spoiler debate, one of the spoiler warning proponents started deleting plot summaries declaring them unverifiable and original research. --Farix (Talk) 19:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not a WP:POINT violation, it's following policy. And, frankly, plot summaries should follow our normal standards for reliable sources. Characterizing it as a WP:POINT violation is itself a violation of WP:AGF. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It's disruptive when you repeatedly edit war over it on multiple articles without engaging in any discussions. I was just pointing out why others would not WP:AGF over such behavior since that is contrary evidence of good faith. But it is also not following policy as policy does not call for the arbitrary removal of plot summary or replacing them with just a teaser. What it does call for is that the plot summary to be condensed down while still remaining as complete as possible. --Farix (Talk) 11:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy, either you have good faith or bad faith. Right now, I'm going to assume that you are well intentioned. You need to slow down and not insist that you are right. When multiple people disagree with you, maybe they're right. The intent of all Wikipedia policies is to improve the encyclopedia. When you make an edit that deletes content form multiple editors, content that has been in an article for years, content that contains substantial information, etc., etc., it hurts Wikipedia. Deleting a plot summary, even an overly long one that has been slaved on by others, removes content that is valuable. Isn't there a chance that you're wrong? You refuse to accept this and instead seem to believe that you're the only editor who truly understands Wikipedia policies. Until you really understand what consensus is, you'll continue to butt heads with other editors. RoyLeban (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but deleting things that do not fit Wikipedia standards is a well established part of editing Wikipedia. Deleting content that violates policy is not only NOT removing valuable content, it's removing BAD content. I am certainly not the only editor who understands policies, but it's clear we have some here who don't. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Copy what RoyLeban said. I'm not going to read up on this specific conflict. Maybe you're well intentioned, but you have to be respectful of others too. There is wide room for disagreement for what's a concise plot summary, and what's excessive. The best place to answer those questions are at the article talk page. Don't edit war or personally attack other editors. If it gets heated, take the discussion to a higher form of dispute resolution (see link). Randomran (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You should look up on the specific conflict. I have all the respect in the world for editors who edit responsibly: who make an effort to read up on policies and follow them. Someone who wikistalks a user because he's pissed off that his edits to an article were removed and complains on multiple talk pages and even goes so far as to edit a policy page to try to provide ammunition for his own personal conflict is engaging in behavior that simply cannot be condoned. I look forward to the time when Roy gets some perspective and realizes that he doesn't WP:OWN articles by virtue of him editing them. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected for a week

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've protected the current revision of this policy page for one week per WP:PROTECT. Please ensure that all changes to this policy have consensus among the community before making them. This is an important policy and editors have a right to expect it to not be in flux. Note that WP:POLICY suggests that WP:BRD is not an appropriate editing strategy for policies and guidelines. If and when the parties come to agreement on a change they may use the {{Editprotected}} template or ask any admin to reverse my protection of this page. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics debate at Noticeboard

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is request for opinions on the inclusion of lyrics in fight song articles at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Summing_up. NJGW (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal - deletion of WP:NOT#WEBHOST

Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

As it relates to userspace I propose, based on a seeming growing consensus at deletion discussions and other areas about user pages, WP:NOT#WEBHOST be deleted. If deletion is not an option than it must be reworded to reflect that "trends of opinion" do not support deletion of any material contained in userspace outside of blatant copyvios, direct sales/marketing (explicitly listing prices and/or information where one can purchase items) or non-free image gallery's. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, everything I've seen has still supported this. There was a "recent" ANI case (last two months) of several uses using userspace to play a virtual reality TV game; they were subsequently banned. What is an example of where this policy no longer seems to hold true? --MASEM 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
er (x2) - I see nothing to support this reading. I would also like an example. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Er.. <sarcasm>Sure.. but only after we add User: and User_talk: to robots.txt so that they aren't indexed by Google.</sarcasm> IMHO, removing this would effectively allow people to use userspace pages to host all kinds information on non-notable (entities|subjects) that have been or would be deleted from article space.. This happens to some degree already, but at least now - those pages can be deleted when it's clear that the user isn't here to contribute productively to the encyclopedia, but rather to promote (themselves|their pet subject) with a page that sits on en.wikipedia.org . --Versageek 18:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


I want to state that, for me, it is the wording of associated guidlines based on this policy that I have had issues with in the past, however there is recent surge of discussion that has sparked this. "webhost" has many meaning in relation to userspace and a huge part of this. Also it partly stems from the MFD "Please familiarize yourself" section that includes a link to "Wikipedia:User page — our guidelines on user pages". Now, because it was asked for, not because I am canvasing or forum shopping, here are some related discussions that all tie back to this policy: The spark - A proposed article User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers and it's talk page brought it to this: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. The outcome of that has lead to this: DRV which in turn has resulted in this proposal as well as this: Wikipedia talk:User page#Deletion review regarding indefinite hosting clause (The direct guideline at issue there is Copies of other pages which explicitly defines how WP:NOT#WEBHOST relates to userpage content via this: "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."
Also somewhat related to this was a long standing (August 29, 2007) paragraph that was removed, on January 2, 2009, with no discussion, from the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators that stated "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions."
A few discussions that tie into userspace include: Editing policy-Getting on to the primary issue, Template:Underconstruction - TfD, Define and clarify "indefinitely" and, for comparison, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery from 2006 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam Carr/My archive of original photographic contributions January 28, 2009. Some current, active, MFDS using the "isn't hurting anything", "not violating any Wikipedia policies", it who the user is type arguments - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Britt25/sandbox for CVS/Pharmacy, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChanceYoungJr.Robert and the controversial Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians
Related essays (because people do cite them in some way is deletion discussions) include: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. There is also a secondary issue of who the user is and if they are required to follow this (or any) policy related to userspace. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khuntien Ngin/Rendy Marciano and compare it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. In both cases these are articles meant for mainspace in userspace; in both cases the main authors came to the MfD and said they would work on the article and that they are trying to fix them up. Both contain arguments of "delete" based on Copies of other pages and not a free web host. Both also used arguments of WP:OR. However the outcomes are very different - one user has been active over the years so "there is no time limit", "OR does not apply to userspace" and "not a web host" does not apply to this user. In the other case not one person said "keep" because "OR does not apply", Not one person said "keep" because there is "no time limit", not one person said "not a web host" does not apply. Matter of fact outside of the author(s) only one editor voted "keep" because "there is no requirement for "notability" in userspace". Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here that necessitates any change. User space content (save for WP:BLP and WP:NFC, and uncivil behavior) are outside of the general content guidelines or notability guidelines (deleted pages are often userified to be improved before being added again). There is absolutely no problem writing a userspace article that you intend to move to mainspace without any references, just that once you do move it, reference should be present and all other content guidelines should be met. The only issue here is the present lifetime of the material, which the MFD review stated was not defined and thus up to consensus. I see no problem with a article being built in userspace to last a year or two there without modifications, but 3-4 years may be pushing it. But WEBHOST is still being considered in how the article is being retained, so there's no point in remove it particular for a minor case like this. --MASEM 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
But it is not "a minor case like this" - did you read any of the links I provided? It is an ongoing issue. I was just re-reading one of the conversation unrelated to the current DRV I mention. From December 2008 opinions, from different editor (some are admins) is that the policy does not apply to everyone. For example one said that "keeping an article (Or a project or portal page) in userspace only becomes a problem when it violates WP:UP" and added on that if the argument was it was on their userspace and the version they like we "refer them to Wikipedia:Userpage#Copies of other pages" However the same editor, when asked about their own subpages, said "I am not at all concerned about the pages in my userspace" because they are a "pretty experienced user" and a "top contributor", and, in somewhat of a challenge, "feel free to nominate them. I am confident that my pages won't get deleted". This is a case of "who" being allowed to override policy. Other comments from other users were another admin who has had a small stub on their user page for over 2 years (untouched), and whose MfD closed before it was even opened after they made the comment "This is in my userspace" and "in general I don't see any need to delete inoffensive draft articles in userspace", who described why this is article is still in userspace - "keeping the article in user space serves as a reminder to me to check for new evidence every so often. Many of us have started articles on topics where evidence cannot be easily found but where we suspect that evidence of notability exists, and perhaps it will eventually be found." Another editor cyber yelled: "So what if an article that is userfied is never worked on?". The idea is one needs to look around - I was asked for example so I gave several. It is still not "all" of them. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
But even if these particular cases, where the user is keeping an "unfinished" version of an article in progress in their userspace, is a small fraction of what WEBHOST deliniates. WEBHOST implies that we are not your blog, personal web page, your Myspace or Facebook pages, or for content that is outside the improvement of WP in general. That part sticks, regardless of what is done about articles in indefinite progress in userspace. If anything, if your concern is that certain editors manage to keep in progress articles alive in their userspace, that probably should be brought up to WP:USER where more specifics on appropriate userspace content is listed. --MASEM 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The thing that's important here is "are they here to build the encyclopedia".. if their contributions indicate they are - then a few sandboxes are probably just fine. I'm venturing a bit far from the topic, but if someone has an issue with an unfinished page/work in progress in a user's space, and it's clear from the user's other contributions that user is here to build the encyclopedia not just push a POV or futz around in userspace - why not request the user save the unfinished page with an empty copy as the top version when it's not being actively edited? It's WIN/WIN, user has access to the content, messy sandbox doesn't show up in a search. On the other hand, if the content goes against other policies/guidelines it probably should be deleted on those grounds or a combination of those grounds and NOTWEBHOST. An example that comes to mind is a POV-fork of an existing article. Generically speaking: "you are entitled to your POV, but en.wiki is not your webhost. " --Versageek 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
But I think the issue is being somewhat overlooked. This is about Policy. Should it be brought up at WP:USER? Yes, and it has been, however what is there is based on this Policy - specifically it describes how this policy is relates in userspace and than says: "In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host." << - link to this section being discussed, of this policy. So this issue does not solely lay with the guidelines found at user. It is not only about articles in userspace, although it is most often used in the way at MFD's. It is also applied to photo gallery's, blogs, resumes, chat rooms and anything else that an individual user could place on a "webhost". I like this policy, however I am, frankly, getting tired of citing it and being told, in various ways, "It means nothing" followed with the reason why it means nothing. So why have it? If we only have it to prevent blatant advertising and blatant copvios and blatant advertising than we should re-word it that way. In doing so it will effect wording in other guidelines that lead back to this. If we only have it so it will apply to newbies than it needs to be laid out that way as well. Sometimes editors tend to forget that everything is interrelated and that passing it off to somewhere else is not always the best thing to do because it puts us in a situation where one guideline says one thing and links to another that says something else and that in turn, links to something else. And, again, not everyone is "blatant" enough to say they are a "pretty experienced user" and a "top contributor" so "I am confident that my pages won't get deleted" but I see an awful lot of arguments that contain some variant of "it's doing no harm". In some of the discussions linked to it is fairly obvious the many of the "keep" opinions come from the same users who regularly vote "keep" no matter what. With the removal of the paragraph in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators I mentioned above it now implies that any deletion discussion can be a head count and not have to be based on policy. Yes, it still says that the closing admin is is not supposed to do a head count and but the "underlying policy", but the wording removed was far more specific in that a closing admin had to consider policy first, not public opinion, even if the "rough consensus" seemed otherwise. Look at the talk page and the "discussion" about removing that paragraph - there is zero consensus. One editor says there is no "non-negotiable" policy, another editor says "the core content policies are non-negotiable. WP:CONSENSUS does not trump any of them" And another editor says "WP:Policies is fairly clear that consensus does trump policy" and removed the paragraph. And this applies here as as well. If a deletion discussion contains 2 vocal "keeps" based on nothing but opinion it supersedes policy. The same can be said for a "delete" as well but it is rare I see "delete" followed by "it is doing harm", but somehow I doubt that argument would be accepted the same way "Keep: It is doing no harm" is. But to steer back here - if "no web host" is only meant for specific items and specific people than lets reword it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

{unindent}I hadn't noticed the change about AfDs and I've replaced the text. No matter what the headcount there can be policy reasons to delete. And I want to keep the webhost section -- I've seen people try to store large pdfs for instance, let alone all the other stuff like chatrooms. dougweller (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, Dougweller, Masem, Cameron Scott and Versageek's positions are on solid ground here. Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST remains a necessary statement of limits on the use of Wikipedia webspace. Granted that its enforcement is not always perfect-- it frequently runs into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and other issues including the often off-the-cuff conclusions of users in MfDs that sometimes seem more like a vote than a consensus process. And, there've been occasions where MfDs have been frivolous and based on mere differences in personal POV about the material in a userspace. Nonetheless, a clear statement is needed that WP's purpose is to be an encyclopedia not a free webhost where userspaces are totally at the discretion of the user. Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST has long served this function, supplementing WP:USER with a concise statement of one of the things that Wikipedia is not. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It is interesting at the very different conversations. Here it is a solid "keep" while over at User it is a solid "delete" for the section that relates to this policy. However the idea that copyvios, advertising and such still be deleted is still holding. Once this is all "settled" my suggestion is to make sure, across the board, all related items be in sync with one another. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The discussion at User specifically involves a user's Wikipedia-related activity-- in this instance an old draft of a proposed WP page sitting in userspace collecting dust. The assertion that an old draft of a proposed WP article in one's userspace violates Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST is, at least IMO, not a credible assertion. :In general, as has been asserted by some at Wikipedia talk:User page#Question to consider here:, users are free to let WP-related stuff collect dust within reasonable limits, and perhaps even indefinitely. In addition, it's common practice to lay out research as well as to post opinions and various personal snippets on user pages and subpages. These are acknowledged to be within the reasonable limits of user pages. As Dougweller has pointed out, there's a limit, determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis, a limit beyond which one's userpage activity goes substantially beyond the purpose of Wikipedia and strays into activities that one would expect to conduct via a web host. If the participants at WP:USER seek to codify exactly what these limits are, e.g. by setting a specific limit on how long a draft can remain in userspace, that's a separate discussion. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
In a sense you already answered, or at least acknowledged, a question about this policy. You ended with "...by setting a specific limit on how long a draft can remain in userspace, that's a separate discussion.", and that is a huge part of the overall issue. This policy does not mention any time limits or any sort or even hint at them yet policy trumps guideline. "Well it may violate the guideline but it does violate the policy" in other words. The fact we have a statement here that says "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." is not how it is related at the "Further information: Wikipedia:User page" link provided. Some would call this an opening for a "circular argument" because, while the Policy states "[If] you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account.", the guideline allows this sort of thing by providing users the basic "keep" argument of "Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth." Now, as it ties into what you said - this is the policy is is it not? This policy links to Wikipedia:User page does it not? And under Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages the line "In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host." direct links back to this policy does it not? And this proves my point - we have a policy that is linked to a guideline that defines, and explains, what the policy is as it relates to Wikipedia not being a webhost, yet, at deletion discussions admins and editors can be found stating there is no such policy or guideline or those who acknowledge it will "keep" and use the guideline description to back up that anything in userspace is somehow automatically "related" to the users work at Wikipedia, thus Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST Policy does not apply. Either the editors in the "policy camp" need to help to clarify the definitions with the "guideline camp" or there needs to not be, simply, any "webhost" policy, at least not in it's current form.
The time limit issue as it would relate to "works in progress" or "archive pages" does tie in because as worded in the policy it is a flat out "no" - as in "Do not use Wikipedia as a webhost". Period. When the "translation" got done vague terms such as "long-term", "indefinitely" and "permanent content" (as used in relation to "indefinitely") came into play. These are clear time limits, although to what degree is the issue. Would taking a page that was deleted from another wiki and placing in my userspace fall under an "indefinitely archive" of "previously deleted content" - "In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host"? How about if I made a mainspace article about myself and it was deleted, so I moved to my userspace in a subpage and kept adding information of myself to it - would this fall under "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes" - "In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host"? The discussion on that page is about the overall section that defines "Wikipedia is not a free web host". What I see is a bigger issue coming out - userspace is userspace and, outside of copyvios, blatant advertising, specific articles (userfied) (<- unsure because of an older topic on the same "how long" issue about deleted than userfied article) or (Not mentioned there -) an image gallery containing fair use images, "any old rubbish" can be in userspace without any restrictions. A list of my favorite TV shows, songs, Movies? No problem. A school paper that someday may be a mainspace article? No problem. A gallery of my favorite Common images? No problem. A list of concerts I have seen? No problem. The possibilities are endless. The consensus of that discussion, if it continues the same way, would defeat this policy, in essence. And if that is the case - well, you already know the question. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Removal of galleries is another discussion I was trying to remember when I was asked above for examples. While more related to WP:NOTREPOSITORY it certainly relates directly to WP:NOTWEBHOST, number 2 - "File storage areas" and if, via the overall discussion, userspace is deemed "off limits", outside of what has already been mentioned, it would nullify userspace galleries and images uploaded for use in userspace only galleries. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
TLDR. With respect to your statement "The consensus of that discussion, if it continues the same way, would defeat this policy, in essence." : No, it wouldn't. As I pointed out, the discussion at WT:USER is about one very specific aspect of userpages, the length of time a page draft can remain in userspace. A consensus that such drafts can remain indefinitely would not by any reasonable stretch of imagination negate Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
We must be reading different things. The discussion I am reading contains comments that are saying that, outside of the few specific items mentioned above, anything in userspace is off limits. What you are saying, "the length of time a page draft can remain in userspace", in only one part of the discussion. The RC is based around Copies of other pages however one needs to read actual comments. Read the main RFD posting at the top - "If this deletion review is endorsed, it will essentially mean that userspace is, in most cases, untouchable." Now read the fullt content of most of the comments - so far, at least as I type this, most all say to remove the existing time limits and don't define/add any set time except for, possible userfication. But that is not all that is being said, for example "As far as I'm concerned people can have any old rubbish sitting around in their user space, provided it's not offensive or illegal or being misused" seems to also be a reflection of "userspace is, in most cases, untouchable." Another example is, while endorsing the removal of time limits for articles, "As we have said above, people can have anything they want in their userspace, so long as it doesn't run afoul of serious problems like copyvio/G10/spam/etc". Point is "anything" means "anything". I am really at a loss what I am not saying correctly to get that across. Let me try this:
* A personal essay about the sex life of somebody - An unamed diary of sorts, no BLP issues - in mainspace probably not going to fly. Move to userspace and it is hands off.
* A photo gallery of images of trains. In mainspace, with no context, may not be allowed. In usersapce - hands off
* A list of my favorite TV shows. In mainspace no way - in userspace - hands off
* An autobiography - unless I am "notable", in mainspace - no way - in userspace - hands off.
* An article on my favorite cover band that plays at the corner bar. In main space doubtful unless it meets the WP:Music criteria, but in userspace - hands off.
* An personal synthesis of how the end of the world will be caused when a giant scallion climbs on board the space shuttle and, along with Bart Simpson, defeats the headless corpse of Space Ghost. In main space - probably be speedied as a hoax but in userspace - hands off.
And, as I said above, the list is endless. And if your idea is that it only will deal with "draft articles" not having any time limit that is a fairly big misunderstanding. And even if that is a reading by some I can see MfD being met with the same "keep:Doing no harm" but also the defense "It is just a draft, someday I hope to get it into mainspace" and than - hands off, forever. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You're reading too much into comments from a xFD/review. Userspace is not sacred - if it isn't part of helping to improve the encyclopedia (with just a salt of vanity for a user's main page) it should be deleted. If it passes the duck test - that is, it looks and reads like a potential WP article and, assuming good faith, the editor planned to use it in mainspace, it probably will be kept. None of the cases you describe meet that and thus would be deleted if they existed and were brought up for review. I think to be convinced there's a problem, we need to see a userspace page that clearly wasn't meant to be moved into mainspace, and that survived a xFD or review of such; if such existed multiple times, then there may be consensus to change this, but as it is now, that's not the case. --MASEM 00:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, this puts the discussion into somewhat clearer context for me, as does the clarification by Soundvisions, IMO Masem is essentially correct. While liberties are commonly granted to users who develop ideas, keep track of research, and other such things that might not very clearly be for use in article namespace or project namespace, the principle Masem states is I think generally accepted as the purpose for which userspace is intended. I might not interpret it quite as restrictively as Masem does, but the principle holds. At present I don't see any contradictions between this page and WP:USER, almost no matter which way the current discussion there goes. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

← I can understand the ideas presented, and honestly - I agree. As I said was up above I like this policy. However when I stumble across a userspace that is "storing" something, contans a myspacey - resume like page, or contains a "work in progress" that has not been touched in almost a year or longer it, to me, invokes this policy. The guidelines that define this policy as it relates to userpages seem to aid in telling editors why is allowed and why. However when, at a deletion discussion, a handful of users come in and give their opinion of "keep" using some variation of the argument "not doing any harm" or "no policy talks about this" I truly think it 1> is a problem with how the policy and/or guideline is written or 2> overall, "consensus" that the policy/guideline is irrelevant (and also 3> The policy/guideline is only meant for newbies, not established users). Per "we need to see a userspace page that clearly wasn't meant to be moved into mainspace, and that survived a xFD or review of such;" I can only cite ones that pop into my head - although some may not have been brought to a deletion discussion because of who the user is and "clearly wasn't meant to be moved into mainspace" is going to be debatable when we get into subpages because sometimes, as shown above and below, these are "articles" deleted from mainspace and have become (take your pick) "long term" archives, "indefinitely" archived or "personal versions". Also "article" is a controversial term when push comes to shove because I have been told more than once that anything in userspace is not an "article", therefore any policy or guideline that refers to an "article" does not apply to userspace - even if it is intended to be a mainsapce article or once was a mainspace article. In some case userpages are nothing more that copies of existing pages so it would be hard to argue that these are page "never intended" to be in mainspace when they "are" in mainspace.

  1. Taken from above examples. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khuntien Ngin/Rendy Marciano and compare it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. Excluding the "who" for a moment and focus on the reasons given in the noms and the arguments - there is no indication that these articles would make it in mainspace. In both cases the concept of policy issues came up - WP:OR, one of them. In both cases the main editors came into the discussion to plead their case. Both said they wanted to work on them, find more sources and present them on mainspace. In both cases this policy was cited. In one case the proposed articles had only resided in userspace for a few weeks, in the other - 11 months. In one case there had been no ongoing discussion about the subject, in the other case there was an 11 month discussion on the talk page. Arguments arose in one discussion about how WP:OR does not apply to user pages but was never questioned in the other. In one several editors argued there was no such policy or guideline that indicated works in progress could not be stored in userspace, it was never questioned in the other. At this point it is impossible to not bring in the "who" element as a possible indication of why one article was kept and the other wasn't, however one must read the actual "arguments" presented in these MfD's to see the arguments being presented really were not about "who" in one case, nut in the other were. One also has to now look at the related DRV for one to see further discussion. It is also where it is coming out more clear that the policy/guidelines do not matter. (Example, the closing admin re: WP:DGFA: "The page in question is not an article (it is not in the mainspace), and the OR policy does not apply to user space. So this sentence from the guideline is irrelevant (as well as the talk page)" and their response to the very specific WP:DGFA line that states "where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions" was "Which article? There is no article here. What we have is a page in the user space. Hopes and intentions of the creator do not matter.")<-(by that thought there should be a DRV brought for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khuntien Ngin/Rendy Marciano as it seems all the "delete" arguments were invalid - at least following this admins logic)
  2. Related to above somewhat - but as of yet untouched, and doubtful they will be, based on the current state of things: User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wold Newton Universe characters from 2006 - ended up here: User:Lady Aleena/Wold Newton. Also see User:Lady Aleena/Speculative fiction, started in 2006 but seems to just be, well, an "indefinite archive" and there is not any real indication this is intended to be a mainspace article. Nor are any of the "lists" this user has such as User:Lady Aleena/Films, User:Lady Aleena/Friends or User:Lady Aleena/Media franchises, F-H (Which contains links to some of the users other non-article articles/lists)
  3. User:TonyTheTiger/Photographs, photo gallery which based on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam Carr/My archive of original photographic contributions (Closed before any discussion could be had meaning it could not be noted that this gallery contains images not hosted here, but on Commons, as well as personal images only used in this gallery. To me this gallery violates a few things - "user pages are not personal home pages nor is Wikipedia a free host, webspace provider, communal image-sharing service or social networking site"; "Images should not be uploaded merely to fill a userspace gallery. Images appearing only within a userspace gallery are presumed to have been uploaded for private amusement and are subject to deletion as orphans." and "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted.") will not be nomed (at least not by me) because of "who", not because of policy. Related is Tony The Tiger (martial artist) and Antonio Vernon which resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Vernon and has been at User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon ever since. When I asked about this last year, in relation to a violation of this policy and was told not to bother because "it is harmless" and that the user is very active therefor an MfD would fail.
  4. A tale of two (three) resume/spam like user pages: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jason E Ramsey, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jarredland and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman. When I made the nom for User:Johnbuckman it was based on "Wikipedia is not a webhost". The user is also an SPA who has only made COI edits, although I did not mention that because I felt it did not matter (at the time) because the user page violated Policy found here. As you can see there was no debate at all - it was a solid keep and "who" the user was did not matter, at least based on the arguments). So when I saw that User:Jarredland and User:Jason E Ramsey had been nomed after only a few weeks I quickly voted "keep" because of the Buckman MfD. This is where I brought up the SPA/COI issues because of arguments against Land and Ramsey for being SPA/COI, however the end result was that "not a webshost" only applies to newbies who create their userpage first and do not make any mainspace edits fist, however not a webhost Policy does not state this anywhere.
  5. When a stub is not a stub: Raimond Spekking deleted June 3, 2006. Also created June 3 at, and "officially" userfied to, User:Eastmain/Raimond Spekking on June 5, 2006, sent to MfD on October 31 2008 as "Long since abandoned sandbox" and withdrawn the same day after the user said it was theirs and there was no need to "delete inoffensive draft articles in userspace". While implied this would would be worked on it has never been touched by the user. When this was raised in another discussion it was established that because of who the user is this was allowed to stay, policy and guidlines do not matter in such cases.
  6. Misc things - User:Cjneversleeps/Corrections.com - kept because it was nomed for MfD too quickly and despite having COI issues user was going to work on it. Not touched since. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Britt25/sandbox for CVS/Pharmacy (appears to be a duplicate of CVS/pharmacy) - kept because "not doing any harm" and "not breaking any rules". This is similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChanceYoungJr.Robert, a duplicate of Ray Charles - kept because "isn't hurting anything" and not in any violation of any policy or guideline. And here is a fairly fleshed out userspace that, to me, violates "not a webhost" but because of prior noms being snowed as "keep" because of "who the user is", ad because of the growing "userspace is off limits" feeling, have not made any nom for any of these - however: User:Wellus/Photo/2007 - personal photo gallery; User:Wellus/Miscellaneous/School - list of school related work including "articles" User:Wellus/Miscellaneous/School/Contemp and User:Wellus/Miscellaneous/School/General; A random page of "thoughts", in German, User:Wellus/Miscellaneous.

I am sure there are more, but other editor can take some time and search. Most times I find things because I am searching through images. I find links to userpage galleries and other subpages that leads me to these "hidden" pages. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Add on - A couple of interesting discussions. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SmashTheState was a "keep" and, while not based on "not a web host", the discussion does indicate a strong "consensus" that what is in userspace is off limits. We have a user stating that "Wikipedia is the place where angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerds with serious personality disorders come to take out their frustrations on others." It appears to be a rant brought on by the deletion of Andrew Nellis, who the user says "My real name is Andrew Nellis and I am a well-known activist and when a deliberately libellous article was created about me here, Wikipedia entered my personal radar.". My personal feeling is that this userpage is being used as a "blog" - it fails "not a webhost" because of it. However one can also say it is a userpage, it is related to the users work on Wikiepedia. Yes it is full of WP:OR and some, such as the nom, claerly see it as a violation of WP:UP#NOT, number 10 but the "consensus" is not so. Overall this MfD is almost treated as a joke when you read comments such as "Keep, angry white males like me sometimes benefit from having our shortcomings pointed out". And a new MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza/Userpage, based on "not a web host", appears to be leaning to the "delete" side but contains a interesting break down of why this nomination does not fail this policy. While I may not agree with it - it is from an editor who, more or less, votes "keep" in every MFD they can, but not with this much "effort". It also jumped out at me that another editor, here, says "delete" because this is "not a personal website" yet has agreed with "keep" elewhere because "consensus" shows userspace is...well, userspace. These are issues I just "don't get" because they send mixed singles - 1> "Vote" however "consensus" is going irregardless of policy 2> Always vote the same in every discussion irregardless of policy because 1> a closing admin only "counts heads/votes" so it doesn't matter anyway. 2> "rough consensus" always trumps long standing policy 3> nothing should be deleted from userspace. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate mailing list, contact the Wikimedia Foundation, or in cases of copyright violations notify us at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.
  2. ^ If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate mailing list, contact the Wikimedia Foundation, or in cases of copyright violations notify us at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_23&oldid=1142514718"