Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Edit from a month ago I just caught

I'm late doing the monthly update, I was working on April today. I rarely make changes to the pages when I'm doing these updates, but one unreverted edit here from last month seemed particularly bad and I reverted it; I swear, I didn't know it was Wolfkeeper's. He's just reverted my reversion, here. The edit was bad in every way a policy edit can be bad: it was probably designed to win an argument (you know which one), it's an appeal to Jimbo's authority which is a terrible idea on a policy page given the brouhaha over Jimbo's status earlier this month, and the comment from 2002 it refers to has almost nothing to do with the current state of NOT (the comment was really more relevant to what we now say at WP:SELFREF, about an encyclopedia looking outward rather than inward). That's my position; thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS censored

I don't want to start any kind of conflict, but I regard the statement of "wikipedia is not censored" (seen in several places of the wiki) as simply not true since, as pointed in this page, "Content that [violates] the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed." This means that any content not allowed by law will be censored. Now, I don't have any problem with this, there isn't any kind of content I want to add that the law forbids me, but I really think we should be more clear about this. Maybe we should say "Wikipedia only censors illegal content" (or something similar - suggestions welcomed)? --SF007 (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. My feeling is, this topic is already explained adequately in the section on censorship. Removal of content does not equal censorship. Censorship isn't the same thing as removing inappropriate content such as vandalism, advertising, content intended only for shock value, etc. Also, censorship isn't the same thing as complying with the laws where Wikipedia servers reside. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is already explained, but the title is nevertheless misleading. Lets get a particular example: "child pornography", on a first level, it is not allowed on wikipedia for (obvious!) "moral" or "ethical" reasons (children were hurt, etc, etc...), and on a second level, we do not allow it because it is also illegal material under USA laws. Now, if we ban child pornography for reason 1 or reason 2 (or both), it is censorship. I guess my main problem is that people don't see the removal of "objectionable/illegal content" (child pornography, rape, etc...) as censorship, but they should. (PS: I am in no way arguing against laws banning child rape) --SF007 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That is your personal view of censorship; it is not the only view of censorship. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the dictionary's view: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable" --SF007 (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The titles of many of our page-sections and pages are "misleading", in that they make blunt statements, that are then contextualized by the sentences or paragraphs that follow. WP:Ignore all rules being the main case in point, outside of all the subsections on this WP:NOT page. Summaries are, by definition, short. They need to be extrapolated. Given nuance. (See also, m:AWWDMBJ...) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, you have a good point. I guess it would be hard to invent a new title. --SF007 (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What a ridiculous essay

This could go on forever. I should imagine Wikipedia is not a great many things. I notice that "Wikipedia is not a Xenomorph eating Cheetos whilst watching Breakfast at Tiffany's on its I-Phone at the back of a Church in Manchester" is conspicuously missing. Lets start with what Wikipedia is shall we and work it from there! The Oh-So Humble One (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI it is not an essay, it is a policy. But thanks for your rant, the image made me smile!Active Banana (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nor is it a female lama called Charles De Gaulle surprised in the bath by Winston Churchill. But that's not on the list either! The Oh-So Humble One (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can come up with an unlimited number of irrelevant things that Wikipedia is not. We get that. Your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum does not work because this list it specifically targeted at informing people of common misunderstandings, bad ideas for article topics and information to be included in articles and other actions that people have historically engaged in that does not serve Wikipedia's format and goals as an encyclopedia. It is not an unlimited list of random things Wikipedia is not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I was merely remarking upon the negativistic attitude of Wikipedia whilst at the same time flaunting my by no means inconsiderable wit. Perhaps a list of what Wikipedia is would be prudent. For the record, I also note that Wikipedia is not a slithy tove, gyring and gimbling in the wabe amidst the mimsy borogroves and the outgrabe momeraths. The Oh-So Humble One (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is supposed to be is covered at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We don't anywhere say what type of encyclopedia we are for example. And Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia is just a sarcastic copy of this page.- Wolfkeeper 16:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." Stated at the top of WP:NOT. Active Banana (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's lots of different sorts of Encyclopedias, is this an encyclopedia of words? Nope. Even if we have some, that's not what it is.- Wolfkeeper 16:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The French started with this mess, but they sorted it out. If you go to the french policy from here, you find it's marked as essai. If you go to our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and then go to the French policy, they've written it out in the positive, and reduced the number of policies they have that way (they essayed out Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary by copying it to the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.)- Wolfkeeper 16:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm English and you know what we think of the French but they've just gone up in my estimations. From what I've read of Wiki's policies, the place seems to be all bureaucracy and no mission. Vivre la France! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Oh-So Humble One (talk • contribs) 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The mission is consistent: we're here to create a free encyclopedia. The definition of "encyclopedia" itself is broad, as each encyclopedia has its own ground rules for what they do and don't cover. Wikipedia is no different in that regard, but we have a much wider coverage than conventional encyclopedias.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The scope (defined as what types of things we cover) is not really significantly bigger, we are just able to go into more detail because we have much more space and contributors.- Wolfkeeper 23:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is, my old Funk and Wagnalls didn't have individual articles for, say, every King of Thailand, every Mayor of Toronto, or all the craters on the moon. Like all encyclopedias, we have our ground rules for what we do and don't include - ie our policies and our notability guideline - but the extent of what we cover is much bigger than conventional encyclopedias. However, we share the same encyclopedic goal of trying to cover all branches of knowledge.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Outtakes for the list you're looking for. Angryapathy (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Angryapathy. Looks like a good read. Oh and by the way Cuchullain, I like your user name. Irish mythology fascinates me. The Oh-So Humble One (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki doi is a covert advertising instrument

For a discussion of what is in my view a gross violation of our core principle Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING, please see HERE. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's solicit attention via the village pump, rather than a policy page. That's what it's for. --King Öomie 13:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to move this nonsense to centralized discussion, why not use the tool designed for the purpose? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rail timetable

Is there a policy prohibiting the inclusion of train or bus times in articles (see, for example, this article, sentence "On Mondays to Fridays, the northbound service calls at 2046 and stops only at Cheltenham and Birmingham, and the southbound service calls at 2206 and is the service from Edinburgh to Bristol Temple Meads.")? Similarly, is there one prohibiting the inclusion of times when a railway station is open (see, for example, this article section)?

WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTRAVEL between them seem seem like they should cover these, but don't do so explicitly. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say while no specific wording of NOT is geared towards timetables, it would be inappropriate to have them in the same manner that we don't including television programming guides. From a global encyclopedia perspective, knowing these data does little for most readers. If there is something historically notable about a timetable or the like, that may warrant inclusion but the average, day-to-day schedule or hours of operation are not. --MASEM (t) 12:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that if people want the current rail timetables they should be going to the rail site, not Wikipedia. If for some reason a historical timetable is of encyclopedic notice, it would need to be covered by third party sources for inclusion. Would a current schedule with data from solely one site also fall astray of copyright violations? Active Banana (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Considering the recent blanking/vandalism, is there really any reason for a fundamental policy page like this to be edited by anons and newbies? I think that indefinite semi-protection is probably appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

NOTDIR include current channel listings

Is there any objection to expanding NOTDIR to specifcaly note that "current channel listings" are not appropriate encyclopedic content? see SkyCable#Channel line-up and all of the other providers in the nav box at the bottom. Active Banana (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Full Support Not only no objection from me, but full support. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Is this not already in there in #4? I mean, yes, the "example" is radio stations, but clearly it applies to TV too. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see it's slightly different (a channel lineup, as opposed to program listings). However, I read #4 to clearly extend to that - it's effectively the same thing. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding User: Active Banana, you wont really rest until you get what you want and actually proposed to have it included in the NOTDIR policy. An Admin already stated his side regarding Channel Listings on Wikipedia. Channel Line-up is completely different from Program Listings, Program Schedule or Electronic Program Guide. On the article List of Verizon FiOS channels, Pats1 ^T/C, which is an Admin, actually maintains the article with no complaints or whatsoever. Quoting Pats1 ^T/C, General Comment: There is a difference between advertising specific products or services (especially prices) on telecom/cable articles and just providing information on the channels offered by the provider. If we are to have individual network articles have references to Ch. #s in infoboxes, and availability on specific providers, then we ought to have the other view of the relationship, the listing of the channels offered by the provider and links to the individual networks. That most certainly is encyclopedic. Pats1 T/C 01:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Now, Active banana, don't tell me again, that I'm Canvassing the Admin. It's actually the Admin's opinion and I didn't Canvassed it to have his side on mine. --g8crash3r 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G8crash3r (talk • contribs)

Er, admins are not the deciders of how WP policy is intepreted, they only perform actions that are related to maintaining those policies. Consensus of both regular editors and admins is what is the final say. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

RE:PATS "If we are to have individual network articles have references to Ch. #s in infoboxes, and availability on specific providers, then we ought to have the other view of the relationship, the listing of the channels offered by the provider and links to the individual networks." The fact that other articles may have inappropriate types of content should not be the basis to include non-encyclopedic content in other articles. I see no encyclopedic content in a current channel listing. There may be specific channel listing items that may be covered in a text format, if covered by third party sources, that could be encyclopedic (ex: "SkyCable had previously distributed all news on channels 14-18, but after ConsevoNews began criticizing the government about X, ConservoNews was moved from channel 16 to channel 794 in May of 2010." or "In May of 2010, SkyCable began distributing 20 channels of cable access programming from local amature productions.") but a mere listing of the current channels does not provide any encyclopedic content. Active Banana (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

@Masem "I mean, yes, the "example" is radio stations, but clearly it applies to TV too." To me the application is obvious as well, but as you can see User:G8crash3r and some other users have been of the position that since the channel guide is not explicitely mentioned, that NOTDIR cannot be applied. And so to avoid continual arguments over numerous webpages, having it clearly specified as a community consensus in the policy itself will help avoid needless repetitive discussions. Active Banana (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is not a TV guide. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a TV guide was a failed proposal that echos this one. Taric25 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This is important and reasonably encyclopedic content. A program guide means only the detailed current listing of what is on a particular channel or groups of channels. A listing of all Verizon channels with detail about their current schedule would violate it. A listing of all Verizon channels by itself does not. WP is an encyclopedia, but has content beyond that of a traditional encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A reader in London or Tokyo or Perth knowing that today SkyCable is broadcasting CNN on channel 47 is important??? Can you clarify how that could possible ever be "important"?Active Banana (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Knowing whether CNN is available to millions of Filipinos is important. I also object to the "today CNN is broadcasting on 47". Channel listings generally stay in place for years on cable/satellite, decades for terrestrial. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. A table containing a listing of what channels a cable service carries is not the same thing as a television or radio program schedule, and should not be lumped in. It is reasonable to expect that a reader who is reading an article on a company which offers or offered satellite or cable services will expect to find what cable channels the provider provides or provided. The tabular format should be reinforced with prose, but information like this is not automatically unencyclopedic. Indeed, one would expect to find tabular data alongside the prose in an article which fully explains the topic. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  Readers may come to Wikipedia expecting a lot of things, but what they should find is encyclopedic content. If they REALLY want to know what current channels are offered by their cable provider, they should be going to their cable providers website. Active Banana (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My point was that a table showing what channels are offered, or were offered, isn't necessarily unencyclopedic. Traditional encyclopedias contain tables of data as well as prose; there's a tendency on WP for editors to declare content "unencyclopedic" if it's in tabular form; this ignores the tables in print encyclopedias. These same editors who balk at a table of data won't look twice at the same information presented in prose. However, tables, charts, graphs, cladograms, diagrams, lists, and pictures help a reader's understanding of a topic in a way that prose cannot always provide; some WP editors go overboard with the "unencyclopedic" label, and sometimes historic, scientific, or otherwise significant data comes under the threat of deletion by careless WP editors (not that you are one of them). Please look at Featured Article Paramount_Television_Network#Affiliates for an example of historic television channel data presented in tabular form. It is not possible to go to this television company's "website" to access this information, nor is it often an option for many other companies, for various reasons. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In the so far extremely hypothetical situation that a _current_ _channel_ _listing_ can be shown to have actual encyclopedic value we can accomodate that situation even if we have specified in NOTDIR that it is generally not appropriate content. Active Banana (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is highly transient, mostly trivial information that has no business in an encyclopedia. A collaborative, GDFL-licensed TV programming guide would be a fine project, but Wikipedia is not the place to attempt it. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support Sending readers to the service's official channel listing page seems better on most counts. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support I can find some sympathy with the point made by DGG, but in practice that approach leads to let's list everything, and a list of channels becomes what we see in this article: a promotional substitute for what should be on an official website. The list contains content like Minimum Package "SelectPlus Prepaid" with Note "Analog subscribers may experience interference with the local signal of TV5 on this channel. Channel 159 on Digital." Content like that encourages the use of Wikipedia for promotion, yet if removed, the list would be rather pointless. If the company cannot provide a directory listing of the channels, I suggest the content be moved to another free hosting site such as WikiLists. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Has this comment period been long enough, and if so is there anyone willing to determine if we have reached consensus? Active Banana (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus is clear, based on the rather limited input this topic has received. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why so hasty, Ophelia? This is only Hamlet we’re talking about here. Just take a moment to write a poem in your journal. P.S., this is the best your hair has ever looked!

• Strongly Oppose Channel Listing has been on Wikipedia for years, why remove it if we can ignore it. Besides, Active Banana's explanation is he is trying to clean up the articles, if that so why only the Philippine articles. What is his agenda, I don't know but a lot of Philippine Wiki editors are getting irritated and peeved with the situation and that includes me. He is actually trying to prove that he gets what he wants and is an act of immaturity, AFAIK. Why not edit or tag other articles that will not attract or gain, negative impact to the article's intended audience. Active Banana is actually trying to create a bad environment here in Wikipedia by pissing off other editors. Now, regarding this issue, I believe the consensus is not clear yet to include Channel Listings as part of the WP:NOTDIR policy page because the other articles here in Wikipedia that has Channel Listings are evidences that points out to include it in WP:NOTDIR in the opposite direction. Likewise, Channel Listings presented in tabular form can be included in the articles since they can be ignored as unencyclopedic. -G8crash3r | Talk 18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpeting WP:IAR; the basis for ignoring the rules is that the result is an improvement to the encyclopedia. Not just "I dont want to follow the rules". Active Banana (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is pretty clear, and your personal attacks are beyond off-base and inappropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And Active Banana seem to be persistent and trying to create a massive edit war game here. Are the articles such a big deal to you that you go beyond borders to satisfy your editing concerns. Are you that really desparate, Active Banana, What are you trying to prove here, that you can pick on Philippine articles, is that right? Why not edit other articles. There are a lot of editors getting irritated and peeved of what you are doing to the articles. I apologize for that words that I posted but obviously I am definitely not having fun anymore here in Wikipedia because of this whole issue that Active Banana brought up. To be fair Active Banana should delete this article as well, List of Verizon FiOS channels. -G8crash3r | Talk 18:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support. Channel listings fall into the "indiscriminate list of cruft" category. There is such a thing as going beyond encyclopedic by describing what amounts to minutiae. I also think it's a bad idea to introduce high-maintenance elements into articles, and channel listings fits that bill too. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per g8crasher. - Gabby 14:33, 17 June 2010 (PST)
• Support Virtually unmaintainable and absolutely unnecessary. My channels range from 1-8528, with a lineup that changes daily. What possible purpose does it serve to try to keep it up to date?—Kww(talk) 07:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That I've never seen; what company is this? What about the siutation where there is maybe only one national cable tv provider and one satellite provider and the channels generally stay the same year-to-year, and that channel listing pretty much delineates what media the people have access to. Is that unencyclopedic? Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm only here because I left a q elsewhere on this page regarding rail timetables; but to my mind, if current rail timetables (which change twice a year) should be excluded, then current TV schedules (which change weekly) should be excluded 26 times more strongly. The current edit-warring on WP:NOT revolves around whether the specific words "current channel listings" are to be included or excluded. I think that the problem is that these words are ambiguous, and could be read to mean anything from "list of TV stations controlled by Rupert Murdoch" right through to "tonight's TV program schedules". Why not use words that are more clearly interpreted? If it's (say) the schedule that's forbidden, say so explicitly. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We aren't discussing TV schedules at all; we're discussing current channel listings. There's been a lot of edit warring at SkyCable, with editors adding or removing the channel listing material, according to their own whims. Although I believed there was a clear consensus for the removal of this material, this is not the case. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but exactly what do the words "channel listing" actually mean? To some, they are synonymous with "program schedules": that's my point. In the UK, we have the BBC, who when mentioning their own publication the Radio Times, which is primarily a list of schedules, they also state "Other listing magazines are available"; note their use of the word "listing".

If the words "current channel listings" be interpreted in the same way that the BBC use, the sentence fragment "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, current channel listings, et cetera" could be taken as stating the same prohibition twice (whether for clarity or for emphasis). Since the word "listing" has been taken as synonymous with "schedule", this means that a schedule is prohibited but a list of channels which omits schedules is permitted.

Between 03:20 14 June 2010 and now, on WP:NOT the words "current channel listings" have been added and then removed again, a total of six times each; this is well beyond WP:BRD's suggestion of just one pair, and is getting into WP:EDITWAR territory. Can't a better phrase be found? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that a number of those changes were by IPs currently under investigation as socks so be careful in using that as part of determining whether or not consensus exists. We could turn this into a full fledged RfC, my first crack at the template didnt work and I dont really have time right now. Active Banana (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

True consensus does not require edit warring to achieve a goal. It appears edit warring on multiple articles is taking place, with one side claiming a "consensus". I, too, originally thought consensus had been achieved, based on eight editors' responses to the discussion, six of whom were in favor of deleting the material. However, six editors, even superstar editors, cannot determine Wikipedia policy when there is significant resistance to the decision from the Wikipedia community. More editors have supported and more editors have opposed the proposal on this talk page since then, but the resistance in article space indicates that there is no consensus from the Wikipedia community for removal of channel listings... if these editors are different editors, and not socks of one another. A checkuser has checked, indicating the named users are unrelated, and no comment on the IPs. I think an RfC might be beneficial here. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I found the correct RfC tag. But before I placed it, I wonder if we should work a little bit to more clearly define what we are talking about as "current channel listing"? Active Banana (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, since there's still some confusion above. I'd define it as a "current list of television channels provided by a cable or satellite company, such as the one here". Broad enough? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see no reason to have a complete listing. Encyclopedias are about summarising information, but there's no summary in a complete listing of something that can change. They should be allowed to have a few representative examples or something though.- Wolfkeeper 01:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose First of all, I would like to point out that Active Banana was the recently the subject of an edit war I listed at WP:AN3 after a user listed her at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User: Active Banana, and she is also under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gerald Gonzalez‎‎, where all of the editors have commented on her edit warring.

Poor Juliet, if only she hadn’t been so hasty…

Aside from her behavior, I side completely with G8crash3r when the editor writes, “Active Banana, you wont really rest until you get what you want,” because this is her own vendetta in which she is attempting to overthrow consensus on the articles she edits, as I confronted her about replacing good-faith unsourced content with sourced content, she stated in her own words that she has absolutely no interest in improving articles to reach featured status:

“ As far as the use of edit summaries, please do not use the automatic summary “Undid revision [NUMBER] by [USER] (talk))”, without writing anything else in the edit summary, which I have seen you do a couple times, or no summary at all other than the section in which you're editing, such as Legal Issues, and speaking of that edit, do you see how this is infinitely more desirable than removing that content? It really took me only a few minutes to find the information on Google in order to add the source. Please do the same, unless you can't find the information in under five minutes, then move it to the talk page. Taric25 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[1] ”

Active Banana’s response disturbed me.

This is Desdemona from Shakespeare’s Othello. This tragedy would have been avoided if her husband hadn’t been so hasty.

“ Feel free to follow me as I hack trails through jungles of unsourced content; and you can build lovely sourced roads in the wake. Much of my editing time is in situations where I do not have any reasonable expectation of not being interrupted for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search" to attempt to find sources for claims ranging from seemingly benign to bizzare. If you do, well good for you!
But, bringing articles into closer compliance with WP:V is something that takes mere seconds and if I do get interrupted, my previous work is not lost and providing zero improvement to Wikipedia.
Thank you for improving Wikipedia in your way, and I will improve it in mine. Active Banana (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[2] ”

When confronted with the example of Paramount Television Network#Affiliates she cites Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to override this addition to policy she is proposing, however, for Ignore all rules to work, you have to assume the assumption of good faith because editors must assume your actions that ignore the rules are because the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and she consistently shows that she would rather revert good faith over improving Wikipedia. According to X!'s Edit Counter, I, Taric25, have been on Wikipedia since 02:08:57 Oct 21, 2005 and edited 704 unique pages, while Active Banana has been on Wikipedia since 23:55:39 Feb 03, 2010 and edited 1,484 unique pages. This clearly shows she does not take her time when editing and is focusing on the quantity of her edits rather than the quality, and she violates Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers in the process when she removes good faith edits from new users. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism, “Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism,” although removing good faith edits despite multiple warnings is disruptive edit warring. In the previous examples I showed above, multiple editors continued to urge her to collaborate, which she has failed to do. She works against good faith when she removes good faith edits from the encyclopedia, and the constant removal of good content runs completely against the project by subtracting from the sum of knowledge. Wikipedia is and should always be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, anyone, no matter how inexperienced they are with our rules. She haves not shown her dedication to consistently collaborate with them, and she has not shown dedication to displaying what we consider to be our best articles, as determined by Wikipedia's editors: featured articles. The only dedication that everyone can agree she has is to remove as much content that doesn’t align with the rules from as many articles as possible in the least amount of time. Per Wikipedia:Where to get feedback on your new article, “Above all, don't rush: Rome wasn't built in a day, and there's no reason any article should be.”
So, no, I don’t believe Active Banana for a second when she cites ignore all rules, because she ignores good faith, and she is using this forum to change policy to overthrow consensus.
Active Banana argues that channel listings are unencyclopedic. How could they ever be?! Unless someone miraculously writes such an article single edit, that will never happen. She doesn’t allow articles to evolve, because she reverts so many good-faith edits and won’t welcome people into Wikipedia.
We have many individual network that reference to channel numbers in infoboxes, and what their availability is specific providers, so we must have the other view of the relationship, which is the listing of the channels provider offers and links to the individual networks. That most certainly is encyclopedic, and we must allow them to evolve and reach featured status by citing sources and doing what makes Wikipedia great. Taric25 (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Its nice to know that you have your screed against me in your cut and paste so that you can repeat it ad nausem. However, THIS discussion is about whether or not current channel listings are an appropriate encyclopedic topic. And I request that you direct your commentary about the subject at hand, and limit your personal disappointments that other editors are not living up to your standards to the appropriate places. WP:NPA. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel writing “However, THIS discussion is about” is an attempt to detract attention from the real reason you proposed this change, because you have demonstrated you do not care whatsoever if your edits improve articles towards featured status, and it’s very important that editors know that. Taric25 (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Taric25, but there is NO requirement ANYWHERE that every editor must be devoted to taking every article they touch to Feature Article status. That the majority of my edits are attempts to bring articles in closer compliance with WP:V / WP:NPOV / WP:BLP is good enough for me. Active Banana (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Parting words of advice from Larry Sanger:[3]

• Be open and warmly welcoming, not insular,
• Be focused single-mindedly on writing an encyclopedia,
• Recognize and praise the best work: work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced,
• Work to understand what neutrality requires, and why it is so essential to and good for this project,
• Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,
• Attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and
• Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.

Per WP:DOOR. Taric25 (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana you wrote, "THIS discussion is about whether or not current channel listings are an appropriate encyclopedic topic" then what would be your explanation on your statement if you wrote the following in the first part of this discussion "Is there any objection to expanding NOTDIR to specifcaly note that "current channel listings" are not appropriate encyclopedic content? see SkyCable#Channel line-up and all of the other providers in the nav box at the bottom. Active Banana (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)" In addition, what are we discussing here then if this is not all about the encyclopedic value of "Current Channel Listings." -16:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC) G8crash3r (talk)

• Strong Oppose, for two reasons. One is that WP:NOTDIR is inherently not supposed to be an exhaustive list of everything that could be considered a "directory" and not encyclopedic. The other is that some lists of TV channels can be encyclopedic. A list of all broadcast channels within a country is encyclopedic, as it is basic information about a nation's media, and the kind of thing the CIA World Factbook considers basic statistics about a country. A list of channels carried on a DBS satellite system or a large regional digital cable franchise is probably encyclopedic, as it's usually an oligopoly that tens of millions subscribe to and tells volumes about the region's media market. Knowing whether CNN is available in the Phillipines, I find it hard to see that as unencyclopedic. However, a list of channels carried on an individual town's cable system is not encyclopedic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If the state of media - including limitations on what the media can broadcast and the unavailability of foreign networks within that nation - are notable, there will likely be a separate article on that. I would also argue that the listings of what major broadcast networks, particularly state-run, are useful information on media about that country. But, the listings of a cable or satellite provider, which 1) are not static since they change over time and 2) not significant to the rest of the world at large after the above facts are considered, makes such lists like programming guides and for the most part unencyclopedic. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Quoting these statements 'I found the correct RfC tag. But before I placed it, I wonder if we should work a little bit to more clearly define what we are talking about as "current channel listing"? Active Banana (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC) and this one: Makes sense, since there's still some confusion above. I'd define it as a "current list of television channels provided by a cable or satellite company, such as the one here". Broad enough? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
      I think we should use the term 'Channel Line-up' instead of 'Current Channel Listing' since the latter can be confused with Program Listing or Programming Guide. G8crash3r | Talk 22:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly support. I've !voted against them in AfD's because I don't see the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose For me Wikipedia is more accurate for adding channel listings for Philippine cable providers because some of their websites are not updated. Vgyu 03:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)VgyuVgyu 03:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not wikipedia's job to document something just because a website that should be documenting it is behind. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content could not possibly be more accurate than the sources content per WP:V] which would require a reliable source to publish information before it can be included in our articles. Active Banana (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose In my opinion I'm disagree not to include current channel line up to include in WP:NOTDIR rule and guide lines. Because i never seen removed channel listing (also known as Channel Line up) in other Cable and Satellite provider article in other countries like Direct TV and Verizon FiOS in USA, Sky Digital in UK and Ireland and Astro in Malaysia. But why the Philippines Cable and Satellite Article disrupt all articles as a example just what they did to Active Banana Him or Herself putting unknown warning and tag not only in Cable and Satellite articles but also other Philippine Showbiz personalities and even TV Program from ABS-CBN as well even a single or multiple references as an evidence but Active Banana Ignore it. Puppyph (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

All those other channel lineups should be removed too. The Philipenes one only came up due to the fact that there was edit warring on keeping it or not, and brought here, but it identified the larger problem. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think all of those that supports this proposal should read this and also this one. Articles pertaining to notability of Channel Listings here in Wiki. Better yet read WP:NME. This discussion has been on for almost a month and I believe those articles can help us come up with a conclusion or closure to this discussion. Except if there is a larger picture to why this proposal was created that we are not aware of. G8crash3r | Talk 19:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A random essay is not likely to change my nor anyone else's opinion. It is not a community accepted guideline, and should probably be moved to another name to better reflect that it is just an essay. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not really saying that you or anyone else's should change their opinion on this discussion but regarding the guideline, the WP:NME can provide a better understanding of what we are discussing here. I have included the WP:NME to help us come up with a conclusion because it shows that Channel Listings has already been accepted as per WP:NME. Another thing is all of those that support or opposes the proposal may have the same views but our opinion about the topic may still vary. G8crash3r | Talk 20:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Even within your essay, the emphasised word is "may" - not "is" or even "is likely". "May" be encyclopedic content - but to qualify as encyclopedic content there should be third party sourced commentary - which most of the time is lacking. Active Banana (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so we’re finally getting somewhere, because we’ve now unearthed that it’s not the problem with the listings themselves, it’s that they don’t use reliable sources, is that right? Taric25 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No. The listing themselves are a directory and not encyclopedic content. The claims that there are some type of encyclopedic value of the content of the lists would be dependant upon the existance of third party commentary about the channel listings. And in those rare cases where such third party commentary/analysis exists, then we can apply WP:IAR to improve the encyclopedia by including the commentary AND what would normally simply be a directory, but in this case would function as a picture or diagram normally does to help explain or elaborate on the commentary.Active Banana (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel it is a very, very bad idea to accommodate for situations where we would need to make critical commentary on such lists by depending on nothing but Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If you feel that we should only create such lists if there are reliable sources to support the information, then why don’t we just include that into the policy? Taric25 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CREEP / WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY - There is no need to make the guidelines and policies more complicated and filled with exceptions where no one has yet identified any situation where such third party sources talk about current channel listings in such a way. Active Banana (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As Masem stated below, the guideline I proposed asks a lot more than covering this minute aspect of the issue with which we are dealing, broadcast lists, and I feel it does avoid instruction creep by not being so specific that it will be of little interest to anyone, per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.

However, also recall what instruction creep is. “Frequently, somebody thinks that such-and-such a point should be addressed, or that readers would benefit from more explanation, and adds more requirements, restrictions, or examples. However, project pages do not serve the same purpose as articles, and should not strive to cover every minute aspect of the issues they deal with.” Also recall what you proposed, “Is there any objection to expanding NOTDIR to specifcaly note that "current channel listings" are not appropriate encyclopedic content?” That in and of itself is instruction creep, because you are adding another requirement/restriction/example.

The guideline I propose documents already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected in articles related to television, which for the most part are lists about television characters and episodes, because we have documented those lists very, very well, as there are hundreds of those very articles already showing the community’s consensus of what should and should not be in those articles. The same also goes for articles about names, such as people or pets. By the same token, I wrote the section on broadcast lists in the same manner that what is notable for articles, which we document by including in the infoboxes of the television programs, is also notable for the purpose of lists also related to television. Therefore, I proposed it as a guideline to verify that it reflects consensus for a project-specific guideline, just as other projects, such as music, also have the same manner of project specific guidelines. Taric25 (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Support = WP:NOTDIR should be expanded to state that current channel listings are not appropriate in articles.

Support (11):

• Transient, mostly trivial information.
• Lists like these contain too many promotional and non-encyclopedic details.edit by Active Banana (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC) to add and function as a webhosting service space for content and bandwidth that should be supported by the station and by not dontations to the Wikimedia foundation.
• Almost universally bereft of third party analysis and commentary which would show encyclopedic value added by Active Banana (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Active Banana, Amatulic, AnmaFinotera, Cybercobra, Edgarde, Gavin.collins, Johnuniq, Kww, Masem, Niteshift36, Wolfkeeper

Oppose (8):

• Important and reasonably encyclopedic content.
• Readers would want an article on a company offering satellite/cable to list the channels provided.
• many articles already have it added by Active Banana (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• WP:CREEP- it it already coveredadded by Active Banana (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• DGG, Firsfron, G8crash3r, Puppyph, Squidfryerchef, Supergabbyshoe, Taric25, Vgyu

This section is too long with many extraneous comments, so I have tried to make the above summary. Please correct any errors by editing the above. It is possible that a couple of supporters felt the proposal concerned TV schedules (so a clearer proposal may have had less support). While the above is a reasonable support consensus, I think a proper RFC should be used before updating WP:NOTDIR. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think it is a pretty good reflection of consensus, I have added one additional point to each side that I think has been brought up in the discussion above. Active Banana (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

off topic discussion continued at User_talk:G8crash3r#Off_topic_discussions_on_WP:NOT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What happened to the RfC tag? "I found the correct RfC tag. But before I placed it, I wonder if we should work a little bit to more clearly define what we are talking about as "current channel listing"? Active Banana (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)" "Makes sense, since there's still some confusion above. I'd define it as a "current list of television channels provided by a cable or satellite company, such as the one here". Broad enough? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)" And this one Active Banana you wrote, "THIS discussion is about whether or not current channel listings are an appropriate encyclopedic topic" then what would be your explanation on your statement if you wrote the following in the first part of this discussion "Is there any objection to expanding NOTDIR to specifcaly note that "current channel listings" are not appropriate encyclopedic content? see SkyCable#Channel line-up and all of the other providers in the nav box at the bottom. Active Banana (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)" In addition, what are we discussing here then if this is not all about the encyclopedic value of "Current Channel Listings." -16:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC) G8crash3r (talk)

• I think there's room for a compromise here. It's clear that details such as the particular channel numbers and the day-to-day schedule are largely useless to most people, but the list of channels served by a provider is quite relevant and relatively stable. To those who wish to redirect readers to the provider's web site: remember that Wikipedia is not just a website - articles about these providers may end up in printed books far away from an Internet terminal. Dcoetzee 00:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)

{{rfctag}}

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Very clearly a personal essay and an attempt to ignore the consensus above against channel lists by shoving it off to an "essay" based on another failed essay. Highly inappropriate and disruptive in the midst of the existing discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq wrote, “I think a proper RFC should be used before updating WP:NOTDIR.” I am complying with that. Taric25 (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A proper RfC would be added here, with the existing discussion, not by your creating an essay and splitting off the discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I have changed what I wrote to the standard template. Taric25 (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this RfC really phrased appropriately for this project space? Active Banana (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am open to other suggestions. Please see the Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television) to discuss it. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you were expanding on the RFC of the section above, the question to be asking is along the lines of "Are lists of stations offered by cable/satellite providers appropriate content for Wikipedia?". How you've done it, you're asking a lot more that didn't need addressing at the present time. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course I had to write to address the topic, because guidelines that are too specific are also a problem. Wikipedia:Manual of style (Pokémon whos names start with the letter B) will be of little interest to anyone (except the person proposing the policy). Taric25 (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The development of a guideline to discuss lists relating to television is not necessarily a bad thing, but it solves the problem we are specifically seeking guidance for in the same manner as using a sledge hammer to push in a thumbtack - it's the wrong question to be asked. We need right now to seek closure on if channel offering lists are appropriate or not; none of the other questions you have them impact this answer. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Let’s not be hasty. Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. Taric25 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but the specific issue here that people wanted an RFC for was the issue of station lists, not any possible list tied to television. You're free to go and spell out a new guideline for such lists and get an RFC there, but here where the RFC was requested, it needs to be about the station lists. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The RfC is for a policy that is about station lists and is not too specific to be of little use to the majority of Wikipedians. Taric25 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

On bibliographies

I've noticed Wikipedia has some articles that are essentially bibliographies, like List of important publications in computer science. While this is clearly in scope, what I'm wondering is, would a more focused, more comprehensive bibligraphy be in scope? For example, would a comprehensive list of papers related to a particular technique in computer graphics be in scope, particularly if some of the articles listed are not notable? I ask because I'm thinking of starting a new wiki for bibliographies, but I'd hate to go to the trouble if they're acceptable here. Dcoetzee 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

normally, I would advise that this would belong with an appropriate article--for the example you give, I'd think it perfectly practical. Some articles have very extensive lists of either references or supplementary reading. If you do it free-standing, there's the question of on what basis you are going to make your selection? If you really want to do them free-standing, my own feeling is that in practice you would do better on a separate wiki than trying to cope with it here--there's not that much overhead in starting a wikia. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There are some very questionable freestanding bibliographies (the Bibliography of fly fishing and Bibliography of the War in Darfur monstrosities come to mind), I'd agree with DGG that adding Further Reading sections to relevant articles is superior. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would only argue that in cases of topics spread among dozens of pages (eg World War II) that a shared bibliography is helpful, but as noted above, the most relevant sources to the article - if not actually used as references already - should be listed in "Further Reading". --MASEM (t) 20:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There's been some recent discussion about Bibliographies at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 1#Question regarding bibliography articles and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Are Bibliographies covered here? which I'd recommend reading through. If you'd like to help coordinate the cleanup activities of the existing Bibliographies, and help hammer out guidelines for current and new articles, I'd suggest bringing your thoughts to WikiProject Books. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)

{{rfctag}}

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Very clearly a personal essay and an attempt to ignore the consensus above against channel lists by shoving it off to an "essay" based on another failed essay. Highly inappropriate and disruptive in the midst of the existing discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq wrote, “I think a proper RFC should be used before updating WP:NOTDIR.” I am complying with that. Taric25 (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A proper RfC would be added here, with the existing discussion, not by your creating an essay and splitting off the discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I have changed what I wrote to the standard template. Taric25 (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this RfC really phrased appropriately for this project space? Active Banana (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am open to other suggestions. Please see the Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television) to discuss it. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you were expanding on the RFC of the section above, the question to be asking is along the lines of "Are lists of stations offered by cable/satellite providers appropriate content for Wikipedia?". How you've done it, you're asking a lot more that didn't need addressing at the present time. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course I had to write to address the topic, because guidelines that are too specific are also a problem. Wikipedia:Manual of style (Pokémon whos names start with the letter B) will be of little interest to anyone (except the person proposing the policy). Taric25 (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The development of a guideline to discuss lists relating to television is not necessarily a bad thing, but it solves the problem we are specifically seeking guidance for in the same manner as using a sledge hammer to push in a thumbtack - it's the wrong question to be asked. We need right now to seek closure on if channel offering lists are appropriate or not; none of the other questions you have them impact this answer. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Let’s not be hasty. Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. Taric25 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but the specific issue here that people wanted an RFC for was the issue of station lists, not any possible list tied to television. You're free to go and spell out a new guideline for such lists and get an RFC there, but here where the RFC was requested, it needs to be about the station lists. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The RfC is for a policy that is about station lists and is not too specific to be of little use to the majority of Wikipedians. Taric25 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED in the context of article illustrations

I have a concern that NOTCENSORED has come to be used to defend the inclusion of images in Wikipedia for article illustration that reliable sources would not use when covering the same topics. We are very strict that article text should apply WP:DUE weight, as established by reliable sources, but it seems that NOTCENSORED currently provides a kind of loophole when it comes to article illustrations, with editors taking it as leave to enforce their own standards and preferences, rather than following those used in reliable sources. The recent goatse deletion discussion was a case in point: many editors citing NOTCENSORED to argue that Wikipedia should show the image, without apparent concern for whether reliable published sources would show the picture when discussing the topic. There is also a related discussion at the Content Noticeboard. Thoughts? --JN466 13:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Goatse deletion discussion resulted in deletion due to the image having no proof that it meets the non-free content criteria for inclusion — which has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship.

I really don't see why it's relevant what other published sources would show. Those published sources have different goals and motivations than Wikipedia. They generally have a profit motive where it is not in their best interest to offend potential customers or scare away revenue-generating web traffic. That is not the case with Wikipedia. Those published sources are essentially censored by their motivations; that is not the case with Wikipedia.

The real value of the NOTCENSORED argument is to prevent removal of images to benefit a special interest group. Such is the case with the Muhammad article, which contains historically significant images of Muhammad, created by Muslim artists, but the images are continually being removed by Muslims who are offended by any depiction of Muhammad. The existence of those images is contentious enough to generate many megabytes of talk page pleadings at Talk:Muhammad/images as well as a FAQ at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ which puts forth the primary argument that Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any group. The NOTCENSORED argument is extremely valuable not only to maintain the encyclopedic content of the article but also to maintain it in a neutral fashion. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, Wikipedia including relevant images that Encyclopedia Brittanica excludes is a sign of its progressive pursuit of better education. While the editors of each article ultimately come to their own consensus about image use, I think the goatse.cx image is an excellent example of a highly relevant image that should be included (if not for copyright concerns). Dcoetzee 22:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If a specific illustration is problematic as simply unnecessary to the article, then I feel you need to make your argument on grounds of WP:UNDUE and/or WP:NOT#HOWTO. An article like autofellation is one thing; less specific articles like Internet pornography, not so much. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Bit on volunteer community in WP:BATTLE

I've restored:

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.

The discussion leading up to it's inclusion is here. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate this and support it. I have encountered editors who seem to believe that they have a fundamental human right to demand that other volunteers immediately drop everything and do their bidding, and that attitude is disgusting to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not support it, to the extent that I've reverted the addition. I do not see the limited discussion supports it adequately. Wikipedia is not quite the experimental enterprise it used to be. We are unique in having a functional project of this great size & diversity without formal central coordination, and I think we should continue along the lines that have been so successful. But that does not mean we can continue without some attempts at informal coordination. The growth and quality improvement in the last few years would have been impossible without the Wikiprojects and the development of internal methods of quality control such as the edit filters. Even the organized campaigns to add references have accomplished much, once it was agreed to pursue them in a moderate fashion. As worded, this would even support adding unreferenced material, e.g. "Don't ask me for references, if you want them, put them in yourself". It is in conflict with the strongly recommended practice of WP:BEFORE. People who want to delete articles should do some effort checking first; people who want to defend them should similarly look rather than merely assert they ought to be there. What I like is the additional phrases suggested by RoyLeban that make this a lot more rational: "When editing, think about whether you are creating new work for others." and especially " "Don't criticize others for not doing work that you're not doing either". But at this point it gets rather diffuse for policy. It also has the problem that for some things we must rely on others: if I think an article needs a graph, I want to say so , without having the skill to do them myself--I need others to help me I want someone to be able to ask for academic references without the opportunities themselves to find them--I am prepared to help others. I want to say we need world-wide examples, though I myself have a limited ability to find them--for world coverage, we must help each other. I do not think this has been reasonably considered. I think perhaps we might do better with some form of the first sentence. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I welcome more discussion, but we have over a year's consensus on it. --Ronz (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What you appear to be saying is that it pushes WP:IAR a bit too far? --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are we just missing the caveat that we want, sometimes even demand, that people's work benefit Wikipedia? --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)DDG, I am not sure what you are opposing? I am pretty sure that any and all accomplishments by the Wikiprojects and the campaigns to source material have not succeeded by grabbing random editors and stating "User:XXY you will spend the next 12 hours (or even 12 minutes) sourcing ArticleA", and "User:Abacababa you will not leave until we have proper reference format on articles in ProjectT." The only one that has anything vaguely like that kind of authority is the Foundation who has said: YOU as a community do SOMETHING about the Articles About Living People, and editors who agreed that it was important to the project VOLUNTEERED to take on that issue. But I am pretty sure that when editors or a projects start making specific demands that volunteer begin acting in more specifc ways than "Improve the Encyclopedia being guided by the 5 Pillars-here's some of our top priority items that you should consider" the number of volunteers doing ANYTHING is going to be severely reduced.Active Banana (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am opposing the statement that when people do incomplete work we shouldn't tell them they ought to complete it. That's how it reads now. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that most work is incomplete. That's the nature of Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• The sentence in question seems to be a non sequitur. Telling us that Wikipedia is a volunteer community is not a NOT issue. Homilies about scolding belong somewhere else like WP:CIVIL, not here. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it mention of being a volunteer community provides good context. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with telling editors that they personally either "ought to complete" a very few things -- such as providing a list of sources if they want to demonstrate notability or meet a WP:BURDEN-based challenge -- or live with the prescribed consequences (deleting of the article, removal of unsourced material). I'm definitely not okay with telling editors that they personally "ought to complete" just about anything else -- such as turning a stub into a featured article just because the community would rather have fabulous articles instead of stubs, or clearing a backlog because it needs to be done, or finding sources to support fact-tagged statements in random articles.

It's one thing to say "Wikipedia would like to have a fabulous article here." It's another to say, "You personally are hereby sentenced to turning this stub into a fabulous article, regardless of your personal interests, because I say so."

(Anyone who approves of this sort of order is hereby assigned to clicking on Special:Random each morning, and turning the results into an FA by the end of the day, every day, for the rest of the year -- because I say so, and you thought it would be just fine for editors to boss around volunteers like yourself. If you've changed your mind, your sentence is hereby suspended.)

The problem that I want solved, cleanly and directly, is the problem of a few self-appointed volunteers trying to boss around other volunteers. See this, for one of many examples of an editor baiting and picking at someone else to do a bunch of tedious grunt work that the first editor refused to do. This same editor told several people last summer that he was so disabled that he could only contribute copy-and-paste copyright violations, and that it was their duty to clean up his mess without deleting the copyvios.

To adapt the childish phrase "you are not the boss of me", Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place where you are the boss of any other volunteer, even if you phrase your bossy demands in a civil fashion. I think this policy ought to say that (again). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"...or live with the prescribed consequences" Exactly! The solution to people leaving work incomplete is that there are prescribed consequences. The consequences usually include a notification to the editor of subsequent or possible changes, but do not include a demand that the editor make the changes. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedians are not your personal army"[4] or "Wikipedians are not your slaves". Fences&Windows 01:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On bibliographies

I've noticed Wikipedia has some articles that are essentially bibliographies, like List of important publications in computer science. While this is clearly in scope, what I'm wondering is, would a more focused, more comprehensive bibligraphy be in scope? For example, would a comprehensive list of papers related to a particular technique in computer graphics be in scope, particularly if some of the articles listed are not notable? I ask because I'm thinking of starting a new wiki for bibliographies, but I'd hate to go to the trouble if they're acceptable here. Dcoetzee 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

normally, I would advise that this would belong with an appropriate article--for the example you give, I'd think it perfectly practical. Some articles have very extensive lists of either references or supplementary reading. If you do it free-standing, there's the question of on what basis you are going to make your selection? If you really want to do them free-standing, my own feeling is that in practice you would do better on a separate wiki than trying to cope with it here--there's not that much overhead in starting a wikia. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There are some very questionable freestanding bibliographies (the Bibliography of fly fishing and Bibliography of the War in Darfur monstrosities come to mind), I'd agree with DGG that adding Further Reading sections to relevant articles is superior. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would only argue that in cases of topics spread among dozens of pages (eg World War II) that a shared bibliography is helpful, but as noted above, the most relevant sources to the article - if not actually used as references already - should be listed in "Further Reading". --MASEM (t) 20:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There's been some recent discussion about Bibliographies at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 1#Question regarding bibliography articles and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Are Bibliographies covered here? which I'd recommend reading through. If you'd like to help coordinate the cleanup activities of the existing Bibliographies, and help hammer out guidelines for current and new articles, I'd suggest bringing your thoughts to WikiProject Books. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

NOTDIC

This change is of no benefit. It's just bad writing (the "should" is misplaced in the sentence) and "two or more" is no better, but more wordy, than "several" (which according to the OED can mean "more than one", or "more than two or three"). I tried to rephrase the text to address Wolfkeeper's concerns in a less slipshod way, but if any other editor has a problem feel free to revert back to the long-standing version.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The changes are presumably related to his, again, trying to eradicate the derived definition from Slam dunk (see Talk:Slam dunk#Use as a colloquial term for discussion). This is at least the third time he has deleted that section (November, April, June).

More input please - Can "derived usage" be a valid component of an article? Why or why not? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that derived usage can certainly be encyclopedic if sourced properly. The article is about the slam dunk in basketball, but discussing how the term and concept spread into wider usage is certainly acceptable. Such usage isn't really distinct in the way intended here, Wolfkeeper's invocation of policy doesn't wash. The sourcing is a separate issue - do the sources discuss the term "slam dunk" and its origins, or do they just use it in passing? But that's an issue to hash out at the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well... WP:LEAD and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:NOT say that the beginning of the article defines the topic. The introduction defines the topic 'slam dunk' as:

A slam dunk (or simply a dunk) is a type of basketball shot that is performed when a player jumps in the air and manually powers the ball downward through the basket with one or both hands over the rim.[1] This is considered a normal field goal attempt; if successful it is worth two points. The term "slam dunk" was coined by Los Angeles Lakers announcer Chick Hearn.[2] Prior to that, it was known as a dunk shot.[1]

Clearly, George J. Tenet was not playing a basketball shot, is not jumping in the air, and is not powering a ball downwards through a hoop, with one or both hands over the rim. Nor is he anticipating doing that, nor would GWB think that he was. But apparently you think he was.- Wolfkeeper 22:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a really punctilious interpretation of policy, and I doubt very many other editors will agree with you. There are other problems with that section, however, but that's a matter to discuss at the article talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying to change policy to win a content dispute is not OK. If editors wish to include that brief section referring to the non-literal use of the term 'slam dunk', I see no harm. Talk it over, don't strong arm them with assertions about policy. I've included a brief mention of an idiomatic use in an article before, I don't feel it violates policy. The bit about Tenet was undue weight and probably soapboxing (although it was a much commented on use of the phrase), but just excise that. I've added a link to Wiktionary anyhow. Fences&Windows 01:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Public apology to User:Active Banana by User:Taric25

Active Banana, I cannot express how sorry I am an how much I feel like a fool. I recall putting the talk page of User:200.63.165.19 on my watch list, and I saw User:Amalthea blocked the IP, because it was an open proxy being used to evade a block. I was totally shocked, and I feel like such dick for suspecting you were using making sockpuppet allegations when in fact it was the user who reported you at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests who was actually using a sockpuppet. I really don’t know what to say other than sorry. Please forgive me. Taric25 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this, and thank you for your multiple apologies. Active Banana (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot

So I looked up the definition to "Plot" and in most dictionaries it refers to "a scheme;or a plan". "Synopsis" however refers to a plot summary. Wetcloth20 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Point? Oh wait, I see you took it upon yourself to wrongly change over a dozen film articles from using "Plot" from the heading to "Synopsis" and got yourself blocked for it. When you return, for the record, Plot is the community agreed up on header per WP:MOSFILM, and your "definition" above is apparently from bad dictionaries or a lack of understanding of the English language. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot (narrative) might be helpful reading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

NOTDIR include current channel listings

Is there any objection to expanding NOTDIR to specifcaly note that "current channel listings" are not appropriate encyclopedic content? see SkyCable#Channel line-up and all of the other providers in the nav box at the bottom. Active Banana (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Full Support Not only no objection from me, but full support. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Is this not already in there in #4? I mean, yes, the "example" is radio stations, but clearly it applies to TV too. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see it's slightly different (a channel lineup, as opposed to program listings). However, I read #4 to clearly extend to that - it's effectively the same thing. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding User: Active Banana, you wont really rest until you get what you want and actually proposed to have it included in the NOTDIR policy. An Admin already stated his side regarding Channel Listings on Wikipedia. Channel Line-up is completely different from Program Listings, Program Schedule or Electronic Program Guide. On the article List of Verizon FiOS channels, Pats1 ^T/C, which is an Admin, actually maintains the article with no complaints or whatsoever. Quoting Pats1 ^T/C, General Comment: There is a difference between advertising specific products or services (especially prices) on telecom/cable articles and just providing information on the channels offered by the provider. If we are to have individual network articles have references to Ch. #s in infoboxes, and availability on specific providers, then we ought to have the other view of the relationship, the listing of the channels offered by the provider and links to the individual networks. That most certainly is encyclopedic. Pats1 T/C 01:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Now, Active banana, don't tell me again, that I'm Canvassing the Admin. It's actually the Admin's opinion and I didn't Canvassed it to have his side on mine. --g8crash3r 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G8crash3r (talk • contribs)

Er, admins are not the deciders of how WP policy is intepreted, they only perform actions that are related to maintaining those policies. Consensus of both regular editors and admins is what is the final say. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

RE:PATS "If we are to have individual network articles have references to Ch. #s in infoboxes, and availability on specific providers, then we ought to have the other view of the relationship, the listing of the channels offered by the provider and links to the individual networks." The fact that other articles may have inappropriate types of content should not be the basis to include non-encyclopedic content in other articles. I see no encyclopedic content in a current channel listing. There may be specific channel listing items that may be covered in a text format, if covered by third party sources, that could be encyclopedic (ex: "SkyCable had previously distributed all news on channels 14-18, but after ConsevoNews began criticizing the government about X, ConservoNews was moved from channel 16 to channel 794 in May of 2010." or "In May of 2010, SkyCable began distributing 20 channels of cable access programming from local amature productions.") but a mere listing of the current channels does not provide any encyclopedic content. Active Banana (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

@Masem "I mean, yes, the "example" is radio stations, but clearly it applies to TV too." To me the application is obvious as well, but as you can see User:G8crash3r and some other users have been of the position that since the channel guide is not explicitely mentioned, that NOTDIR cannot be applied. And so to avoid continual arguments over numerous webpages, having it clearly specified as a community consensus in the policy itself will help avoid needless repetitive discussions. Active Banana (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is not a TV guide. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a TV guide was a failed proposal that echos this one. Taric25 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This is important and reasonably encyclopedic content. A program guide means only the detailed current listing of what is on a particular channel or groups of channels. A listing of all Verizon channels with detail about their current schedule would violate it. A listing of all Verizon channels by itself does not. WP is an encyclopedia, but has content beyond that of a traditional encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A reader in London or Tokyo or Perth knowing that today SkyCable is broadcasting CNN on channel 47 is important??? Can you clarify how that could possible ever be "important"?Active Banana (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Knowing whether CNN is available to millions of Filipinos is important. I also object to the "today CNN is broadcasting on 47". Channel listings generally stay in place for years on cable/satellite, decades for terrestrial. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. A table containing a listing of what channels a cable service carries is not the same thing as a television or radio program schedule, and should not be lumped in. It is reasonable to expect that a reader who is reading an article on a company which offers or offered satellite or cable services will expect to find what cable channels the provider provides or provided. The tabular format should be reinforced with prose, but information like this is not automatically unencyclopedic. Indeed, one would expect to find tabular data alongside the prose in an article which fully explains the topic. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  Readers may come to Wikipedia expecting a lot of things, but what they should find is encyclopedic content. If they REALLY want to know what current channels are offered by their cable provider, they should be going to their cable providers website. Active Banana (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My point was that a table showing what channels are offered, or were offered, isn't necessarily unencyclopedic. Traditional encyclopedias contain tables of data as well as prose; there's a tendency on WP for editors to declare content "unencyclopedic" if it's in tabular form; this ignores the tables in print encyclopedias. These same editors who balk at a table of data won't look twice at the same information presented in prose. However, tables, charts, graphs, cladograms, diagrams, lists, and pictures help a reader's understanding of a topic in a way that prose cannot always provide; some WP editors go overboard with the "unencyclopedic" label, and sometimes historic, scientific, or otherwise significant data comes under the threat of deletion by careless WP editors (not that you are one of them). Please look at Featured Article Paramount_Television_Network#Affiliates for an example of historic television channel data presented in tabular form. It is not possible to go to this television company's "website" to access this information, nor is it often an option for many other companies, for various reasons. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In the so far extremely hypothetical situation that a _current_ _channel_ _listing_ can be shown to have actual encyclopedic value we can accomodate that situation even if we have specified in NOTDIR that it is generally not appropriate content. Active Banana (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is highly transient, mostly trivial information that has no business in an encyclopedia. A collaborative, GDFL-licensed TV programming guide would be a fine project, but Wikipedia is not the place to attempt it. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support Sending readers to the service's official channel listing page seems better on most counts. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support I can find some sympathy with the point made by DGG, but in practice that approach leads to let's list everything, and a list of channels becomes what we see in this article: a promotional substitute for what should be on an official website. The list contains content like Minimum Package "SelectPlus Prepaid" with Note "Analog subscribers may experience interference with the local signal of TV5 on this channel. Channel 159 on Digital." Content like that encourages the use of Wikipedia for promotion, yet if removed, the list would be rather pointless. If the company cannot provide a directory listing of the channels, I suggest the content be moved to another free hosting site such as WikiLists. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Has this comment period been long enough, and if so is there anyone willing to determine if we have reached consensus? Active Banana (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus is clear, based on the rather limited input this topic has received. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why so hasty, Ophelia? This is only Hamlet we’re talking about here. Just take a moment to write a poem in your journal. P.S., this is the best your hair has ever looked!

• Strongly Oppose Channel Listing has been on Wikipedia for years, why remove it if we can ignore it. Besides, Active Banana's explanation is he is trying to clean up the articles, if that so why only the Philippine articles. What is his agenda, I don't know but a lot of Philippine Wiki editors are getting irritated and peeved with the situation and that includes me. He is actually trying to prove that he gets what he wants and is an act of immaturity, AFAIK. Why not edit or tag other articles that will not attract or gain, negative impact to the article's intended audience. Active Banana is actually trying to create a bad environment here in Wikipedia by pissing off other editors. Now, regarding this issue, I believe the consensus is not clear yet to include Channel Listings as part of the WP:NOTDIR policy page because the other articles here in Wikipedia that has Channel Listings are evidences that points out to include it in WP:NOTDIR in the opposite direction. Likewise, Channel Listings presented in tabular form can be included in the articles since they can be ignored as unencyclopedic. -G8crash3r | Talk 18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpeting WP:IAR; the basis for ignoring the rules is that the result is an improvement to the encyclopedia. Not just "I dont want to follow the rules". Active Banana (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is pretty clear, and your personal attacks are beyond off-base and inappropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And Active Banana seem to be persistent and trying to create a massive edit war game here. Are the articles such a big deal to you that you go beyond borders to satisfy your editing concerns. Are you that really desparate, Active Banana, What are you trying to prove here, that you can pick on Philippine articles, is that right? Why not edit other articles. There are a lot of editors getting irritated and peeved of what you are doing to the articles. I apologize for that words that I posted but obviously I am definitely not having fun anymore here in Wikipedia because of this whole issue that Active Banana brought up. To be fair Active Banana should delete this article as well, List of Verizon FiOS channels. -G8crash3r | Talk 18:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support. Channel listings fall into the "indiscriminate list of cruft" category. There is such a thing as going beyond encyclopedic by describing what amounts to minutiae. I also think it's a bad idea to introduce high-maintenance elements into articles, and channel listings fits that bill too. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per g8crasher. - Gabby 14:33, 17 June 2010 (PST)
• Support Virtually unmaintainable and absolutely unnecessary. My channels range from 1-8528, with a lineup that changes daily. What possible purpose does it serve to try to keep it up to date?—Kww(talk) 07:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That I've never seen; what company is this? What about the siutation where there is maybe only one national cable tv provider and one satellite provider and the channels generally stay the same year-to-year, and that channel listing pretty much delineates what media the people have access to. Is that unencyclopedic? Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm only here because I left a q elsewhere on this page regarding rail timetables; but to my mind, if current rail timetables (which change twice a year) should be excluded, then current TV schedules (which change weekly) should be excluded 26 times more strongly. The current edit-warring on WP:NOT revolves around whether the specific words "current channel listings" are to be included or excluded. I think that the problem is that these words are ambiguous, and could be read to mean anything from "list of TV stations controlled by Rupert Murdoch" right through to "tonight's TV program schedules". Why not use words that are more clearly interpreted? If it's (say) the schedule that's forbidden, say so explicitly. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We aren't discussing TV schedules at all; we're discussing current channel listings. There's been a lot of edit warring at SkyCable, with editors adding or removing the channel listing material, according to their own whims. Although I believed there was a clear consensus for the removal of this material, this is not the case. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but exactly what do the words "channel listing" actually mean? To some, they are synonymous with "program schedules": that's my point. In the UK, we have the BBC, who when mentioning their own publication the Radio Times, which is primarily a list of schedules, they also state "Other listing magazines are available"; note their use of the word "listing".

If the words "current channel listings" be interpreted in the same way that the BBC use, the sentence fragment "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, current channel listings, et cetera" could be taken as stating the same prohibition twice (whether for clarity or for emphasis). Since the word "listing" has been taken as synonymous with "schedule", this means that a schedule is prohibited but a list of channels which omits schedules is permitted.

Between 03:20 14 June 2010 and now, on WP:NOT the words "current channel listings" have been added and then removed again, a total of six times each; this is well beyond WP:BRD's suggestion of just one pair, and is getting into WP:EDITWAR territory. Can't a better phrase be found? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that a number of those changes were by IPs currently under investigation as socks so be careful in using that as part of determining whether or not consensus exists. We could turn this into a full fledged RfC, my first crack at the template didnt work and I dont really have time right now. Active Banana (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

True consensus does not require edit warring to achieve a goal. It appears edit warring on multiple articles is taking place, with one side claiming a "consensus". I, too, originally thought consensus had been achieved, based on eight editors' responses to the discussion, six of whom were in favor of deleting the material. However, six editors, even superstar editors, cannot determine Wikipedia policy when there is significant resistance to the decision from the Wikipedia community. More editors have supported and more editors have opposed the proposal on this talk page since then, but the resistance in article space indicates that there is no consensus from the Wikipedia community for removal of channel listings... if these editors are different editors, and not socks of one another. A checkuser has checked, indicating the named users are unrelated, and no comment on the IPs. I think an RfC might be beneficial here. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I found the correct RfC tag. But before I placed it, I wonder if we should work a little bit to more clearly define what we are talking about as "current channel listing"? Active Banana (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, since there's still some confusion above. I'd define it as a "current list of television channels provided by a cable or satellite company, such as the one here". Broad enough? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see no reason to have a complete listing. Encyclopedias are about summarising information, but there's no summary in a complete listing of something that can change. They should be allowed to have a few representative examples or something though.- Wolfkeeper 01:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose First of all, I would like to point out that Active Banana was the recently the subject of an edit war I listed at WP:AN3 after a user listed her at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User: Active Banana, and she is also under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gerald Gonzalez‎‎, where all of the editors have commented on her edit warring.

Poor Juliet, if only she hadn’t been so hasty…

Aside from her behavior, I side completely with G8crash3r when the editor writes, “Active Banana, you wont really rest until you get what you want,” because this is her own vendetta in which she is attempting to overthrow consensus on the articles she edits, as I confronted her about replacing good-faith unsourced content with sourced content, she stated in her own words that she has absolutely no interest in improving articles to reach featured status:

“ As far as the use of edit summaries, please do not use the automatic summary “Undid revision [NUMBER] by [USER] (talk))”, without writing anything else in the edit summary, which I have seen you do a couple times, or no summary at all other than the section in which you're editing, such as Legal Issues, and speaking of that edit, do you see how this is infinitely more desirable than removing that content? It really took me only a few minutes to find the information on Google in order to add the source. Please do the same, unless you can't find the information in under five minutes, then move it to the talk page. Taric25 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[5] ”

Active Banana’s response disturbed me.

This is Desdemona from Shakespeare’s Othello. This tragedy would have been avoided if her husband hadn’t been so hasty.

“ Feel free to follow me as I hack trails through jungles of unsourced content; and you can build lovely sourced roads in the wake. Much of my editing time is in situations where I do not have any reasonable expectation of not being interrupted for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search" to attempt to find sources for claims ranging from seemingly benign to bizzare. If you do, well good for you!
But, bringing articles into closer compliance with WP:V is something that takes mere seconds and if I do get interrupted, my previous work is not lost and providing zero improvement to Wikipedia.
Thank you for improving Wikipedia in your way, and I will improve it in mine. Active Banana (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[6] ”

When confronted with the example of Paramount Television Network#Affiliates she cites Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to override this addition to policy she is proposing, however, for Ignore all rules to work, you have to assume the assumption of good faith because editors must assume your actions that ignore the rules are because the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and she consistently shows that she would rather revert good faith over improving Wikipedia. According to X!'s Edit Counter, I, Taric25, have been on Wikipedia since 02:08:57 Oct 21, 2005 and edited 704 unique pages, while Active Banana has been on Wikipedia since 23:55:39 Feb 03, 2010 and edited 1,484 unique pages. This clearly shows she does not take her time when editing and is focusing on the quantity of her edits rather than the quality, and she violates Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers in the process when she removes good faith edits from new users. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism, “Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism,” although removing good faith edits despite multiple warnings is disruptive edit warring. In the previous examples I showed above, multiple editors continued to urge her to collaborate, which she has failed to do. She works against good faith when she removes good faith edits from the encyclopedia, and the constant removal of good content runs completely against the project by subtracting from the sum of knowledge. Wikipedia is and should always be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, anyone, no matter how inexperienced they are with our rules. She haves not shown her dedication to consistently collaborate with them, and she has not shown dedication to displaying what we consider to be our best articles, as determined by Wikipedia's editors: featured articles. The only dedication that everyone can agree she has is to remove as much content that doesn’t align with the rules from as many articles as possible in the least amount of time. Per Wikipedia:Where to get feedback on your new article, “Above all, don't rush: Rome wasn't built in a day, and there's no reason any article should be.”
So, no, I don’t believe Active Banana for a second when she cites ignore all rules, because she ignores good faith, and she is using this forum to change policy to overthrow consensus.
Active Banana argues that channel listings are unencyclopedic. How could they ever be?! Unless someone miraculously writes such an article single edit, that will never happen. She doesn’t allow articles to evolve, because she reverts so many good-faith edits and won’t welcome people into Wikipedia.
We have many individual network that reference to channel numbers in infoboxes, and what their availability is specific providers, so we must have the other view of the relationship, which is the listing of the channels provider offers and links to the individual networks. That most certainly is encyclopedic, and we must allow them to evolve and reach featured status by citing sources and doing what makes Wikipedia great. Taric25 (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Its nice to know that you have your screed against me in your cut and paste so that you can repeat it ad nausem. However, THIS discussion is about whether or not current channel listings are an appropriate encyclopedic topic. And I request that you direct your commentary about the subject at hand, and limit your personal disappointments that other editors are not living up to your standards to the appropriate places. WP:NPA. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel writing “However, THIS discussion is about” is an attempt to detract attention from the real reason you proposed this change, because you have demonstrated you do not care whatsoever if your edits improve articles towards featured status, and it’s very important that editors know that. Taric25 (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Taric25, but there is NO requirement ANYWHERE that every editor must be devoted to taking every article they touch to Feature Article status. That the majority of my edits are attempts to bring articles in closer compliance with WP:V / WP:NPOV / WP:BLP is good enough for me. Active Banana (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Parting words of advice from Larry Sanger:[7]

• Be open and warmly welcoming, not insular,
• Be focused single-mindedly on writing an encyclopedia,
• Recognize and praise the best work: work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced,
• Work to understand what neutrality requires, and why it is so essential to and good for this project,
• Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,
• Attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and
• Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.

Per WP:DOOR. Taric25 (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana you wrote, "THIS discussion is about whether or not current channel listings are an appropriate encyclopedic topic" then what would be your explanation on your statement if you wrote the following in the first part of this discussion "Is there any objection to expanding NOTDIR to specifcaly note that "current channel listings" are not appropriate encyclopedic content? see SkyCable#Channel line-up and all of the other providers in the nav box at the bottom. Active Banana (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)" In addition, what are we discussing here then if this is not all about the encyclopedic value of "Current Channel Listings." -16:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC) G8crash3r (talk)

• Strong Oppose, for two reasons. One is that WP:NOTDIR is inherently not supposed to be an exhaustive list of everything that could be considered a "directory" and not encyclopedic. The other is that some lists of TV channels can be encyclopedic. A list of all broadcast channels within a country is encyclopedic, as it is basic information about a nation's media, and the kind of thing the CIA World Factbook considers basic statistics about a country. A list of channels carried on a DBS satellite system or a large regional digital cable franchise is probably encyclopedic, as it's usually an oligopoly that tens of millions subscribe to and tells volumes about the region's media market. Knowing whether CNN is available in the Phillipines, I find it hard to see that as unencyclopedic. However, a list of channels carried on an individual town's cable system is not encyclopedic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If the state of media - including limitations on what the media can broadcast and the unavailability of foreign networks within that nation - are notable, there will likely be a separate article on that. I would also argue that the listings of what major broadcast networks, particularly state-run, are useful information on media about that country. But, the listings of a cable or satellite provider, which 1) are not static since they change over time and 2) not significant to the rest of the world at large after the above facts are considered, makes such lists like programming guides and for the most part unencyclopedic. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Quoting these statements 'I found the correct RfC tag. But before I placed it, I wonder if we should work a little bit to more clearly define what we are talking about as "current channel listing"? Active Banana (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC) and this one: Makes sense, since there's still some confusion above. I'd define it as a "current list of television channels provided by a cable or satellite company, such as the one here". Broad enough? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
      I think we should use the term 'Channel Line-up' instead of 'Current Channel Listing' since the latter can be confused with Program Listing or Programming Guide. G8crash3r | Talk 22:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly support. I've !voted against them in AfD's because I don't see the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose For me Wikipedia is more accurate for adding channel listings for Philippine cable providers because some of their websites are not updated. Vgyu 03:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)VgyuVgyu 03:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not wikipedia's job to document something just because a website that should be documenting it is behind. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content could not possibly be more accurate than the sources content per WP:V] which would require a reliable source to publish information before it can be included in our articles. Active Banana (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose In my opinion I'm disagree not to include current channel line up to include in WP:NOTDIR rule and guide lines. Because i never seen removed channel listing (also known as Channel Line up) in other Cable and Satellite provider article in other countries like Direct TV and Verizon FiOS in USA, Sky Digital in UK and Ireland and Astro in Malaysia. But why the Philippines Cable and Satellite Article disrupt all articles as a example just what they did to Active Banana Him or Herself putting unknown warning and tag not only in Cable and Satellite articles but also other Philippine Showbiz personalities and even TV Program from ABS-CBN as well even a single or multiple references as an evidence but Active Banana Ignore it. Puppyph (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

All those other channel lineups should be removed too. The Philipenes one only came up due to the fact that there was edit warring on keeping it or not, and brought here, but it identified the larger problem. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think all of those that supports this proposal should read this and also this one. Articles pertaining to notability of Channel Listings here in Wiki. Better yet read WP:NME. This discussion has been on for almost a month and I believe those articles can help us come up with a conclusion or closure to this discussion. Except if there is a larger picture to why this proposal was created that we are not aware of. G8crash3r | Talk 19:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A random essay is not likely to change my nor anyone else's opinion. It is not a community accepted guideline, and should probably be moved to another name to better reflect that it is just an essay. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not really saying that you or anyone else's should change their opinion on this discussion but regarding the guideline, the WP:NME can provide a better understanding of what we are discussing here. I have included the WP:NME to help us come up with a conclusion because it shows that Channel Listings has already been accepted as per WP:NME. Another thing is all of those that support or opposes the proposal may have the same views but our opinion about the topic may still vary. G8crash3r | Talk 20:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Even within your essay, the emphasised word is "may" - not "is" or even "is likely". "May" be encyclopedic content - but to qualify as encyclopedic content there should be third party sourced commentary - which most of the time is lacking. Active Banana (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so we’re finally getting somewhere, because we’ve now unearthed that it’s not the problem with the listings themselves, it’s that they don’t use reliable sources, is that right? Taric25 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No. The listing themselves are a directory and not encyclopedic content. The claims that there are some type of encyclopedic value of the content of the lists would be dependant upon the existance of third party commentary about the channel listings. And in those rare cases where such third party commentary/analysis exists, then we can apply WP:IAR to improve the encyclopedia by including the commentary AND what would normally simply be a directory, but in this case would function as a picture or diagram normally does to help explain or elaborate on the commentary.Active Banana (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel it is a very, very bad idea to accommodate for situations where we would need to make critical commentary on such lists by depending on nothing but Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If you feel that we should only create such lists if there are reliable sources to support the information, then why don’t we just include that into the policy? Taric25 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CREEP / WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY - There is no need to make the guidelines and policies more complicated and filled with exceptions where no one has yet identified any situation where such third party sources talk about current channel listings in such a way. Active Banana (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As Masem stated below, the guideline I proposed asks a lot more than covering this minute aspect of the issue with which we are dealing, broadcast lists, and I feel it does avoid instruction creep by not being so specific that it will be of little interest to anyone, per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.

However, also recall what instruction creep is. “Frequently, somebody thinks that such-and-such a point should be addressed, or that readers would benefit from more explanation, and adds more requirements, restrictions, or examples. However, project pages do not serve the same purpose as articles, and should not strive to cover every minute aspect of the issues they deal with.” Also recall what you proposed, “Is there any objection to expanding NOTDIR to specifcaly note that "current channel listings" are not appropriate encyclopedic content?” That in and of itself is instruction creep, because you are adding another requirement/restriction/example.

The guideline I propose documents already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected in articles related to television, which for the most part are lists about television characters and episodes, because we have documented those lists very, very well, as there are hundreds of those very articles already showing the community’s consensus of what should and should not be in those articles. The same also goes for articles about names, such as people or pets. By the same token, I wrote the section on broadcast lists in the same manner that what is notable for articles, which we document by including in the infoboxes of the television programs, is also notable for the purpose of lists also related to television. Therefore, I proposed it as a guideline to verify that it reflects consensus for a project-specific guideline, just as other projects, such as music, also have the same manner of project specific guidelines. Taric25 (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, per discussion. Logical, explicit extension of WP:DIRECTORY and WP:DATED. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Including this sort of information is inappropriate. It is not Wikipedia's fault if some Phillipine channels are incapable of updating their websites. In fact, this means even more so that Wikipedia should not be in this business. Also, there is substantial consensus on this point, over and over again. Wikipedia is not a directory, no matter the vote count here. Abductive (reasoning) 23:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support this information is really inappropriate, in fact the cable companies in the Philipppines and the rest of the world (not as major countries like the U.S., UK, Germany, France) to delete channel lists in cable and satellite articles. Yesterday, I deleted some cable channel sections (e.g. Astro Nusantara, TrueVisions). That means the cable channel list must fails WP:LISTCRUFT. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment User:G8crash3r has re-inserting channel line-up in Philippine cable articles without discussing. Could the admins may block and can not re-insert the channel lists. I would let this user may report to WP:ANI and WP:AN3. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You are already commenting on the discussion. You seem to be like a sockpuppet of another user based on how you construct your statements. Before you complain, try to read the whole section. 143.166.255.62 (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Accusing a long-standing editor of sock-puppeting is not constructive. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support -- As I commented earlier, Let's move the Philippine cable&satellite TV channel listings to WikiPilipinas instead. WP:NOT a directory, tv guide, website provider. Per Wikipedia's somewhat more open nature, I worry about the risk of vandalism by various anonymous IP addresses, too. And I'm still wondering why the Philippine cable&satellite TV providers won't come up with readable correct updated TV channel listings on their own websites. Zollerriia63 (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: I just found out this July 7, 2010 that WikiPilipinas is currently locked. I haven't been able to edit there since May 15, 2010. According to what's written on their website, they say they're in the process of updating their own wiki software. Zollerriia63 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Support = WP:NOTDIR should be expanded to state that current channel listings are not appropriate in articles.

Support (14):

• Transient, mostly trivial information.
• Lists like these contain too many promotional and non-encyclopedic details.edit by Active Banana (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC) to add and function as a webhosting service space for content and bandwidth that should be supported by the station and by not dontations to the Wikimedia foundation.
• Almost universally bereft of third party analysis and commentary which would show encyclopedic value added by Active Banana (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• User:Abductive, Active Banana, Amatulic, AnmaFinotera, ApprenticeFan, Cybercobra, Edgarde, Gavin.collins, Johnuniq, Kww, Masem, Niteshift36, Wikipedical, Wolfkeeper

Oppose (8):

• Important and reasonably encyclopedic content.
• Readers would want an article on a company offering satellite/cable to list the channels provided.
• many articles already have it added by Active Banana (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• WP:CREEP- it it already coveredadded by Active Banana (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• DGG, Firsfron, G8crash3r, Puppyph, Squidfryerchef, Supergabbyshoe, Taric25, Vgyu

This section is too long with many extraneous comments, so I have tried to make the above summary. Please correct any errors by editing the above. It is possible that a couple of supporters felt the proposal concerned TV schedules (so a clearer proposal may have had less support). While the above is a reasonable support consensus, I think a proper RFC should be used before updating WP:NOTDIR. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think it is a pretty good reflection of consensus, I have added one additional point to each side that I think has been brought up in the discussion above. Active Banana (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

off topic discussion continued at User_talk:G8crash3r#Off_topic_discussions_on_WP:NOT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What happened to the RfC tag? "I found the correct RfC tag. But before I placed it, I wonder if we should work a little bit to more clearly define what we are talking about as "current channel listing"? Active Banana (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)" "Makes sense, since there's still some confusion above. I'd define it as a "current list of television channels provided by a cable or satellite company, such as the one here". Broad enough? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)" And this one Active Banana you wrote, "THIS discussion is about whether or not current channel listings are an appropriate encyclopedic topic" then what would be your explanation on your statement if you wrote the following in the first part of this discussion "Is there any objection to expanding NOTDIR to specifcaly note that "current channel listings" are not appropriate encyclopedic content? see SkyCable#Channel line-up and all of the other providers in the nav box at the bottom. Active Banana (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)" In addition, what are we discussing here then if this is not all about the encyclopedic value of "Current Channel Listings." -16:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC) G8crash3r (talk)

• I think there's room for a compromise here. It's clear that details such as particular channel numbers and the day-to-day schedule are largely useless to most people, but the list of channels served by a provider is quite relevant and relatively stable. To those who wish to redirect readers to the provider's web site: remember that Wikipedia is not just a website - articles about these providers may end up in printed books far away from an Internet terminal. Dcoetzee 00:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there agreement with Dcoetzee? Or should we formalize the RfC on this question? Active Banana (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with what Dcoetzee said that the particular channel numbers and the day-to-day schedule are largely useless to most people, but the list of channels served by a provider is quite relevant and relatively stable. This can also clear up the confusion about the definition of Current Channel Listing or Program Schedules versus the List of Channels or Channel Line-up and its notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. G8crash3r | Talk 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• I too would agree with Dcoetzee's proposed compromise. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• I support that compromise as well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• I only agree with TV channel listings. However, I disagree with TV program schedules. I think it really doesn't belong in WP since that constantly changes. I think the TV program schedules of any TV channel in the world better belongs to print media and external TV-related websites in its own locale, or the official websites of local and cable and satellite TV channels. Zollerriia63 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lists in articles

I keep on running into lists like the one here Elizabeth Ann Seton, or lists of shops, people, etc in locality articles. Are there any guidelines for such lists? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well the first thing, don't all of those external links in the text of the article breach the MOS? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguably, they fail WP:UNDUE: when a list gets so big, one has to ask, why provide this information in the first place, particularly if it is unsourced. Whether they are inside an article or in a stand alone list, they fail WP:NOT#DIR, and should be removed unless an external source of validation for the list can be found. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Linking to linkedin, facebook, etc

This page does not say whether or not it is permisble to link to linkedin, facebook, etc on user pagesMorgankevinj (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For guidelines dealing with user-page content, see WP:USER. Deor (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this answer your question: WP:NOTBLOG ? Active Banana (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't terribly relevant to this page, but the short answer is that yes, that is generally fine, as user page policy allows a limited amount of personal information. Dcoetzee 00:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE

Is there any good reason why WP:Preserve is piped (Editing policy:Preserve information? It's the only one that is, and I don't see why it needs to be - at least, not with the appearance of it being in a different namespace (why not "Wikipedia:Preserve information") – and why not also have a redirect from the longer page name? Si Trew (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

NOT#TOC?

Analogous to NOT#PLOT "Plot-only description of fictional works," I wonder if there should be a NOT#TOC "table of contents-only description"? I.e. "X is an anthology" or "X is a compilation album" followed by a list of the contents, but no discussion of reception or significance. By way of examples, A Treasury of New England Short Stories and Goth Electro Tribute to Depeche Mode. Or is this adequately covered by other points already present? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We would need to assume WP:N and the various sub-notability guidelines to handle those cases. A track listing itself is non-notable, but there may be presumptions of notability for albums where sources may not immediately exist but will eventually become available. Articles that remain a simple track list as you identify will eventually be deleted or merged through WP:N. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"there may be presumptions of notability for albums where sources may not immediately exist but will eventually become available"? How would that not fall afoul of WP:NOTCRYSTAL? But anyway, there are many articles such as these that are several years old or are about albums or books which are several years or decades old, where sources are not likely to become available unless (perhaps) someone finds references offline, or more publications get scanned. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a situation that would not already be covered by other guidelines? WP:N for example. Is there/has there been user conflict over the issue that adding additional clarification to this guideline would actually help to prevent or is it putting in place rules over a hypothetical situation that may never occur? Active Banana (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not hypothetical, as despite WP:N (and Wikipedia:NBOOKS#Criteria and WP:NALBUMS) there's a multitude of such articles (e.g. the majority of Category:Christmas compilation albums), which suggests the message is not getting through. Surprisingly, some of the AfDs on such articles do advocate keeping them on the inherited notability claim, even if there are no sources regarding the compilation itself, and even if the only content of the article is a table of contents. NOT#TOC is just an idea on how to address this; there might be better ones. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

NBOOKS and NALBUMS allow for creation of articles on such works on the presumption that because they meet criteria agreed to be wide consensus, there will likely be some mention of that work. But that's the argument that's valid only near the time of pulbication. If years go by and no sources appear, it is likely that the work isn't notable, and should be merged or deleted. It is strictly a notability issue because there are other similar articles where we do allow them (like at the present major athletes) but don't have a TOC-like structure but also likely should be deleted if they don't have improved sources over time. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to Wikipedia:NBOOKS#Not yet published books where it requires that "anticipation of the book is notable in its own right" and NALBUMS which states "an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it"? These state there must be sources establishing the notability of the anticipation. That's different from Wikipedians anticipating that sources of any kind will become available (and just "some mention" would seem to be insufficient?). Maybe there's another section you're referring to that I overlooked. Anyway, it seems nobody else at the moment sees a need for a NOT#TOC, so I guess that's the end of it for now. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's different. Let's say that Lady Gaga puts out a new album next week to everyone's surprise, so there's no information on it out there when it is released, and may take time to actually gain reviews and the like. Until that happens, NALBUMS presumes the album is notable since it is by a well notable artist. On the other hand, if my non-notable garage band puts out an album, the album remains non-notable until it actually gets covered in sources. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• If a non-fiction book is notable, it is certainly relevant and important what the book is about , and a TOC -like listing is often though not always the clearest way to show it. (Id normally abbreviate it to eliminate such things as introduction, Preface, Summary, and just list the content chapters. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with this notion of listing chapters. Most mature articles on important works explain the work in prose. I have never seen a traditional encyclopedia take this approach. Articles on albums, on the other hand, invariably give the track listing. Personally I would rather not see articles on non-notable compliation albums, since they are no more interesting than a variety pack of potato chips. Abductive (reasoning) 18:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not a matter of principle, but of clarity. Some things are much clearer in a list, and this is one of them--if the number is substantial, and the chapter headings indicative of the contents--otherwise prose is needed. We are not a traditional encyclopedia, but a superset of everything that would be in a traditional encyclopedia and a good deal else. The rule is NOT PAPER, and what traditional encyclopedias would do is not a guide at all.

Clarity is not a rationale for lists. Remember, what is clear, truthful or useful is a matter of editorial opinion, not fact. Wikipedia should contain only verifiable content about notable topics, not stuff whose importance is subjective.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus as to how the principle of notability applies to lists. I'm sure it wasn't your intention to be misleading, but please be more careful with your wording, you may confuse those less familiar with the debate. --erachima talk 23:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the prohibition of barebone lists is made in WP:DIR: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed", which is shorthand for "Wikipedia is not a depository for lists of everything that exists or has existed". If a list is notable, then WP:NOT will not apply. The notability guideline reflects Wikipedia's content polices: if a topic fails WP:NOT or another content policy, then it will fail WP:N, and vice versa. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT and WP:N have zero connection between them. Content verses Inclusion, respectively. --MASEM (t) 02:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine that to the case, as I doubt that the notability guideline was created in a vacuum, as the principle guidance contained in WP:GNG is not new or original, but rather it seems to be drawn directly from various content policies, such as WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. There is certainly symmetry between WP:NOT and WP:N: Exclusion vs. Inclusion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The GNG may mirror V, NOR, NPOV, and NOT, but notability (which the GNG is not the whole of) is unconnected to that. The reason the GNG is a good measure of notability is because it helps to assure V, NOR, and NPOV are met for a topic, but that's not the only reason that consensus decides to include or exclude content. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How is Wikipedia a gazetteer? How is Wikipedia not a gazetteer?

Should the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy be changed to reconcile existing practice and the current consensus of editors with respect to gazetteer content, and if so, how should it be changed? 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Five pillars summary of this policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not reads:

“ Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects. ”

To my surprise, the policy supporting this pillar does not mention gazetteer. Recently a discussion in the guideline Wikipedia Talk:Notability brought to the surface a disagreement over the gazetteer-ness of Wikipedia. The maximal inclusionist position is that any or every entry in an verifiable list of places, even if limited only to:

• name
• location
• geographic parent (i.e. located within ..., a district of ..., a village in...)

ought be included as a stand-alone article. This appears to be the current practice as bots have been approved to include entire directories of settlement of population as thousands (or tens of thousands) of articles.

The maximal exclusionist position is that the general notability guideline be applied for a standalone article to exist, and if that guideline is not met, the content would be suitable for inclusion in a list article. GNG in a nutshell:

“ Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence. ”

So, the conflict really comes back here, to this policy, to define what elements of a gazetteer (or data suitable for a gazetteer), should be in Wikipedia either as a stand-alone article or incorporated as content into a list or aggregation article. There's a meta-conflict here as well, a tension between the two incompatible precedents long established in the past (i.e. bot approvals and GNG), and the idea that WP:Consensus#Consensus can change. I just wanted to present the question and pause and let others comment if the question is presented correctly. patsw (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say WP:NOT itself - being what an encyclopedia is not - doesn't have much to say that limits gazetteer information - beyond that we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. One can argue that just because data exists about a settlement, inclusion of that information without proper culling is indiscriminate - but that's not a point addressed on this page specifically, and as you note an issue about notability. I will say this though: we fail in as a work if we fail to include at least mention the fundamental details (where it is, population, country) of any verifiable settlement - whether through a list or separate article. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is my goal to discuss, arrive at a consensus, and edit WP:NOT to reflect that consensus. Some bot-created articles have population and some don't. patsw (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I stress: WP:NOT is about what WP is not or what type of content we exlcude. In otherwords, if we specifically are excluding features of a gazetteer, that can be included; but I really really really think that that's not going to be the case because pretty much every feature of a gazetteer will be present for a notable city, and the question is more when do we create articles for small settlements. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You must remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Just because an "article" contains very little information now, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist at all - people will come along and add, say, population data, coordinates, historical information and so on, all in the fullness of time; and meanwhile even the minimal information that it does contain may be of use to someone (even if only to confirm that this is all Wikipedia currently has to say on the subject).--Kotniski (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct, and we've seen this time after time: the article starts off with bare-bones data and gradually gains "notability" as editors add sources and additional content. It doesn't always work this way, but this is the general trend. Demanding instant "notability" for real-world places, just like fictional ones, means there is a hazard that an article on a real-world place will get deleted while one on a fictional place gets kept... and WP only suffers when that happens. WP:5P is still a fundamental principle. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I favor the present system. Reliable sources for general notability include things like government records, including census records, court records, and appropriation records - most of our articles regarding towns are drawn from this type of source. If you come across a town that was created by one crazy guy and nobody else takes him seriously, then by all means put it up for deletion - we are not a place for towns made up in school one day. Dcoetzee 17:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with government records, including census records, court records, and appropriation records is that they don't contain "significant coverage" per WP:N. The scope of WP:NOT is quite clear on this issue: just because a topic is verifiable, that is not a rationale for inclusion on its own, and the only rationale for including a topic in Wikipedia is notability. The reason is simple: barebone data from primary and tertiary sources that are devoid of commentary, criticism or analysis do not provide any significant coverage that would assist the reader to understand the data. I whole heartedly reject Kotniski's adherence to WP:ATA#Crystal as a basis for inclusion as the fallacy it is. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"The only rationale for including a topic in Wikipedia is notability." No it's not. Notability is a very well-respected guideline, but it is not policy. For settlements it is a long-accepted and unwritten convention that mere verifiability is enough, so please don't assert things about notability that aren't true. Editors do not insist that settlements or high schools meet the GNG when they are nominated for deletion, and the best policies and guidelines stem from practice rather than trying to dictate behaviour. Fences&Windows 20:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, Kotinski is not making a CRYSTAL argument at all. He's arguing along the lines of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, Wikipedia:There is no deadline, and Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Fences&Windows 20:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In short: we don't have articles on small towns because "Wikipedia is a gazateer" but because there are many reasons that it's a good idea to have such articles. This is not at odds with the GNG. There is simply not support for deleting small towns. There never has been, and I'm pretty sure there never will be. Dcoetzee 20:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places --Cybercobra (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is at all obvious that the GNG would exclude these kinds of small settlements. The notability guidelines themselves are subject to numerous interpretations. My personal view has always been that nothing should be considered as being notable if it fails to meet GNG, but that GNG itself should be interpreted very broadly. I had always thought that the main reason for the notability guidelines was to delete things like high school bands and rec league sports teams. I guess I don't really understand the deletionist position in general. What harm does an article like Mountainburg, Arkansas do anyone? What is wrong with wikipedia being a gazetteer? Even beyond that, I think that even very, very small places are extremely likely to turn out to be notable by any standards if you look into them. Check out Brookeville, Maryland, for instance - an entirely unremarkable place with about 100 people living in it, and yet there's actually a considerable amount of information in the article beyond the census data. If somebody could find that for Brookeville, I don't see why we should think it would be impossible to find similar information for just about any other populated settlement in the world. john k (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, this indicates to me that WP:Notability should be tagged as an essay that some editors irrationally value above all else, and which many (perhaps most?) other editors take as a very general and flexible adjunct to common sense and interpret along the lines how john k describes. older ≠ wiser 23:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have heard these arguments many times before in favour of stubs based on tertiary data alone, and they all essentially boil down to WP:HARMLESS. Policy and guidelines take a different view about these articles: they basically fail WP:NOT#STATS, and they are not encyclopaedic, and we should not be letting bots loose to create them in their thousands.

For example, the problem with the article Mountainburg, Arkansas is that it does not provide any context to the reader: its comprised of barebone statistics, taken from census data, and put into plain English. It may mean something to someone, but the problem with raw data is that, in the absence of any context, the reader has to infer what the data means. There are many editors who don't like notability as a guideline, but it boils down to the fact that you can't write an encyclopaedic article without providing context to reader in the form of significant coverage (commentary, criticism or analysis). Significant coverage marks the boundry between information and raw data. It is an important boundry, because, as you know, statistics on their own ("lies and damned lies") can misinform. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you want to make Wikipedia less than what most other editors want it to be. Policies and guidelines are what most editors agree to, not what some irrational minority believe. older ≠ wiser 01:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)r

Indeed. One of the serious problems with Wikipedia is that there are actually editors who would delete articles on small, supposedly "non-notable" communities based on the WP:Notability guideline, which was meant to cover things like bandcruft, etc. Yet each time I'm told a community is "non-notable", I'm able to find sources... The fact that the guideline has been taken to this extreme means that WP:Notability should almost certainly be downgraded from a guideline to just an essay. When real-world places are in danger of deletion from hard-core deletionists who have taken the spirit of the guideline too far, it's time to remove the guideline. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blaming WP:N is a stock argument used in deletion discussions known as WP:ONLYESSAY. The way I see it is that Wikipeida is incorporates notable elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This makes sense from many perspectives, but I will concede that there are many editors who cannot accept this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The way you see it, Gavin, makes sense from precisely one perspective: yours. Your perspective on these matters has only the most passing of relationships with policy and active consensus, thanks to your tendency to view all other matters on Wikipedia through the lens of notability, rather than to view notability as an aspect of Wikipedia's larger principles. --erachima talk 08:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, I think you are ignoring the merit of my arguments, but if you have any insight that might help the discussion progress, we would like to hear what you have to say. What is your view on this matter? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Which matter? Minor human settlements or what notability means? --erachima talk 09:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Wikipeida incorporates notable elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers, and if not, what other inclusion criteria should be used. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers, but not all elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. --erachima talk 19:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

See the section that follows for a discussion of which elements get incorporated and how they are incorporated. patsw (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion/Exclusion of gazetteer content

Please stop using notabilty in this discussion. We are defining the policy for inclusion/exclusion of gazetteer content from a verifiable source in Wikipedia either as incorporated content or as a stand-alone article. At this level, we need a great deal more precision in the vocabulary of discussion. It's about explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria -- not about defining notability.

The status quo is that a stand-alone article can be created for any named place with its geographic parent and location, i.e. the minimal meaningful gazetteer content. Bots creating these articles date back to 2002. This a new policy discussion, so any existing guidelines or essays do not control or override any consensus arrived at here. So appeals to WP:Notability or WP:GNG have to be discussed in a way that engages these questions:

1. Should the WP:NOT policy be revised to make it clear that minimal gazetteer content may be the basis for a stand-alone article.
2. Should the WP:NOT policy be revised to make it clear that minimal gazetteer content may not be the basis for a stand-alone article, and that such content should be compiled into a list article?
3. Should the WP:NOT policy be revised to make it clear that minimal gazetteer content should not be included in Wikipedia, and there should be a WP:Gazetteer content guideline to define gazetteer inclusion criteria either as a stand-alone article or incorporated content?
4. If the new consensus is at odds with past practice with respect to existing stand-alone articles with only minimal gazetteer content, does that mean that old articles get deleted, merged, or left alone?
5. Does the enforcement policy on the operation of bots need to be revised so that it makes it explicitly contrary to WP:NOT for stand-alone articles to be created with minimal gazetteer content?
6. Should the WP:NOT policy not be revised? To me, this means the consensus is to continue to let the bots run as is, and continue to subject human-created pages to WP:Notability and WP:AFD tests. patsw (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinions

1. If the populated place has a verifiable name, location and population, then it fulfils the minimum for a gazetteer-type article.
2. No. Lists are an inelegant solution to a problem that is hardly a problem at all.
3. I don't know. Don't forget, rivers and mountains are also covered by gazetteers.
4. Leave old articles alone.
5. I would prefer that bot creation of stubs require two recent, reliable, verifiable sources per place. In the past, the error-ridden GNIS has been used to create articles.
6. The policy should perhaps be tightened a bit (see points 1 and 5) to ensure verifiability and reliability are more strictly enforced on gazetteer-type articles, since they get exempted from WP:N.

Abductive (reasoning) 22:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You mention rivers. This is what happens when someone is foolish enough to nominate a river for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakunta River. That someone was me. Fences&Windows 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, here's an experiment: [8]. Edit-war at will. _R_ (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Don't do that. WP:POINT#State your point—do not prove it experimentally. --erachima talk 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that bots should be creating articles. I think that if it doesn't even merit a human taking a little time to create at least a stub, the article shouldn't exist. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Patsw, it is difficult not to discuss notability, since it constitutes Wikipeida's only set of inclusion criteria. Setting this aside for a moment, I can understand why some editors would like to permit the inclusion of gazetteer-type articles: a good example is the article Mountainburg, Arkansas which illustrates how a primary source (in this case statistics compiled by the US Census Bureau) has been cleverly transformed into an article that approximates a useful tertiary source, such as a directory or travel guide.

1. However, gazetteer-type articles conflict with several basic principles in WP:NOT. Although this policy is a ragbag of prohibitions, generally speaking it prohibits various types of articles that are soley comprised of content from primary sources. Articles such as Mountainburg type articles are essentially directory entries based on a primary source, as are barebone lists of settlements. In order to accomodate gazetteer-type articles, it would be necessary to amend the content section to say "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful....with the exception of inhabited settlements", as well as making it clear in WP:NOT#DIR that "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed...with the exception of inhabited settlements". WP:TRAVEL would have to be eliminated entirely.
2. WP:NOT should be revised to make it clear that minimal gazetteer content may not be the basis for a stand-alone article, and that such content should not be compiled into a list article either. The reason is that the editors who create gazetteer-type articles believe that the prohibition on directory type entries does not apply to settlements, unaware perhaps that the original purpose of directories (e.g Doomsday book) was for precisely this purpose.
3. Minimal gazetteer content should not be included, and a WP:Gazetteer content guideline should be set up to discuss these issues, perhaps to discuss alternative venues such as Wikitravel. Settlements are only one of several other classes of gazetteer-type articles that are drifting into Wikipedia: for instance, I suspect that most of Wikispecies has already been transcribed into Wikipedia by bots for no better reason than they are capable of doing so.
4. Stand-alone articles with only minimal gazetteer content should continue to be dealt with as they are now: tolerated, merged or deleted, in accordance with consensus of editors working on a particular article. We need to end the practise whereby editors and administators make unsupported claims that an article of specific class are exempt from merger or deletion regardless of their merit.
5. enforcement policy on the operation of bots need to be revised so that it makes it explicitly contrary to WP:NOT for stand-alone articles to be created with minimal gazetteer content, as this practice runs against the letter and spirit of WP:NOT#DIR.
6. WP:NOT policy should be revised, because the continued violation of content policy is blurring the distinction between Wikipedia and its sister projects such as Wikispecies that are effectively gazetteers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web host for bot owners.

In my view, this discussion has come very late in the day, given that bots have been creating gazetteer-type articles for quite a while now, but their operators have not consulted with the community at large at best, or at worst, are not aware of Wikipedia content policy nor the wider policy issue that the misuse of automated tools undermines the project as a whole. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Revising WP:BOT is such a strange proposal that I can only assume people haven't actually followed that link; I suspect you meant WP:BOTPOL instead. IMO, that would be 100% pure instruction creep and should be roundly rejected as superfluous and ridiculous. If people have concerns about the continued consensus for any currently running bot, follow the instructions in the bot policy: begin a discussion about that bot on WT:BRFA. Note that trying to begin a discussion about "we should stop all place-creation bots" without specifying which specific bots you are talking about will quickly go nowhere as it would be pointlessly vague, and note that any real discussion will probably be referred back to WP:VPR for community consensus where it will likely run hard into the existing status quo and die.

As for the rest, my personal opinions: 1. Maybe, except I doubt it will actually stop the people who keep bringing this up. 2. No. 3. No. 4. Not without taking them to AfD. 6. Works for me. Anomie⚔ 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A few words from north of the Highland Line, where a village the size of Mountainburg would qualify as a substantial and notable settlement. We are refreshingly free from bot-created location stubs in Scotland, but Homo sapiens stubmaximus is at large, creating all sorts of "articles". After various desultory conversations my strategy is to avoid deletions as it is likely that someone with a gazetteer but who can't be bothered to read a map provided by our excellent Ordnance Survey will just re-create them sooner or later. The easiest thing to do is to blank the text, such as it is, and redirect to the nearest actual "settlement". This applies to the most absurd cases, which are often just single farms, abandoned hamlets or clusters of less than half-a-dozen houses. However even quite small Old World settlements can be expanded to a surprising degree as many of them have significant historic and pre-historic buildings and ruins. I am all for policy/guideline clarity but I fear that, in the UK at least, coverage is already as extensive as many a gazetteer. Ben MacDui 18:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Coming fresh to this discussion concerning notability & tiny little fly-specks of habitations, I'd like to point out that the reason for having an article about anything in Wikipedia is that it is conceivably useful information to a reader. Or, to put my point another way, when creating or deleting an article one should always ask, "Is it reasonable that someone will look for information about this subject?" Having an article on a person, place or thing in Wikipedia does not confer it a special quality over another person, place or thing that is not in Wikipedia; it simply means it belongs to a category which, in the aggregate, is likely to be of interest to our readers. Settlements are notable because people are are born or die there, & events take place there -- some of which will conceivably happen in the future. Now in the case of the vast majority of these tiny settlements, I admit nothing notable has or will happen; yet having an extensive -- although likely never exhaustive -- collection of articles on these places, our users can trust us to have an article on that one place they need information about.

Of course this leads to the question: is separate articles on these tiny settlements the best way to present this information? I don't know the answer, but I believe that question would be far more useful to debate. In any case, this unproductive squabbling over whether "notability" applies to these places is not going to lead to a better Wikipedia for our readers. In the end, "notability" is simply another way for the Wikipedia community to tell the reader that we aren't going to go any further into that area of knowledge, that "nobody worth listening to cares about that". That is not the message I believe this encyclopedia should be sending. -- llywrch (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed wording for the policy

I made this short and sweet and I think it expresses current practice. (to be inserted in the section Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information between Lyrics databases and Excessive listing of statistics:

• Gazetteer content. As mentioned in the five pillars, "[Wikipedia] incorporates elements of general and specialized ... gazetteers". The criterion for inclusion of gazetteer content is verifiability from a reliable source for geographical information. patsw (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• I think what you mean by this proposal is that geographical information should be exempt from WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#LINKS and WP:NOT#DIR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  I see no way in which this statement implies or requires exemption from any of the above sections of WP:NOT. Please quote the specific portion(s) of WP:NOT you believe is contradictory to this proposal, and explain why. --erachima talk 07:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not about deciding which sections trump what, but about deciding upon a clear statement that reflects past practice and current consensus. The problem with merely citing the sections of WP:NOT above is that apparently they were never applied to gazetteer content article creating bots since 2002 through the present. Should they have been? patsw (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I stress this: WP:NOT is not the right place for this. This discussion shouldn't be happening here because it is not about exclusion of gazetteer content, but when gazetteer content should be sufficient to create an article. The idea of stating this in a guideline elsewhere makes sense, but a metric for inclusion should not be policy-based, and certainly less so on a page designed to outline content we exclude. As you have this written, it implies that gazetteer content is explicitly excluded from WP. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussing the ramifications of this proposal on this policy at another venue is a sort of sneaky way of doing things - creating an editorial walled garden where the conflict with existing policies and guidelines can be ignored is just a means to avoid opposition. The arguement in favour of gazetteer has already been refuted at WP:N, and may well be refuted here too. This issue should be disussed here, and the conflicts with existing policy dealt with openly. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, you are sadly mistaken if you think the discussion at WT:N was in favor against gazetteer content. I may not like having the articles, but even I recognize that the consensus is nowhere close to their removal. You must stop insisting on your version of Gavinpedia and work with consensus. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Who said they should be removed? They just don't provide an evidence of notability, but that does not mean they have to be removed. I think you need to assume good faith in these matters. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss content inclusion/exclusion because there is now (as well as in the past) a live dispute regarding sections of the current policy which lead people to different interpretations of it with respect to gazetteer content. In fact, as currently written, the policy contains nothing to describe specifically what gazetteer content should be in Wikipedia as described in WP:5P. Into this empty spot, people project parts of NOT which could support exclusion, and parts of NOT which could support inclusion. I believe it is opportune to clarify the policy with as few words as possible, and if there's a consensus to create a new guideline, WP:Gazetteer content, or modify the existing WP:N, let's do that too. patsw (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think an WP:RFC may be in order, this being an issue on which we would appreciate substantial input and would benefit from the clear development of positions that RfC encourages. The current discussion has gotten bogged down in a useless back-and-forth over the positions of particular editors. --erachima talk 18:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. It's an RFC. patsw (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you kind of missed my point, which was that the current discussion is bogged down, and we should start fresh using RfC protocol. Just slapping "RfC" onto the existing discussion doesn't do much. If you'd like, I can help you get the statement of dispute and summary set up. --erachima talk 20:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you kind of missed my edits, and also presumed I did not know how to start an RfC. The statement of dispute was correctly composed and it appeared on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines patsw (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I still believe it should be placed in its own section on the page. --erachima talk 20:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that each of the "sides" on this issue should go write their own {{notability essay}}, and let the community spend the next six months or a year considering them. There's no need to produce an 'official' guideline this week. A series of essays will let editors consider the views, spend some time seeing how they apply to different situations, etc. Then, when we know which essays are usually being cited approvingly, and which are being dismissed in deletion discussions, we'll have a pretty firm handle on what the community's actual practice (hereinafter "the real policy") is, and we can make sure that any future guideline reflects the real policy instead of the theoretical notions of a couple of people on this page.

If wanted, WP:GAZETTEER can be turned into a disambiguation page to point to all of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not so sure that is the right approach. There are already notability guidelines, and content policies, and they prohibit barebone gazetteer type articles. The idea that barebone gazetteer content about settlements is allowable is being built purely on the premise that WP:NOT does not specifically mention them by name. Its a bit like saying that we have a law that prohibits people from driving down a one way street, but it does not apply to bicycles because they are not "driven". We have had similar discussions in the past about other forms of content that prohibited by WP:NOT: barebone TV schedules, articles that are all plot summary to name but a few. In each case, the proposal to exempt these type of articles has been based on the premise that the scope of "What Wikipedia is Not" does not apply to these particular type of article, because the policy is not "real policy". I think we have to accept that if WP:NOT prohibits directory article (and lists), then that applies to directories of places too. We need to get away from the sloppy thinking that promotes the idea that there is "one rule for you, one exemption for me". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing that a page which explicitly derives its authority from WP:5P trumps WP:5P. You are further arguing that a page which explicitly derives its authority from a page which explicitly derives its authority from WP:5P trumps WP:5P. If WP:N and WP:NOT are creating ambiguity regarding Gazetteer content, which is appropriate as described in WP:5P, then the subordinate policy pages must be corrected, not our overarching principles.
I will say, however, that your input has been helpful here, since I now finally understand the source of your misconceptions on this subject, which can hopefully be of help in educating other editors. Thank you. --erachima talk 23:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That is one interpretation, which if you don't mind me saying so, sounds very fundamentalist (more so even than me, well done!). However, I think it is more reasonable to look at WP:5P as being a summary of Wikipedia's policy, rather than giving carte blanche to gazetteer articles about absolutely everything. The devil is in the detail, and like him or not, he resides in WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that WP:NOT is relevant: WP:NOT#PAPER. --erachima talk 00:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Erachima, are you aware that 5P has no authority whatsoever, and therefore nothing can derive any authority from it? WP:5P is just as 'official' as as WP:SIMPLE, WP:TRIFECTA, etc. NOT is a policy; 5P is just an essay (a useful one, but still just an essay). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

By 5P I refer not to the specific page WP:5P but to the five pillars. I can see how that would get confusing though. --erachima talk 00:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(e-c)I second what What said (and wish that was plastered on every new user's talk page instead of those welcoming templates that point them to the 5P to "learn" how to use Wikipedia). For those who must insist on a world-view of Wikipedia policies being "laws" (which they are not) here is a good way of looking at why we Wikipedia is a gazetteer- common law has decided that it is in fact "legal" whether any "law" actually codifies that existence. If you must take it further and say that the 5P is a "Constitution" then look at it this way- the US Constitution states that Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of speech, however the US Supreme Court says you can in instance of public safety (no yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, hate speech that advocates violence, and porn/obscenity around minors). Common law often does trump constitutional law, more so in Wikipedia than the real world. To take Gavin's bicycle/one way street analogy... I dont know where you live but everywhere I have lived they routinely violate the law regarding one-ways, sidewalks, and street signs; the cops pick their battles and bicycles on a sidewalk while illegal isnt leading to murder. Barebone gazetteer articles about settlements isnt leading to vandalism or disruptive editing behavior.Camelbinky (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We need more than verification to have articles, or else we will become an indiscriminate collection of information. All articles need some sort of guidelines beyond verifiability. The notability guidelines may be relaxed for some topics such as gazateer content, but they shouldn't be done away with entirely. As such, I would oppose any attempt of codifying a type of "verifiable = article" wording within our policy unless there are caveats. Personally I feel that any sort of gazetteer content that is verified and has a high probability of having some established local notability (through records, primary sources, etc) should be allowed on; and if attempts to verify this local notability fail the article should go. Therefore, one would need to do more than just look at a map and write an article for every name on the map stating "Foo is a location in Bar", but not too much more. I'll also note that I'm pretty wary of bots creating articles on these subjects, or any subject for that matter. Each article should be created with personalised attention by humans, not computer programs. ThemFromSpace 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Current practice: Are we all on the same page?

• The criterion for inclusion of gazetteer content is verifiability from a reliable source for geographical information. Is there an acknowledgment that's been the way it's been done since 2002, or does that need to be demonstrated? patsw (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• As best I can tell from the discussion, nobody disputes that the practiced standard is "if we can confirm a place is real, we can have an article on it". The debate is over whether wording that was not originally written to cover geostubs but can be read as forbidding them should be extended to explicitly include them (thereby deliberately bringing policy into conflict with current practice in an attempt to alter it), or if the wording should be clarified to explicitly not include them (thereby complicating WP:NOT and possibly requiring the alteration of the WP:GNG), or if we should just leave the wording and the pages alone (thereby risking confusion and the need to have this discussion again at a later date). A secondary issue is whether listification is a better way of dealing with geostubs than just leaving them sitting around, but that's probably best left outside the scope of the discussion. --erachima talk 02:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that was an excellent summary, except for the first sentence of the final bullet point: what is an acknowledgment? I imagine this is just a slip. I've more to ay about the proposal itself; here I simply show agreement that the summary is fair, in my view. Si Trew (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• The criterion for the inclusion of gazetteer topics has always been notability. The prohibition of barebone gazetteer articles in WP:NOT#DIR, but other sections of WP:NOT also apply. This applies to standalone articles and lists topics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  The question being asked is "do you acknowledge that the current practice is that real locations get articles?", not "do you endorse current practice?". Please stay on topic. (Also your statement is factually untrue, WP:N postdates the debates resulting in the current status quo by nearly half a decade.) --erachima talk 07:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I believe it is an acknowledgment that has been in place since 2002 simply accepted as status quo but has not really been reviewed since notability has become as important a guideline that it is. As I've mentioned before, we've had the Pokemon test used to trim factually true but non-notable Pokemon articles to lists; and though I am completely aware of the importance of a human civilization vs a fictional character, the idea is there - that we probably should re-evaluate what the consensus is for inclusion of human settlements. This means starting without the presumption of past case history that is typically used to keep such articles, and instead basing it on all other policies and guidelines. It may be that the status quo remains, it may be that the GNG is necessary, it may be a mix, I dunno. (I know what I'd like to see, falling into the mix, but that's my personal opinion). But, and I hate to keep stressing this, unless we are specifically concluding what context is to be excluded (and not when we create an article for a settlement) , WP:NOT is absolutely the wrong venue for any advise on this nature. --MASEM (t) 07:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but although lots of these articles may have been created since 2002, I don't acknowledge this to be best practice, rather it is more likely to be a result of the development of automated editing tools than a shift in consensus. There has not been any change in policy since then, and in the meantime, the creation of permastubs in all subject areas and the difficulty in dealing with them is a matter of continued debtate and dispute throughout Wikipedia.

There is no evidence to suggest a precedent has been created. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that does not in any way mean that barebone gazetteer articles have become acceptable, nor does it mean that they have been exempted from WP:NOT#DIR based on any precedent. The correct interpretation of events is this is that a lot bots have created lots of half finished articles because they are incapable of summarising significant coverage from secondary sources. As a result the bots have created a large number of articles that don't comply with content policy and the notability guidelines. We are where we are, but that does not mean settlements are a special case.

If precedent is anything to go by, then I would say that redirect of many Pokemon characters does indicate that is still concensus within the Wikipedia to at least stay close to exisiting policies and guidelines, rather than to grant wholesale exemptions to particular topics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pokemon have nothing to do with this discussion, as they were merged on the grounds of entirely different principles and concerns, and cannot be used as precedent here. --erachima talk 11:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To Gavin: WP:N did not exist in 2002; it only came into standing practice in 2006. Therefore, there is no way this sentence: There has not been any change in policy since then, and in the meantime, the creation of permastubs in all subject areas and the difficulty in dealing with them is a matter of continued debtate and dispute throughout Wikipedia. cannot be true.

To Erachima - I understand that Pokemon characters and settlements are very different things, but, before 2006, we used to have an article for every pokemon character too, as verifiable - but not notable - as settlements, and led to arguments that if we had an article on a pokemon character, we should have articles on other topic of other fields or the same sourcing quality - eg primary only. It later resulted that with notability, to only keep about 4 or so (at that time, may have grown) notable Pokemon characters with the rest merged into into lists. Now, human settlements from a "inclusion value" aspect for an encyclopdia, are much more valuable than pokemon characters, but I've seen the same arguments cited at WP:POKEMON but replacing pokemon with settlements and until recently athletes. Of course I prefer this that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only an essay, but the fact is there - when certain fields have articles that appear to fall outside the status quo for the rest of the encyclopedia in terms of content, sourcing, or whatnot, there is implied bias that should be corrected either through removal of the articles or writing down the consensus-agreed practice of those articles (hence how many of the sub-notability guidelines grew). In the case of pokemon, the articles were removed. In a more recent example, WP:ATHLETE has been removed and replaced by a more stricter (to some extent) WP:NSPORT to better describe what athletes should be kept.

Bringing this around to this discussion, as best as I can tell, I don't believe we have had a similar reassessment of human settlements as there were with Pokemon and athletes sicne the introduction of WP:N. Instead, we have a perpetual motion machine whereby the assumption that human settlements are kept at AFD when challenges leads to common advice (but not an explicit guideline) that settlements are kept; and that the fact that we have common advice that human settlements are usually kept is usually used as a "keep" argument in deletion debates.

We really need to restart a community discussion either to affirm that we presume human settlements as notable, just as was done at a much more local scale for the Pokemon characters or for Athletes. If that holds up this implied common advice, we need to make a sub-notability guideline to explicitly state this. If consensus is against it, then we need to make sure we have removed that as common advice from WP:OUTCOMES. If there's something in between, we need to figure out something. Regardless of what that something is, it breaks the perpetual motion machine in favor of something that is well-understood and makes it easier to go forward. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer you directly as I think Patsw has made it clear that discussions about notability should be conducted over at WT:N. However, if you are proposing that we amend WP:NOT to reflect what (might) be happening at WP:AFD, then I would say that is a bad away to make policy: that is an example of the tail wagging the dog. If there is a prohibition on directory style articles in general, then creating an exception or an exemption is the wrong approach, because articles based on barebone data context don't provide the context for the reader, and that is what Wikipedia is about.

I think you will agree that creating a gazetteer Wiki along the lines of Wikispecies is the solution that fits this problem. Gazetters such as Wikitravel are useful because they are not encumbered by the restictions on content made Wikipedia's educational mission; for instance the prohibition on travelogue type articles in WP:TRAVEL would not restrict the scope of a travel Wiki. A standalone gazetteer for settlments has more potential to provide comprehensive cover in a way that Wikipedia could never do.

For me the knock out reason for creating a seperate Wiki for gazetteer type articles is that it should be possible to integrate them to decent maps, which in my mind is the only reasonable justification for comprehensive coverage of settlements. I don't know why this idea has not been put into practice over at Wikitravel, but I suspect that the likes of Google Earth hold the copyright. It seems to me that the Wiki that can hold both texts and maps in one mainspace will become the Wikipedia of travel in the future. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of an integrated multilingual atlas/gazetteer/GIS wiki. It seems rather obvious that WikiAtlas (for want of another name) would draw heavily on nationaly- and regionaly-specific data sources. Bots would have to harvest data from each nation's accessible sources and convert it to the wiki's internal formats. There are already many such GIS projects extant, some of which might be willing and able to engage with WMF if approached. That said, a full-blown GIS of our own could rapidly become a monster resource hog. I would therefore suggest that we stick to the gazetteer plus simple maps, with {{coord}} style linkages to multiple other sources of maps, photos, etc. Historians and geophysicists (amongst others) will want to have a fourth dimension to show borders, settlements or even continental drift in a time-appropriate way. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The only issue with a WikiAtlas - otherwise still a great idea - is that when we actually have a notable article on a city, like New York City, there will be a lot of duplication if WikiAtlas doesn't add much more than what already exists from the bot-created article versions. There obviously should be a link from a notable settlement to the Wikiatlas entry, but we need to make a good line of what type of data goes into the encyclopedia and what is placed in the WikiAtlas. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have missed my earlier point about WP:TRAVEL. There won't be a lot of duplication, because a lot information that is contained in gazetteers (location of nearby schools, restaurants, shops and medical facilities) can't be included in Wikipedia, which is not a directory of such things. I think this is the knock out argument against the inclusion of gazetteer type articles in Wikipedia: articles such as Mountainburg, Arkansas cannot be developed to a level that would make them useful in the same way a gazetteer is useful to a traveller. Because there is a prohibition against adding useful travel information, such as maps, roads, rail routes and airport locations and other useful information that a gazetteer such as the Baedeker or Blue Guides would provide as standard, introducing gazetteer type articles is a dead end. For instance, even though Baedeker and the Blue Guides are great publications, much of their content on hotels, shops and museum entrance charges would also fail WP:SPAM if brought to Wikipedia.

I can understand why some editors would like to permit the inclusion of gazetteer-type articles: the statistics compiled by the US Census Bureau can be cleverly transformed into an article that approximates a useful tertiary source, such as a directory or travel guide. However, it only approximates a useful tertiary source, but falls too far short travel guide to be even remotely useful because Wikipedia's policies effectively restrict its encyclopaedic content to an educational brief. We would have to bring in a lot of trivial detail to make gazetteer articles useful in the real world. Wikipedia's mission is to disseminate knowledge, rather than data, no matter how useful that data may be within the context of a travel guide. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Data is a type of knowledge. --erachima talk 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Because there is a prohibition against adding useful travel information is absolutely wrong. Otherwise, time to wipe out all of WP because it's useful. The only place where retaining data due to its usefulful is discussed is at WP:USEFUL, an essay. Now, there is concern about indiscriminate information, and a listing of all private, non-notable businesses is a problem for WP and likely wouldn't be addressed at WikiAtlas either (otherwise, it is bound to become a business directory, not the goal I think). But we can include - in one location or the other - notable public entities, like major schools, notable non-chain businesses, etc. to avoid being indiscriminate. How exactly we break that up, I don't know. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)