Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just my two cents here but in the past (And I have a 1963 Encyclopedia set) Encyclopedias did show how to create things like simple knots and showed basic rules of the road. What my question here would be why would this not be suitable for an encyclopedia today? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would say it's because we don't have a single editorial staff. By that, I mean that if we allowed any guidebook material, we would inevitably have a million of them, and a very large number of our current articles would get weighed down by them. Every article about a food would have 2-10 full recipes; every video game article would have one or more walk-throughs; articles about places would have detailed information about how and where to get to every even slightly touristy place in that location. By holding a bold line against such things, to me, it keeps us focused--there are already a lot of really great places on the internet to get reliable information about those other things, so there's no real need for us to collect that info here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does and should contain information about knots, &c. - I was just reviewing our article shoelace knot which was just kept at AFD. The point made by the section in question is a matter of style and presentation. When we deal with a topic we shouldn't use a tutorial format with detailed step-by-step instructions, exercises, lesson plans and the like. The idea is to present facts in a succinct summary style. If this is done well then people should learn from what is said - that's the idea too. But we generally use the style of an encyclopedia, not the style of a textbook or journal. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• • And building on this, if it is necessary to describe the how-to in order to distinguish from one type of not from another, that's appropriate (as a good example). But yes, this is presented in prose, not a bullet-point step-by-step list. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify, because I think my note above sounds unnecessarily strict. There are definitely times where explaining how something is done is appropriate, as long as it is integral to the topic itself--in the case of a knot, for example, almost by definition it is how it is made (plus what it is usually used for). For topics where a how-to is not integral, like a walkthrough on a video game, it should not be included. And for something like a food, I would expect to see a balance; we shouldn't have an ingredient list and cooking temperatures, but we should be able to understand whether the dish in question is deep fried or oven roasted or quickly steamed. But if we can "do" whatever the topic is just by reading the WP article, then we probably did something wrong (in my opinion--the mileage of others may vary, and of course, it varies topic by topic). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a prohibition against users discussing stuff unrelated to Wikipedia or Wikipedia articles in user space? Can someone point me to the history behind this policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your userspace is meant to be used for anything that helps to improve the work - we are otherwise not your webhost, which is what people have tried to do in their userspace. Thus, while we loosely interpret what is appropriate to improving the work, we do discourage people just chatting to one another on their userpages. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of that. I'm looking for the reasoning behind that. In particular, I'm looking for the historical discussions behind the adoption of this policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I want a section with the title “Wikipedia is not WikiLeaks”. --84.62.199.208 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's more something that Wikileaks need to make clear, and to be fair to them they do, in fact, make it very clear in their FAQ. However, if you write the section I'll put it in for you and we can see if it's reverted. Egg Centric (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

See

WP:NOTLEAKS. Johnuniq (talk

) 23:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed people (not pointing names) have used this point as an excuse to delete any links they does like as if the links were going trying to kill them. This article needs to mention that this policy only applies to links that every single person agrees is absolutely useless, otherwise there being no need or reason to remove it. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish to propose that we are permitted to discuss the subject of an article on talk pages.

Reasoning:

1. Wikimedia can easily afford additional costs, which would be negligible
2. For most subjects, this is the most obvious place in the entire world to discuss it
3. Will indirectly aid encyclopaedia through what comes from it, as well as attracting more specialists in a subject.

Thoughts?

Egg Centric (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% opposed to this idea. It's not what Wikipedia is for, it would make actually trying to improve the article extremely difficult (because the space for discussion would be overwhelmed by commentary), and we'd end up having to police it in ways that would probably make people unhappy, because things like

WP:SPAM, etc., all apply to talk pages, too. Furthermore, while you claim the costs would be negligible, I sincerely doubt that is the case. Given that every even slightly controversial news article I read on Yahoo has several thousand comments hours after it goes live, I can just imagine what would happen here if we allowed ongoing free discussion. We're here to do one thing--build an encyclopedia. There are thousands of other places on the internet to have unfettered discussion about topics. We should stay focused on the purpose of the project. After I wrote all of that, I realized I should have checked WP:Perennial proposals, and lo and behold, a far better written rejection is listed there at in this section. Qwyrxian (talk

) 12:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The objections there seem to be variations of "it's too much work". I don't see that as a valid objection, for the obvious reason that Wikipedia is a voluntary enterprise. No one needs to participate in them. Technical solutions are available to split article discussion from subject of article discussion. Egg Centric (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose Just think of the "fun" we'd have patrolling any remotely "political" topic, not to mention others. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But you wouuldn't have to have any of that fun if you didn't want it. You're still a volunteer, you can do whatever you like. This is adding a feature (and actually I personally would have quite some fun in some of the topics) Egg Centric (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Admins (like myself) would have to either partol the page, or expect constant reports at AN/I about incivility on such forums. Absolutely not. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Conceivably they could be split up by technical means, as with below \/ Egg Centric (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. WP is a voluntary project - admins have powers, but they are still volunteers. Introducing forums will create workload well beyond what volunteers will want to deal with (and no, you don't split the workload in a voluntary system). As others have said, plenty of places outside of WP for discussion of any topic, it's not WP's purpose to provide this. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying to this, which was caused primarily by your blocking me. As Anthony says, there's really no way of knowing whether the workload [b]per volunteer[/b] would increase or decrease as it's not clear what effect this would have on recruitment. And saying Wikipedia is not the place for it is really a circular argument, when you think about it... this is an opportunity to make it the place for it! Egg Centric (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's very easy to imagine article talk pages being swamped by rambling natter under this proposal. Maybe each article could have a forum attached to it, separate from the article talk page. Such a massive category dominating cluster of forums like this might raise enough advertising revenue to support Wikipedia. Alternatively, it could become a honey pot for the world's cooks and POV-pushers, which would spill onto and contaminate the articles. Don't know. The only way to find out for sure would be to try it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be an interesting experiment :) Egg Centric (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

So Wikipedia (or an attached forum) would have advertisements, it would create a huge workload for admins, it would attract cooks and POV-pushers all because it could "possible indirectly aid" the encyclopedia? Really bad idea! Garion96 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with an attached forum having advertising, is there? Why couldn't the users of the forums police the forums, just as the editors of the encyclopedia police the encyclopedia? The revenue would definitely be a good thing. I'm not saying it won't turn out to be a nightmare we'd strangle at birth. I'm saying I have no idea. you have no idea. and the only way to know would be to trial it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Encyclopedia ≠ Usenet. Deor (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly it would be a radical change. Observing that is no argument against the change. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth,

But what Wikinews is worth, is a community page. Its news reports are not encyclopedia articles. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick question by OP†

Do you think this would be better as a Wikimedia or Wikipedia proposal? Egg Centric (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

† :P

I occasionally come across editors removing information about official forecasts. I presume this results from a misinterpretation of

Appropriately sourced information about noteworthy predictions is, of course, permitted. For example:

• The United States Census Bureau predicts that the population will increase to 316 million by 2012.
• The International Monetary Fund predicts that inflation will rise to 11 percent by 2012.
• The authors of the report predict that increasing temperatures will mean wetter winters and more snow at high elevations.
• Hawking predicted that black holes will finally disappear as they lose mass from radiation.

--Boson (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the header is meant to deal with that, in that it mentions when sourced to reliable sources. There is some concern of creating biases here (eg your third example is one I would be very careful of including in the whole global warming debate, even if I agree with it). --MASEM (t) 20:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To that end though, I did add this: Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating

undue bias to any specific point-of-view. --MASEM (t

) 20:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody here please comment on whether this article is used to determine content within an article page, or whether it is solely for determining if a subject is notable enough for its own article? I am being told that you cannot cite this policy as a reason not to include information in an article because this is only for whether info deserves its own article.AerobicFox (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This page

WP:N is used to determine if an article is appropriate in the first place, though if the entire article is content that offends WP:NOT, it shouldn't be included either. --MASEM (t

) 22:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The section

Soxwon (talk

) 22:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"The section

WP:NOTNEWS

is what is being discussed. I said that it refers to guidelines for the creation of articles, not for inclusion of material in articles."

But it isn't a guideline for the creation of articles, that is covered at WP:Notability. this is for the inclusion of content within an article.AerobicFox (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so there's no confusion, the section in question is the News Report section, as I feel that if it were to refer to content, it would prove redundant since we already have

Soxwon (talk

) 23:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:N. It is based, in part on NOTNEWS. But NOTNEWS can also apply to article content as well - a recent story about a topic may not have encyclopedic value until the full impact or evaluation of the story can be confirmed (eg commonly the death of a known person, we wait until many different source corroborate on that). --MASEM (t

) 23:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, one could argue that the two sections,

WP:NOTDIR is "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed"....? I'd be in favour of merging the two sections. We really need to rationalise some of these WP: pages. Casliber (talk · contribs

) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why not merge
  WP:NOTDIR could be interpreted as indiscriminate information. Why rationalise? I've been here four years and am still coming across stuff I've never seen, sheesh! Casliber (talk · contribs
  ) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Good idea. Policies grow steadily and need consolidating sometimes. NOTDIR is a special case of IINFO, and some of the entries like those about catalogues are even duplicated across the two sections. Fences&Windows 02:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
3. I agree, merge NOTDIR into IINFO; the latter covers everything in the former. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Conditional support if we keep NOTDIR and lose IINFO, or make IINFO into a single bullet in NOTDIR. IINFO has itself become an indiscriminate policy that catches a bunch of unrelated things that Wikipedia is not. NOTPLOT, NOTSTATS, and NOTLYRICS are really about Wikipedia not being a collection of primary data, whereas NOTFAQ is just about formatting and style. There has to be a more discriminate summary of things that Wikipedia is not. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. NOT DIR means we do not include comprehensive listings of every person, of business or book, regardless of importance. . IINFO means that when we do deal with a subject, we do not include everything that is possible to find on it, but only that part which is relevant to the needs of users of an encyclopedia. NOT DIR means we do not include every movie actor who has ever appeared. IINFO means we do not even for the most important, attempt to describe every minute of their life, that, even for the most important films, we go scene by scene, not frame by frame. The two principles complement each other but are distinct. Sometimes only one applies: by IINFO although we might list every established student club in a college, or every student dorm, we do not describe it in detail. by NOT DIR even if we only give one line to each business in a place, we list only the important ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
2. I think DGG has a good point here. The two concepts are distinct, really. A directory of "x" is inherently non-indiscriminate, because it focuses on "x". Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
3. IINFO and NOTDIR are very different concepts, and should not be merged. I don't have a problem if some believe sub-points within these need to be flipped around, but they are vastly different areas that shouldn't be combined. -MASEM (t) 07:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Per DGG and Masem (and Jclemens), who said it better than I could. It is fairly common, though, for people to misunderstand this sometimes subtle difference. I would suggest that things are clarified using some of what DGG said above. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• To reply to shooterwalker, I'd propose not losing anything but writing a concise paragraph with the salient points covered by both, with the bullet points of both listed. To DGG, yeah there are differences, but once one starts listing the bullets, there is alot more overlap than differences. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Abstaining. Clearly something needs to be done to better clarify the distinction (particularly for newbies). Some degree of merging would also be needed for parts of it. But would merging all of it be sufficient to sort the underlying issue out (in which case I should support)? Or is the current state of this policy sufficiently satisfactory (in which case I should oppose)? I think that's the dilemma. We might need another proposal. For example, making this policy more succinct would be a start (seeing some parts of it do seem to read more like guidelines than policy principles; maybe those guideline-type parts should be shifted to a new guideline while the policy counterpart simply states the applicable principles). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Just reappearing to say that I thought I asked a simple question and am not much interested in (nor do I support) the merge proposal that has eclipsed the original query. Deor (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  Good point. I've started a new subsection to discuss rearranging the sections, which is what you were asking about (not merging them). Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rearrange two subsections

Move some items from

• To make Deor's proposal explicit, it is to move FAQs and possibly Catalogue from IINFO to NOTDIR, and to move 'Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations' and 'A complete exposition of all possible details' from NOTDIR to IINFO. I haven't looked in detail yet, but as the difference between the two does cause confusion, it would make sense to make sure that what is currently in the two sections is not contributing to that confusion, so I would support rearranging and moving of anything that has been misplaced. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I would support that. To summarize, "catalogs" belongs under NOTDIR, whereas "cross categorizations" and "all possible details" belong under IINFO. I actually think "FAQs" belongs under NOTMANUAL. But we should go further to sort out IINFO. The first three under IINFO (plot, lyrics, and statistics) have more to do with how an encyclopedia article isn't just a collection of primary data. Very different from the others (news, who's who, cross categorizations, all details). Like I said above, IINFO is itself an indiscriminate category of rules that don't have much to do with each other. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Me too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion above on this talk page reports that

Don't know the incident or article in question, but (1) The summary of WP:EVENT you gave seems a gross oversimplification (2) WP:EVENT is a guideline meant to augment and aid in the application/interpretation of the WP:NOTNEWS policy; the 2 are not intended to contradict each other and should be read together, though the latter is controlling. Could you explain why and how WP:NOTNEWS needs changing? --Cybercobra (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTNEWS is a pretty poorly applied policy, in that it's used often with a

WP:VAGUEWAVE to imply that "this showed up in a newspaper, therefore is not suitable for inclusion", which is a blatant misreading of what NOTNEWS actually says. Jclemens (talk

) 07:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTNEWS should not be used an as argument in deletion debates, because of how broad it is - it covers both topic inclusion and content. There's a reason EVENT was created to deal with the appropriateness of articles of current events; AFDs should be based on that standard. This is not to say that NOTNEWS is a bad policy, but its misapplied at AFD. --MASEM (t) 07:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to find all current AfDs where people have mentioned or linked some variant of NOTNEWS and see how it is being cited in current practice? That would be pretty scary, being able to monitor how people are citing policies and guidelines and

gently correct them! Carcharoth (talk

) 00:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Citations/References/Sources for these articles tend to be the products themselves, fan sites, sites from the companies producing/selling the products, and hobby magazines or websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.98.58 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers a great deal more than old-fashined paper encyclopedias. Please don't think we cover them all--we cover those for which there is evidence of importance, and often combine the less important into combination articles. You might want to read some of the discussions at WP:Articles for deletion where we decide which ones to discard--we discard , as we should, considerably more than half of the articles brought there. Good specialist magazine that are independently edited are the place where we find the reviews of products that show their importance. This of course needs to be distinguished from press releases or articles based wholly on them. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition re WP:NOTDIR per Wikipedia:Article creep#Unencyclopedic list creep is

"A directory-like apperance can unexpectedly gradually occur through list creep"

But an argument against this proposal may be in

) 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Banner

This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.

Shortcuts WP:! WP:NOT WP:WWIN

Could this banner possibly be more relevant? This page is more of a beginner's guide.

Qwertyus

03:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the {{policy}} banner be removed? That would not be helpful because it needs to made very clear that the page is not an arbitrary list of stuff, subject to current whims. It is solid policy. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that as long as we attribute it; i.e., "Ferd Berffle, in The Battle of the Crapper Revisited, argues that if the Protestant mercenaries had more aggressively attacked the token American motorcycle corps, their costly victory would have permanently hardened Grantville's policy towards downtime troops." As long as we clearly source the assertion,

reliable source on the topic). --Orange Mike | Talk

19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I even got your reference :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Still, I'd prefer advice on which formulation in the article is preferable, as I am afraid I am seeing an edit war over two variants. Variant 1 is a simple sentence: "Historians have asserted that if...", referenced with reliable sources. Variant 2 includes, in the most extreme version, a paragraph split into a new one entitled "Counerfactual opinions", and begins with the sentence "In a

They are strongly discouraged both by PLOT and by WP:N. Mind you, I have a feeling that most of those episode articles are notable but no one's done the leg work to prove it, and spinning out with addressing notability or NOTPLOT at the start is usually not a good thing. (As a counterexample, Fringe's 3rd season has been heavily covered due to it's Friday night schedule, so with 24hr of a new episode airing we have a plot and ratings and initial RS reviews for it.) --MASEM (t) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I'm just looking to see what the actual intention of this policy is, I read it as delete/redirect these type of articles, clearly others don't. As for Fringe that's mainly Ruby2010 who's doing a magnificent job. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The actual interpretation is the consensus at the AfD, which is roundly against your efforts. Posting here looks suspiciously like forum shopping. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, consensus doesn't necessarily carry over, and definitely not upstream. As an ad you should know that. I'll take offense to your forum shopping remark, seeing that you voted "keep all", I'll see it as a personal bias to prevent as few as possible new people to be informed about this issue, which definitely involves this policy. I fully informed both sides, I've linked to the AfD and linked here at the AfD, I've tried to be as neutral as possibly, giving full disclosure that I started the AfD etc. If this type of articles is acceptable under

What Wikipedia is not then a series of pages, including this one should altered or at the very minimum be more clear, and I would like a clear answer to what the hell the meaning of "What Wikipedia is not" is supposed to be, if it is not "this type of content/article shouldn't be on Wikipedia". And that's what I'm trying to get a clear answer to, preferably from an unbiased person involved with this policy. _Xeworlebi ^(talk

) 23:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an appalling example of

Get Over It. --rpeh •T•C•E

• 00:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read

WP:GETOVERIT remarks ever. _Xeworlebi ^(talk

) 00:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You linked to this page from the AfD (after many, many votes had been cast) so don't blame people who decide to follow it up. GETOVERIT is valid because it's already crystal clear that you don't have the support for your outrageous actions. --rpeh •T•C•E• 01:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether or not this is canvassing (I'm willing to assume good faith, but consider yourself warned)... NOT#PLOT does prohibit plot only articles. But an article about an episode of a famed TV series is likely to have some reliable reviewer who interviewed a cast member, or talked about how good or bad the episode was. So yes, the policy is still a good one. But an episode of House is probably gonna meet that policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:PLOT states, "A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage". My recollection of previous discussions is that there was no consensus for WP:PLOT being being here as the policy is saying that we can and should have plot synopses rather than saying that this is forbidden. The point of WP:NOT is to tell us what we shouldn't have here rather than to tell us what we should. WP:PLOT should therefore be removed from this page and should point to some more relevant place such as

We've been over the fact that PLOT does not forbid the inclusion of plot summaries in the presence of real-world context for articles. But an article that only gives a plot summary but shows no sign of being able to expand to include the additional sections on development and reception is basically indiscriminate information, and why PLOT falls under NOT#IINFO. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is the difference between main subject articles which are just stubs that have only plot, and articles that are about part of the subject (like episode articles) and only contain plot. To me; if say

WP:PLOT as the content could easily be merged back a level up to the season page, the episode list or the main show article. (For the record House already has the same content on the season page, so a merge would change noting). _Xeworlebi ^(talk

) 13:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As noted by multiple commenters in the AFD, for serial/episodic works such as dramatic TV series, the operative work is the single episode, not the series as a whole or a season. postdlf (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, and I strongly disagree with that reasoning. I can't even imagine what would happen if this would be done for comic books. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. TV Series != Comic books so you're making a faulty comparison. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would generally agree that any random episode of any random TV show is likely going to fail PLOT , if not WP:N (though some plot summaries can be sourced to secondary sources), so generally, yes, we don't typically allow for single episode articles for every show that would just be a plot summary. But anything prime time, broadcast-network show, like House, it is pretty assured that each episode receives additional coverage so that ultimately, we know that each episode article would not fail PLOT. The fact that that information is not there at the present time is not an issue, though comes between people that like to rush to create these articles as soon as they can (day of airing) considering no DEADLINE, and those that rather see articles created only when they meet all content guidelines ("this only meets PLOT now, delete, restoring only when there's more than PLOT").

Basically, all that should be taken from NOT#PLOT is that we discourage articles that cannot grow more than just plot summary. If the article can reasonably be expanded beyond that, NOT#PLOT is satisfied, even if that material is not immediately present in the article. NOT#PLOT (as much of the rest of NOT) says nothing that articles where improvement is possible should be deleted; that's answered elsewhere and more an editing philosophy as opposed to content guideline. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a neutral note, that a discussion is ongoing, which concerns "NOTCENSORED"

All input welcome, Talk:Pat_Tillman#Clarifying_for_consensus

 Chzz  ►  08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I had to think about how to phrase this, which is why it took me a while to post it. Basically the two items have to do with unofficial patches in the form of

I think we're getting a little too specific for WP:NOT. But if you could frame it as part of something broader that still most common sense editors would support, I think it would be worth adding. I think the idea is that we don't write an article about every single product update ever done to a product line. We comment on them to the degree that they represent a significant jump forward and get talked about in sources. Something to that effect. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think in this one its more than we don't talk about every translation out there. Mods don't really fit in general. As for updates, well, its a bit more unique for video games and I think for that it might be hard to do and ultimately not eliminate any wording (ie CREEP) in the proposal. Talking about not mentioning every translation of a media product might though.陣内_Jinnai 03:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it kind of odd that we have that section pretty much devoted to in what my opinion is the denial that we are a buerocracy. Wikipedia pretty much meets for all intents and purposes meets the defintion of a Buerocracy as defined by Max Weber, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The whole point of a buerocracy is to more efficiently manage resources an acomplish a common task through the specilization of labour. Sure that's not how many see it in today's lexicon. The word Buerocracy conjurs up images of the lady at the DMV telling you that you made a mistake filling out form QE224, which is the request for form AQ775 to be processed by Department 224, and that we are closing in 5 minutes so that you will have to come back Monday. To me the point that we are trying to get across is that we are not intentionally buerocractic. We try to

Why is it that

Fixed (both pointing here now). Dcoetzee 12:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a negative inventory. "Scott has never won the Golden Globe." "Lhasa does not have a fast food restaurant." "Florida has no mountains."

All these are pov with underlying negative assumptions. "Scott should have won the Golden Globe." "Lhasa should have a fast food restaurant." "Florida is deficient in not having mountains."

The editor may find a positive way to say something similar. "Scott won an Emmy in 2001." "Lhasa has 112 kiosks which sell deep fried yak." "The highest point in Florida is X at 210 feet." Student7 (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it fits here, but likely better at

WP:W2W. Even so, there are cases where if a topic is secondary-sourced to have a lack of something, it is appropriate to include. Eg I think there's a few actors/actresses that, though nominated multiple times for Oscars, has yet to win it, and has a reputation for that. Similarly, one can talk about the Cubs losing streak or any sports team from Cleveland in a similar manner. As long as the sources mention the negative, it is appropriate to include. It's otherwise appropriate original research. --MASEM (t

) 13:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If this is a proposal, I oppose. In general these are editing judgments. I don't read into such statements a POV.

WP:FACTS has information on obvious facts in articles. patsw (talk

) 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the media goes on quite volubly about nearly every section of the country being "deficient" in something, particularly sports teams or sports awards. There are few sections of the country that have all the teams that the media thinks they are entitled to, or awards that the media believes that they are entitled to. It is the job of the media to keep people riled up in order to watch media (so their advertisers pay their salaries!).

Or, for that matter, that every actor/actress has all the awards that they deserve. BTW, there is an opposite corollary to those who buy into this fiction: Who doesn't deserve to win the pennant or win the Oscar so that the losing actress/team gets one?

When should the cubs have won, and who should have "lost" so that would happen? They lost because they, essentially, did not play as well as the other teams, when it counted. The encyclopedia is about performance, not non-performance.

I did not win the Pulitzer (again) last year for editing Wikipedia, not because I was "maliciously overlooked" by the committee,envious of my supposed achievements. I didn't write as well as the winner!

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia doesn't have to "buy in" to anything. We can continue to issue positive inventories, where cited, and omit the others, designed to raise ratings, but not inform. Student7 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that these are "designed to raise ratings but not inform". Stating that something is never within a category of things, or has never fallen within a category of things, is very often the most concise way to express a known fact. It is often the way sources describe matters. Most statments can be put into either positive or negative form, but a claim that one of these is always to be avoided as being "designed to raise ratings" seems unfounded. If it were true in some topics or areas, it would not be true in many others. A blanket rule forbidding this would prevent a very appropriate summary of the matter in many cases. Oppose. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with FT2 here - if it is the case that a wide range of sources assert that so-and-so should have won something or was expected to be the top contender or the like and that that didn't come to pass, that's clearly appropriate to include. If it's just one random journalist making the statement, that's different and likely including that opinion as a statement of fact would be undue weight on that. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also obviously mathematics - see proof of impossibility, which describes a body of important work about problems that have no solution. Dcoetzee 12:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

An editor added "Collectables directly related to the main topic of the article may be included." I'm not certain about this and fear a camel's nose. Could we see some examples or more exposition of what is meant? Herostratus (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In the edit Herostratus refers to, the editor also removed the statement that Wikipedia isn't a "stamp catalogue". Since the editor's user page indicates a longstanding interest in stamp and coin collection, I infer that he specifically disapproves of that statement. I no longer maintain the interest, but I've certainly enjoyed those hobbies in the past. Nevertheless, I think the "not a stamp catalogue" statement is appropriate. What do others think?  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you forgot the "address the edit and not the editor"? The issue arose on a US presidential biography whether it was proper to show the stamp depicting him. Itt has naught to do with Strawberry Shortcake etc. at all, nor does it imply that a long list would be proper - just that such material is valid in some articles, and the wording seemed to forbid such use. Collect (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The editor has not stepped forward, so I've reverted the edit for the time being. I'm a little concerned that the addition of "Collectables directly related to the main topic of the article may be included" may lead to a situation where (for example) the article on Strawberry Shortcake, which should focus on her status as a towering and iconic (yet ultimately tragic) figure in the Western literary canon, could end up with a lot of material on Happy Meal toys or whatever, and this would not be removable or even arguable since it's in the policy. Am willing to be persuaded otherwise, and perhaps there are situations where collectables discouraged by the current policy should be included, perhaps a statement of what problem this change is intended to address would be in order. Herostratus (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Might you reword it to indicate that mention of a limited number of items is not a problem in a relevant article? Also note than there are many articles which are primarily arboiut collectibles and which have lists therein. The wording seemed to suggest that no such material would be proper in articles, which, I trust, is erroneous. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not the intent, just as Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not preclude appropriate definitions. Examples of collectibles, articles about notable collectibles, images of the postmark from a ghost town, or portrayal of the subject on a stamp are fine, not the detailed technical definitions one can find in specialized philatelic publications. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the current wording. I see nothing that would prevent an article about something that could be collected, or a summary of collectables related to a topic. The only thing it advises against is a database, where all you do is have a list of everything that exists. If this isn't clear enough, perhaps this policy could be moved to NOT#DIR or NOT#GUIDE. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I also like the current wording, but would like to join Herostratus in asking Collect for further exposition. Perhaps he would point us to the discussion of a Presidential biography that he refers to as having prompted his change to this policy statement. The context that motivated his desired change would be helpful to other editors, and I didn't notice it in his edit history.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison Collect (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see User:Gwillhickers likes to introduce a separate "stamps" section to biography articles when stamps have been issued depicting the subject, and that other users objected in this instance. There was quite a lot of strife on the talk page there ( permalink ) over the issue. I'm not saying it argues one way or the other, but it may save other users time (so they won't have to dig to find out) if I note that there were no stamps in the article when it was a Featured Article in July, 2009.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's fine. But I was thinking, you know, this particular clause is not very clear, and I was thinking of suggesting a rewrite, but I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean, so I gave up. For one thing, this clause, except that it happens by chance to contain the word "stamp" (could have been "baseball card" or something else) doesn't have an opinion about adding info about a single stamp or two into an article. It says we are not a catalog, which would be more or less lengthy and sparse listing of items.

Except... we are a catalog. Many of or list articles are like catalog pages. We are a star catalog, and art catalog, and so forth. We are even a stamp catalog - look at List of birds on stamps of Japan for instance. It is a stamp catalog, and according to this clause it's absolutely against policy for this page to exist. And I'd bet there are many articles in Category:Postage stamps that are similar. And many other categories as well, if we accept that "stamp" is just an example.

List of birds on stamps of Japan is a bit lame, but a detailed analysis of the printings, variations, and values of the stamps, however well referenced, would be way too much. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So this clause should be deleted, in my opinion. If its not to be deleted, it should be enforced, which would probably mean clearing out a large number of articles. I'm not in favor of that, but also not in favor of having rules which are only enforced sporadically, because sporadic enforcement is always in danger of devolving to unfair enforcement.

On the other hand, all this is somewhat theoretical; I haven't heard of this clause causing any controversy until now. So it's not excellent, but it's OK to leave it lie, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The section was not historically part of the page, so I rather think deletion would be wiser than allowing folks to try asserting it as gospel. It was added at [1] by User:Fred Bauder on 16 January. Apparently in order to justify [2]. On the basis that the addition was done for a specific purpose not related to the proper function of this page, I ask that the addition, which was very clearly ad hoc, be removed. In any case, it was clearly added sans any discussion at all. Thanks - and glad that you appear to agree. Collect (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it was added recently and without discussion? Well that's different. And you know, the second sentence doesn't scan very well - "More than the existence of reliable published information regarding specific items is required for inclusion" - I'm not sure what that means, but I suspect it could be used to justify the deletion of a very great amount of material from the Wikipedia. And the software people in the audience will recognize that when I said it is "not excellent", that is a lot more damning than it might sound. So given all that...

• Delete. Herostratus (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Retain The problem is that due to the vast amount of detailed literature about the minutiae of collectibles, particularly stamps, that the usual criteria for notability fails. There are excellent verifiable sources for the details of the plating of the
  penny black, but they don't belong in Wikpedia. However, inclusion of it is no more than a detailed example of the general rule, "use common sense", and deletion of it hardly opens the door to detailed catalogue listings. User:Fred Bauder Talk
  02:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fred, in looking around a bit I came to wonder whether part of the motivation for might have been to help prevent "puffing" by auctioneers. I'd consider that a worthwhile goal, but may I ask whether that is correct? And may I likewise ask what other problems or potential problems this addition might be intended to address? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Auctioneers can only puff notable stamps, so no help there. It addresses the claim that since there is verifiable information about the details of collectibles published in reliable sources inclusion is thus acceptable on that basis without more. It was that argument which inspired me. Verifiable published information is not sufficient, there should also be verifiable information about notability or interest. But that perhaps goes too far. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced this is helpful, and agree that just having factual information published about a collectable, such as in a catalogue, isn't, in itself, sufficient to establish grounds for inclusion. I'd also want to see some published, RS information that speaks directly to notability.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Retain. As Fred said, "The problem is that due to the vast amount of detailed literature about the minutiae of collectibles, particularly stamps, that the usual criteria for notability fails." That seems perfectly clear.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Retain and reword: it's a decent rule. But it's not clear. Like other things that Wikipedia is not (plot summaries, photographs, future events, news) it's all about context and emphasis. There's a good way to cover a collectible item. Then there are poorly formed lists that either clutter up existing articles, or lead to new articles with very little encyclopedic content. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Collect apparently doesn't understand the word "retain", and I've reverted his deletion of the passage. Shooterwalker, Fred, do either of you have any changes you'd like to propose to the language, at all?  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, by no reading of this discussion did I see a consensus to remove. It's a decent rule. I don't have any proposals as of yet. Just that I might rename it to "Not a database of collectables" and move it to "Wikipedia is not a directory", just after the item on "sales catalogs". I think that would be a good start. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Read again where only OS was in favor of retaining the wording and Herostratus changed his position and agreed that the extremely recent addition needed full discussion before adding it to the page. I find the wording of the section tto be entirely too broad, and to the extent that it basically echoes what is already there, is unnecessary. To the extent that it creates a new entire section without discussion, I object to it. To the extent that it would make a large number of current articles deletable, I find it improper. Collect (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note also that all the articles on US coinage are deletable under any such wording as they are primarily preciely what Fred feels should be removed. See

Mercury Dime for example. Collect (talk

) 23:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that Wikipedia is not a stamp catalogue, though there is no need to mention stamps particularly. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of 'Collectables' is just fine. Isn't this dealt with fully under notability anyway? There have been two relevant discussions at the philately project: 1) Whether lists of stamps in the form x on the stamps of y was acceptable where the decision (unfortunately) was to keep the lists; and another on the over-use of stamp catalogue numbers and whether they were copyright. I think stamp collectors don't want or need to be singled out by a rule, on the other hand I also think they are quite aware of notability and that not every stamp ever produced needs to be recorded here, we have better sources anyway. Comprehensive listings would be better off at Wikibooks. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As I read the change, articles like

US Presidents on US postage stamps, Queen_Victoria_Lilac_and_Green_Issue, Postage_stamps_and_postal_history_of_Gibraltar and a great many other articles would be deletable under the new guideline. Collect (talk

) 10:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The statement that Wikipedia is not a database of collectibles seems incorrect to me. There are multitudes of articles on Wikipedia that are, or come close to, being a "catalog" or "database of collectibles." There are a variety of stamp articles such as
  Willie Nelson discography and hundreds of other discographies, German euro coins, etc. There is nothing improper about those articles. Ecphora (talk
  ) 04:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete At this point there appears no consensus for inclusion of this controversial recent addition, and those proposing it have not shown that their concerns are not fully met by the preceding language before this addition. Further that the new language introduced recently appears, on its face, to affect a large number of WP articles, making them all appear to violate this guideline. The combinations calls for the reversion to the page status before the "catalogue" section was added. Collect (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  Not sure where you're getting that. It takes more than 2 editors to remove something that's been here a while. I see a consensus to retain it and reword it. The main concern is that it's overly broad. Not so overly broad that people want to get rid of it entirely. But there's room for a compromise on the wording. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Retain and reword. The purpose of WP:NOT is scoping, and if we can find the right way to say that "describing the minute details of a particular stamp is not the job of an encyclopedia" (because of its very narrow and limited impact on or relation to society at large) then by all means we should. We should however also provide a compatibly licensed outlet for all this content to fly away to. Wikicollectables or some such thing? Regardless of what we do, we should adopt something akin to
  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for collectables emphasizing the need to discuss their relationship to society, rather than their physical description as a self-contained object. Dcoetzee
  12:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Um -- it did not exist here until January 16, 2011. Two months is not exactly "historical" or even "a while." And we do have a large number of articles which should be AfDed if you wish to assert this to be a reasonable addition here. And WP has no requirement at all that articles specify "relationship to society" - what precisely does that mean? Collect (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. As I understand it, this is very controversial language that puts in jeopardy numerous existing articles and that was recently added by one editor acting on his own, without prior discussion on this talk page. I do not see consensus. Ecphora (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. We are having the wrong argument. A user put this in recently, and I guess nobody I much noticed it, and there was no discussion. And this is a policy page. And it's (potentially) a major, major change which could certainly be interpreted as basically forbidding all "List of..." articles.

So when a user inserts contentious and opposed material, it's up to the inserting person and her supporters to make the case for the material to be added; the default is not for the material to stay and then persons opposing the material must prove the case that is should be removed. This is per

• Delete. I'm not sure when this clause was added, but there doesn't seem to be consensus to keep it, there was apparently no discussion to add it, and the clause itself has language that seems problematic to me (in the sense that a broad interpretation could result in the deletion of thousands of potentially well-sourced articles). Firsfron of Ronchester 17:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It was added on January 16. See comment by Collect (talk) above, reaching same conclusion as Herostratus (talk) . Ecphora (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• There's a sudden influx of delete votes. But taking them in good faith, I'm comfortable removing it. If someone wants to re-add it, they should be more clear about what the problem is so we can target it intelligently, and leave otherwise good articles in tact. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Late to the party - but I'm glad this was removed because it was a step in the wrong direction. Notable but obscure subjects, such as collectibles, shouldn't be singled out in a core policy page. There are many unwritten articles within this field and I consider it one of our weaker areas. If there is indeed a vast amount of detailed literature on a subject then I don't see why we shouldn't broaden our coverage of it -- as long as the literature is reliable and shows the subject's importance.

• I understand this was meant to curb excessive detail, but the main idea of the addition is already covered on this page by
  WP:NOTDIR. Of course these should be respected when writing any article about any subject - we just shouldn't single out a specific subject to point them at. And we don't need this addition to tell us that its wrong to just list stamps for the sake of listing stamps. ThemFromSpace
  07:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to say that it would go under CRYSTAL because when games are announced, it is not that they won't come out, save for the odd cancellation. Taking a larger picture and thinking of

WP:HAMMER, I would consider better advice to be under or around WP:NOTNEWS, in that we need to discourage articles formed that have a name, a press release, and that's it, particularly when we're talking sequels or the like (not just VGs but films, etc.) when this info can be easily placed in a larger topic. --MASEM (t

) 04:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think its better there, that's fine. The issue does come up reguarly enough we have had yearly warnings and its not all that easy in discussions to point to

WP:NOTNEWS (as it stands now) and say this is something Wikipedia shouldn't cover in a number of cases.陣内_Jinnai

04:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be okay with adding something here, particularly around crystal. What isn't clear to me is why the current "crystal" rule is bad. It already says: "scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Maybe we could extend this to future products. I imagine the same guideline that's good for video games would be true of everything, including a new gaming system, a new Apple product, or anything else. Even if in effect we end up describing it closer to "not news", I still think it fits better under crystal. But let's find a consensus about what needs to be said first. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is that for what Jinnai is talking about, the number of game announcements at big conventions, 90% of those are "certain to take place" in that the game is published and released. CRYSTAL's application in vgs would be to assume, say, there will be Grand Theft Auto 6 when GTA 5 isn't even out yet. Or to a larger picture, presuming there will be an iPad 3. That's why

WP:HAMMER is usually good to evoke, and why it's basically that we're not a news source - just because a game is announced doesn't mean we need an article on it that day unless we immediately sustain an article beyond the announcement. When we can create something not-so-stubby for an upcoming game, that's the point to go back and expand the redirect. --MASEM (t

) 05:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing things the same as you. If a game is certain to come out and be notable, like The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword then there's no reason not to start working on it early. If there is significant coverage that discusses a future game then, similar with any other future event, it should be eligible for an article.AerobicFox (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Most games announced at E3 (since I've been editing at WP) are "announced" and then there's zero word until several months later as release nears. Not true of all games, but a good number. Or take for insistence that we just got word that a sequel to Prey is coming. And that's all we know short of platforms, estimated release date, and developer. That's not enough for an article - redirect to a section in a larger yes, but not for a new article. What often happens here in that you have some editors keeping the news of the sequel in a parent article, but a separate group of editors trying to expand the stubby article, and you get a mess of problems there. Once the info comes rolling in, hey, go for it. But not until that point. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I see why "crystal" isn't enough now. I think the hammer rule makes sense. Here's my effort to adapt it for WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not:

• Unrevealed Products: It is sometimes appropriate to have an article about an unreleased product where
  puffery
  than a reliable description of the product.

Naturally it's just a starting point... Shooterwalker (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Could it include guidance on keeping such information in the "parent" (predecessor) article until a standalone article is appropriate? Franamax (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying. But I suppose it's possible the deletionists will use this to scrub any and all information about announced products, which is not the point. Definitely... an announced product is worth a mention. Just not an article (let alone magnet for OR and press releases). Just add to the end "Where little reliable information has been revealed about an upcoming product, it is more appropriate to mention the upcoming product within an existing article, if at all." Something like that. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's basically it. The part of "reliable information" is key here as usually shortly thereafter there are some rumors made about the game, usually northing significant and all based on conjecture (as far as we can tell), even by normally reliable press media, although they do not its all speculation or pipe dreaming. Generally this only happens with the really popular games and its generally only around the time of the annoucement. Rarely is any of the speculation of any note since its their personal (and no more educated at this point that the average consumer) opinion.陣内_Jinnai 00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Rephrased a bit. I think the part about being quickly forgotten also needs to be emphasized because there usually is a burst of info when an item is released.

Unrevealed Products: It is sometimes appropriate to have an article about an unreleased product where

quickly forgotten

.

陣内_Jinnai 05:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling/grammar aside I think this is a good addition. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Any other serious objections or can I go ahead and add this?陣内_Jinnai 05:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would change sequel to follow up product. A follow up is not always a sequel. Im a bit picky on the upcoming product's features or development, I think it should rather be upcoming product's features and production. This is only because it might be applied to other things beyond video games. Notability of films has a guideline that films have to be in production to be a stand alone See

WP:NFF and i think this addition should be inline with that (with those text changes) before its made policy. Otherwise the addition should help unless others oppose it. Ottawa4ever (talk

) 12:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Re the proposed language, I would not deliberately exclude here articles about future products where very little is definitively known. Many, many articles are "magnets" for bad content but we never delete (solely) for that reason, since we can manage that problem with tools. I think deleting such articles, to the extent we do, would fall more under a combination of INDISCRIMINATE and editor discretion. Dcoetzee 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the guideline does leave room for discretion. The problem is "where little is known beyond basic info." Maybe we need to make that clearer where "little is known beyond the announcement of the follow up product and its name". Really... we shouldn't be creating articles that are one line of fact, and 3 paragraphs of rumor and press releases. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The question for me isn't whether we want an article full of speculation (which can be mercilessly culled) but whether we want an article about a topic which consists entirely of one line, e.g.: "Blah 3 is a video game in development by X Studios, intended as a sequel to Blah 2.[ref]" Is this an encyclopedia article? Or should we wait until we can write more than one line? If so, how much should we be able to write? Dcoetzee 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Basic info (or something equivalent) needs to stay. Yes its somewhat vague, but basic info is stuff like what format its in, what system, who is the creator, etc. Stuff that is essential info you would expect to know (and thus not trivia), but not enough to really make an article. Often items will give more than "just a name", but not much more, especially for video games they'll likely say what system and in some cases who is working on it (beyond simply the company itself). I do not know how secretive movies and the like are, but I'd assume some are quite secretive too. That's what basic info is meant to apply for.陣内_Jinnai 15:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that we don't want one line articles. Better to have one line in the series article, or one line in the previous version, because in practice it attracts less original research, rumor, and spam. How much more than one line do we need? I don't know. But the point of this is to draw a bright line that says that one line about the mere existence of a sequel under development isn't enough... if you have more than that, then obviously it's an editorial decision where we trust the wisdom of the crowd. And at a certain point, there WILL be so much third-party coverage that keeping the full article would be as uncontroversial as deleting a one-liner (or one-liner plus garbage). Shooterwalker (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. My point is most of that "basic info" will not be in a line, but splashed into an infobox.陣内_Jinnai 23:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to clarify basic info... namely "title/name, publisher/manufacturer, release date, and key personnel". Shooterwalker (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's the problem. Basic info can be more than that. It could . Anything you would expect to find on the back of a cover or that would be plus the media format, classification and genres, and key characters (sometimes just the actors are listed and not all their roles).陣内_Jinnai 13:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need a complete list of stuff that would too trivial to write an encyclopedia article about it. But I think we need to say something other than basic info. People are going to argue about what is or is not basic. Characters is what I meant by personnel, but applied to consumer packaged goods too. Taking another shot at it, "The product's name, release date, format, and key people or companies involved in making it are not sufficient to create an encyclopedia article." Let me try another shot at the language.

Unrevealed Products: It can be appropriate to have an article about an unreleased product where

quickly forgotten

.

That work? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me suggest a different approach: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements: While Wikipedia is up-to-date and can include information about newly revealed productions or works, such as films or video games, as part of large series or franchise, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic information about the product can be included, the discussion of such announcements should be merged to a larger topic using redirection to guide readers to the proper location. This may include the previous work, a series or franchise article, or an article about the creator, developer, or other person or group involved with the work. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

- i think the problem with your's is that it doesn't deal with the items we listed above; "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate." - that's all fine and correct, but there will be rumor, speculation and coverage from RSes, especially for many of the more popular or unusual titles. So in a way its not about the product announcement, it could be speculation on the future by analyzing past titles or the creative team, or someone's pipe dream.陣内_Jinnai 02:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's easy to add, with a sentence like "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, on the content and direction of the work are not appropriate encyclopedic content." as the last sentence. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a bit wordy, but if no one else has an issue, that's fine.陣内_Jinnai 22:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This word in the sense of constant or persistent coverage by secondary sources could be interpreted to require that new secondary or tertiary coverage come into existence periodically to replenish its durable notability, otherwise the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. To avoid that interpretation, and for clarity, I propose the following wording change which I believe better captures the sense of what we are trying to accomplish and reflects actual practice.

• from: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.
• to: Wikipedia considers notability of persons and events beyond their initial appearance in primary and secondary sources. patsw (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support  "Enduring notability" was one of the hot points at WP:Articles for deletion/2006 rugby union handbag controversy.  The absence of a definition made it a political 'football'.  Note that participants refused to consider the topic under WP:EVENT, requiring that the topic have "enduring notability" under WP:NOTNEWS.  As noted at the AfD, the event spawned four additional events, two of which became recorded in a total of four books–one of the four books was partially named after one of the events, but the participants at the AfD were not satisfied that documentation in books implies enduring notability.  Nor was any definition of "enduring notability" based on the events being described as "one of the most celebrated, at least in Australia, moments in New Zealand rugby history (London Times)" or publication in a book a year later referencing the "infamous" handbag auction and a "notorious handbag" adequate.  At least one person explained that since the media didn't memorialize any of the events every year that there was no enduring notability.  Internet chatter in 2010 and 2011 talking about the "handbag haka" also did not qualify as enduring notability.  See also Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_36#WP:NOTNEWS_vs._WP:EVENT.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Idea works, specific wording doesn't. "Considers" is too vague, many unsuitable topics are covered "beyond their initial appearance", and in some cases brief secondary coverage might be sufficient by itself. But "enduring" is not the best word either. Will suggest a possible form of wording shortly (it needs careful thought). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Propose removing the entire "enduring notice" sentence from "news", and replacing it with the following two bullets:

• Routine topics. Wikipedia does not ordinarily cover topics considered "routine" such as most crimes, politicians, professors, businesses, bands, websites (etc), even though they usually have significant third party attention. To do so would involve such large classes of article that the result would be indiscriminate. A "routine" topic may still be notable, but for other reasons, such as involvement in a major event or controversy, or winning a major award.

• Overly short-lived attention. Significant coverage, or even intense coverage, is not usually sufficient to demonstrate encyclopedic standing if it turns out that the attention quickly moved on. Many matters get considerable attention for a brief period, but looking back it is clear they received fairly short-lived or transient attention of no great lasting significance, more suited to a news archive than an encyclopedia article topic.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not in love with "considers" either, but I think consensus on a replacement for "enduring" would be easier to achieve than replacement for this whole section. patsw (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that this is broken, or that the example given (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 rugby union handbag controversy) shows that it is broken. Herostratus (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. But if some are convinced, then exploring whether a better wording exists isn't bad. It is a pivotal criterion in many deletion discussions, so any improvement to clarity might be good. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Enduring is problematical because it can mean that the suitability of a topic to the Wikipedia depends upon its enduring coverage of the topic in secondary or tertiary sources. patsw (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether the change is needed or not, putting the word "notability" like that will piss off a lot of people, because it implies it has policy-strength backing (which it doesn't). --MASEM (t) 01:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reckon? Notability is policy backed though - NOT#INDISCRIMINATE implies that we selectively pick the exceptional (few) topics. Notability is in effect our term for "sufficiently significant to not be indiscriminate" and our method of testing it. Edited anyway, synonyms are easy. Solved? :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, but I know that we will have inclusionists all over this if we policy-ify the word "notability". They're fine with policy saying "indiscriminate". --MASEM (t) 01:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wonder what happened to "policy documents common norms and practice" :) But it's accurate in one sense - the policy point is that WIkipedia is selective, notability just documents our approach to selectivity and the ways we ensure we meet that policy. By not adding the word to this page as you say, it should avoid an avoidable secondary issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New and improved wording:

• from: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.
• to: Wikipedia articles on persons and events are on those which have a long-term or memorable impact, and not merely in the time frame of their initial appearance in primary and secondary sources.

I think this does a better job of explaining what "enduring notability" means with the benefit of avoiding using "notability". patsw (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Better, but still an issue. "Memorable impact" is about human memory and not re-analysis, re-reporting, extended impact of the world, etc. Many things have a "memorable impact" in the eyes of those involved with them, which means it will lead to bitter arguments. Likewise many good articles will be argued for deletion if this were endorsed because "we don't yet know if it had long-term impact". Ijn simple terms this would be a second standard that at times agrees with and at times differs with our current standard which is about significant attention (easy to evidence) rather than impact over timeframes (more subjective). Step in the right direction but I think the wording I suggested avoids these issues more. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: See below, see what others think. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Another tweak to expand "enduring notability" (avoiding memorable):

patsw (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• There's a consensus that enduring does not adequately describe the attribute of notability that needs to be explained here.
• My wording does explain that attribute of notability, and I have tweaked it to respond to objections raised. patsw (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed clarifications to NOT#INDISCRIMINATE

This follows on from above.

• "Routine matters" are alluded to in discussing indiscriminate coverage, news, and events, but the actual issue is never properly stated, nor are users told how to handle it.

• "Enduring notability" (
  WP:NOT#NEWS
  ) makes sense to me but some people find it a problem wording. Either way we can improve it. Also it covers more than just "news", for example a person or song that lacks "enduring notability" would usually not have an article.

Proposed wording:

Thoughts on these? They don't change anything but do document better what we do. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose These proposals do not represent our actual policy. For example, it is suggested that articles about politicians might be deleted because they are routine. Politicians are routinely elected and serve their terms. The resulting thousands of topics might be considered mundane or short-lived but we cover them nonetheless - every member of parliament, every state senator, &c. The basis of our coverage is
  notability not fame or importance. If this is subverted then we can expect to have most of our articles deleted as they are, for the most part, quite humdrum. There is no consensus for a grand purge of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk
  ) 13:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken. For example,

WP:GNG. This is precisely the statement drafted above - most politicians are minor and local. They are not notable just for being politicians. They may still be notable, but for other reasons (GNG). FT2 ^{(Talk | email}

) 14:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• The point is that the notability guideline tells us all we need to know about such cases and does it better by using good tests such as the availability of sources. This additional entry would tend to make matters worse by using opinionated weasel words such as routine and large classes which would encourage editors to try to delete any type of article which they considered boring or too numerous. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• The point is, that with the current plans for changes at WP:N, "notability" is being re-defined from its long-standing definition of "the subject qualifies for a stand-alone article" to "there are enough sources about this subject to verify the contents of the article", in which case WP:N does not "tell us all we need to know about such cases." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, that would be conflating all of

WP:GNG which is unlikely to find consensus among editors. It's not merely about sources and verifiability alone, it is also about determining the significance of the topic relative to the suitability of the Wikipedia to cover the topic. patsw (talk

) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability as a guideline tells us a lot, but NOT is policy, and the policy point that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection" needs to be clearer and better explain some of the ways an "indiscriminate collection" can arise. Tests such as "availability of sources" currently and frequently lead users to misunderstand a test of significance as being a simple test of coverage.

The flow of logic is that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, therefore when considering topics we try to gauge their "significance" (which is often subjective), and therefore we have developed tests such as GNG and SSG to help make those assessments more uniform, balanced, objective, and evidenced.

A repeated misunderstanding is that notability equals verifiability in reliable sources. It does not. It is human/worldly/scientific/cultural significance we are trying to demonstrate, and verifiable significant coverage is our primary tool to do so. We limit articles to those showing significant coverage in reliable sources. But this is not because sufficient coverage shows notability. It's because sufficient coverage in reliable sources is a good proxy for significance.

The importance of this distinction is that users need to understand the subjective concept of significance (

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. FT2 ^{(Talk | email}

) 06:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Introducing subjectivity does not clarify; instead, it opens the door to endless argument. For example, US Presidents are routinely elected on a recurring four-year schedule. This means that, over time, there are dozens of them. This proposed policy would mean that one might argue that the undistinguished ones like Millard Fillmore should be deleted on the grounds that he was a routine politician. Others might protest that he was notable - that books have been written about him. But this would be countered by saying that notability is only a guideline and that we should not be covering presidents indiscriminately; just the special ones like Abraham Lincoln.

• I have tried taking some routine fluff to AFD such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabon at the 2000 Summer Olympics. The article in this case was kept despite its routine nature. In such cases, you have completism to contend with - the idea that once we start covering a class then we should cover it all in a symmetrical way. The way this works out in particular cases seems rather haphazard and so it is not possible to say what our policy is. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it's not clear to me that we delete "routine topics". I think that's overly broad. I agree some topics are so routine that a burst of mentions in the news doesn't really mean anything. But that's not true of all topics. Elections are routine. Olympics are routine. It's just too hard to interpret as is. We don't delete routine topics. We delete some routine topics. Which ones? Shooterwalker (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I still think it's worth noting this point, but taking views above into account, maybe as a comment in

WP:NOT? I'll try and draft something there which bears in mind the points made. The other still looks good though, describing in terms of "short lived attention" seems to improve it compared to the current wording. Any objections? FT2 ^{(Talk | email}

) 12:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

transient attention? DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That works. Added. I've added two words ("...not enough by itself...") to make clear that it may be enough if there are other reasons for significance. I'll suggest something for the other at

WP:N. FT2 ^{(Talk | email}

) 10:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• And I've reverted. Since WP:NOT "trumps the GNG" in so many people's opinion, such a sweeping change really requires more community input. Lacking any definition of what is transient, it simply replaces one tug-of-war with a less-well-defined one: Human beings ourselves are "transient" in a geological time scale. I suggest an RfC be sought for such a fundamental change. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Is 'what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia' helpful ?

As a reader, I would expect to find the answer to what I'm looking for, because that's the point of an encyclopedia and if it doesn't answer my question, it fails. But I also expect to be disappointed, because it's my experience that encyclopedias are not, in general, encyclopedic.

So does this advice suggest that Wikipedia should disappoint neither more nor less than a paper encyclopedia, despite its different constraints ? Or that if just one person wants that article to be written in complete and perfect detail, its inclusion is justified ?

I am trying not to argue which interpretation is correct, because I am by inclination inclusionist and that debate belongs elsewhere. My argument is purely with the phrasing : does it do anything other than confirm the existing views of the editor ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.17.61 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't helpful on this policy (as far as I can see) - but not because it's wrong or unhelpful generally. It's a good idea - the reason's more subtle.

This page's main focus is to list types of topics that are covered or not covered. It governs whether an article should exist or not. The criterion you're proposing is about what articles contain, once they are agreed to be valid. Different point. Maybe someone else will have an idea where it should belong. Maybe this would be a good point in the

manual of style? Or on one of the "overviews of Wikipedia" or "basics" pages? FT2 ^{(Talk | email}

) 03:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

no, the reader's expectation is also the basis of our rules about notability. There is, ultimately, no other reason for any of our rules, We are here to make a free encyclopedia for use, as part of a more general program to provide free information resources for use, a rprogram that includes the other projects. The emphasis is on use--we are not a demonstration of wiki software, or an experiment in large scale collaboration, although these are inevitable consequences of our work. All of our work is focussed towards the goal, and that which benefits it is policy, and that which harms it is not. (that's basically a restatement of the primacy of IAR). Notability is a guideline to the interpretation of NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT DIRECTORY, and has no other purpose. Some people still expect Wikipedia to be a web directory, but that is not our purpose. The notability guideline are what makes us an encyclopedia rather than a web directory. Some sort of guideline of this nature is essential. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe wikipedia should censor some things, such as images, so that it doesn't get on the wrong side of an activist group. Is it to much to ask that wikipedia be selective in its visual content. I ran across an article of a man posting himself nude on the site.-->Wikipedia should not be a place for exhibitionists to get their jollies off. I understand nudity posted for classic drawing/paintings and anthropological and sociological purposes, but personal and political agendas should not become a factor regarding creating original posts and attached media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.248.200 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We have image policies that prevent the use of photographs simply to draw attention to them. No need to change anything here. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the And finally... section to try to make it grammatically correct. I think I understand the underlying idea as to why its on this page, but even then saying "dont do something if its a bad idea" is so overly general it hardly seems like its worth being there... Random2001 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your change. I'm not sure what "always think before you do" has to do with "what Wikipedia is not"; it doesn't seem like the same idea at all. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. Better to be consistent with the "what Wikipedia is not" theme. Wikipedia is not a bunch of other bad ideas. That fits. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree also, but it is true that "Wikipedia is not a very long list of terrible ideas" is, technically, not the right way to say what is intended. What is mean is something more like "Wikipedia is not [insert bad idea here]". Perhaps this is what set the editor off. However, it's reasonably clear what is meant if you continue reading, so I would leave it. Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

How in the world does "Wikipedia is not a very long list of terrible ideas" make any sense to anyone? Its irritating to have complete gibberish on a list of guidelines. I am sorry though for just making a change without first discussing it...new to this...but could someone please change that section so that any reasonable person would understand the content? Random2001 (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

See

WP:MOS.Jasper Deng (talk)

03:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So is this section an example of how not to write articles? Random2001 (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to change long-standing policy. I know it probably offends anyone with any sense of clarity or grammar. But the thing that keeps this page unified is the theme "Wikipedia is not..." If there's a way to make it grammatically more clear and still preserve the form, maybe you'll have more success. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "Wikipedia is not omniscient. We cannot anticipate every bad idea any one of us might have (See WP:BEANS—it is in fact strongly discouraged to anticipate them). Almost everything on this page made it here because somebody managed to do something wrong in a new and unique way. In general, avoid doing things that you suspect may be improper." Random2001 (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I've just submitted a much smaller wording change, which I hope clarifies the thing that was confusing you. Nobody's reverted it in the last three minutes; does it clarify? Normally I'd be in favor of being bold and making bigger wording changes, although maybe not exactly what you suggested, but I try to tread gently on policy pages. It's like changing the law. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Still better then it was before, thanks! Random2001 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with either the proposed wording or the bold-minor change from Kragen. There's probably a good reason that only minor changes tend to go through on this policy, since it's been around so long. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Age is not a good reason for only letting minor changes through; that's a recipe for stagnation. It will be very surprising if we can run Wikipedia in 2025 with the policies that made sense in 2005. We have to constantly be on our guard against supporting things just because we always have. In this particular case, though, I'm happy enough with the intent of the policy, but it needed to be clearer. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Creating this since the last one was archived (and keeping the section title for ease of reference even though I know its about more than video games). Consensus seemed to form around the idea and using phrasing from Masem we have:

Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements: While Wikipedia is up-to-date and includes information about newly revealed productions or works, such as films or video games, as part of large series, franchise or spinoff, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic information about the product can be included, the discussion of such announcements should be merged to a larger topic using redirection to guide readers to the proper location; speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, on the content and direction of the work are not appropriate encyclopedic content. This may include a previous work, a series or franchise article, or an article about the creator, developer, or other person or group involved with creation of the work.

The main question here that didn't seem clear, and why I'm asking again instead of adding, is that is wasn't clear whether this should go with

I think that's less wordy without losing anything. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We can always debate on wording, and there will always be someone who feels it can be improved (not saying this one or mine is better as I'm not terribly concerned about the wording so long as it hits all the main points). My main question is still though, where should it go?陣内_Jinnai 23:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Crystal ball is still the best spot for it IMO... it's really about products where very little is known. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont find the wording to creepy by jinnai and i perfer that one. Also I think Crystal ball is the spot for it. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Masem present since I based it on his? I haven't heard from him in a while.陣内_Jinnai 01:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with "Rumors should also be avoided, even from reliable sources." If this were implemented then large parts of the Kingdom Hearts III and Dragon Quest X articles (for example) would have to be removed. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There are always going to be the handful of exceptions to the rule; that's what IAR is for. However, by and large, yes rumors and speculation should be removed. They are usually unlikely to be kept once facts are found and verified. That said, I'm not considering either of those articles should exist. It would be more along the lines of something like Chrono Break being a more viable suggestion because its been ongoing for quite some time and its the speculation has forced on several occasions official commentary on it. If the game ever does get released much of that information will likely stay as a history section or something. KH3 and DQX info is nowhere near the same league.陣内_Jinnai 20:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I find Jinnai's argument more persuasive. Those articles look to be worth keeping. But the rumors are definitely going to be gone in the long run. And I might even say they should be removed in the short run too. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently there are several invidious articles containing insidious material without failing

There is an overlooked set of guidelines on the wikipedia is not pages that need to be added. An encyclopedia is supposed to present factual information that can be understood without prior expertise. Sometimes to prevent the information being misleading it is necessary to give the information a broader context.

There are many well-known situations where groups try to manipulate the public beliefs, selectively ignoring key facts and scientific method to produce propaganda or deliberate pseudoscience. When these groups create a divisive synthesis of XYZ scientific works often respond to show that such a synthesis should not be considered relevant because no meaningful results can currently be obtained on existing evidence. This can give XYZ sufficient sources to pass notability for its own article even though this can lead to an instant loss of context. There are instances of an articles that should have been titled "Racism about XYZ" are instead simply titled "XYZ" despite originating as a subsection on the Racism page!

While there are editing policies such as

Hence highly misleading articles are being created giving undue weight to propaganda and worse still then linked to from other pages suggesting the propaganda has equal weight to the science without breeching wikipedia policy.

I would like to see a new guideline worded along the following lines:

An article on a controversial subject with potentially prejudicial sources that contradicts any common scientific consensus should not be created unless it is or has been a named formal area of research in a large number of respected universities or that both the title and content of the article unambiguously detail the possible prejudice and do not present the topic as if it were scientifically reliable. Tetron76 (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I disagree. Are you saying that we shouldn't have an article on the

WP:OR, but we shouldn't necessarily exclude them just because the subhect isn't covered by a large number of respected universities. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your position. It would help if you provided examples of articles that you think are not in violation of current policies/guidelines but that would be covered by this new addition. Qwyrxian (talk

) 00:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean about people cramming NPOV material under the pretense of some other topic. Let alone creating content forks. But I don't think this is the right way to go about curtailing it. It would help if you could use a more specific example of what the problem is. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please give some examples of such articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It was my intention only to be excluding articles where all the following conditions apply to the titled topic:

• the topic if wrongly considered true could cause damage to a group of people or an individual
• the topic is regarded as untrue (or impossible to support with current evidence) by a majority held scientific opinion
• there are sources of propaganda or intentionally misleading articles trying to push forward an agenda.

I am not saying this information should be excluded but it should be presented in a manner that is consisted with the majority factual beliefs. This can require much greater precision of naming than is dictated by wikipedia policy.

Consider the following article title Indigenous Australians and crime a problem arises because the title implies that there is a direct correlation between being an aborigine and committing crime. Then the article contains facts that indicate that Aborigines are more likely to commit serious crimes.

However, the sources that discuss the facts make it very clear that the intersect is because of the following:

• Indigineous australians have a high intersect with deprevation
• Deprevation has a high intersect with crime.

There is no indication that there is any direct influence of the defining characteristics of someone being an aborigine and crime, yet, this contradicts the title of the article.

A more precise title of Indigineous Australians deprevation and crime would be more accurate. This article already has wrongly cited information.

3 articles that I never expect to lose their POV tags are:

• Race and intelligence
• Race and crime in the United Kingdom
• Race and crime in the United States

Scientific publications are required to give their method, reasoning and sources so that readers can assess the validity of their results and findings. The problem is that these intersects are allowing the inclusion of spurious data Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#IQ_theory without giving even the basic information such as how the test subjects were compiled. Similarly, if the results were accurate it would be necessary to give the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale variation between verbal and raw IQ.

The sources that produced this are borderline RS but seem legitimate to the casual observer. For example major articles on Race and intelligence being used is from Bentham_Science_Publishers. They also get mean confused with median which is a basic critical scientific flaw.

The problem is distinguishing between sources which give different information but clearly have very different levels of reliability.

Origin of life redirecting to Abiogenesis despite going against naming guidelines is an example of how I think such articles would be less misleading.Tetron76 (talk

) 18:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Every article in Wikipedia has possibility for the inclusion of spurious material; we guard against it by editing. A great many topics have information which, if misused, have information that would contribute to ignorance rather than knowledge--all we can do is provide information, and what people do with it is their own lookout, as it must be in a free society. We provide information about nonscientific world views as well as scientific--I have no particular doubt which is the most beneficial, but it is not ours to prescribe them. There have been encyclopedias , and very well done ones, which have had a certain amount of doctrinal purpose. Diderot's original Encyclopedie had a not-very-well hidden purpose in spreading the doctrines of the enlightenment, and undermining belief in the Roman Catholic religion. the 19th century Brittanicas had the intention of promulgating the 19th century education British consensus worldview, and so on. I love both of them, but I read both with a rather sardonic smile at their naïvity. To a certain extent we too cannot help editing in accordance with our general bias that education is important, and , in particular, our stated purpose in providing free information. The examples given above are not honest. The title Race and Crime implies nothing, only that the views that perceived race has (or has not) some connection with crime has been discussed by many sources. The title neither implies a correlation and certainly does not imply causation. Indeed, from my personal POV, I would say that a society perceiving persons to be inferior for any reason, including this, would predispose them to crime, and it is very understandable from their part, and very much the fault of the society. But I would hardly say this is proven,and I would say that an article devoted to explaining why my view is correct would be very highly inappropriate--as would be an article devoted to demonstrating the similar view that you put forth. Your proposal is to avoid the subject entirely, for fear that someone might discuss in it another view than your own--that the presentation of racially prejudicial theories would cause the reader to become racially prejudiced. For fear of miseducation, it propose indoctrination. That view would make us an antiConservopedia, a caricature of the liberal point of view just as it is of the conservative. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  I agree more with DGG than the initial proposition in this thread. Something else to keep in mind:

  WP:POLICY is supposed to follow best practice. It's usually a mistake to think that because you're having little success cleaning up one area that you might have more luck trying to flip some kind of policy switch... if only because you'll find yourself out of step with the community, and unable to form a consensus. It's much better to try to change policy once it's clear that you do something in 80% of all cases (or even just the majority of cases if people generally think that majority is of better quality). What I might recommend is finding the worst example of an article that is a platform for prejudice and/or stereotype and try to solicit a wider discussion on how to fix the one article... and keep an open mind about how to fix it. If you find a solution that works for that article, you can try applying it to other articles, and eventually build towards a solution that works in many cases. That's how policy really gets made around here. If you'd like some help with one of those articles, I know I'd be happy to help. Shooterwalker (talk

  ) 21:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • • Whether the correlations implied by the titles of the articles in question actually exist scientifically is irrelevant. What matters is whether the concept of a relationship between the two factors is
      even if it's unpleasant. --Cybercobra (talk)
      08:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I was not arguing that about notability nor that the material is unpleasant but that the material is misleading and contains sources that meet
        WP:UNDUE and wikipedia is lacking articles on other ideas such as Genocline. Tetron76 (talk
        ) 17:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As soon as you allow for a section to present all arguments, the article now adds in sources with agendas. A redirect or a disambiguation page doesn't leave room for the inclusion of sources that are intentionally misleading. Take a source cited 25 times on the Race and intelligence page

[[3]], the section 2.1 titled Is the African-American mean IQ actually 78, not 85? Clearly the question is loaded and also factually wrong. It allows for misinformation to be presented as if it has scientific weight. There are 1000s of scientific papers supporting that smoking is not bad for your health, but clearly current evidence would make such ideas wrong.

Take the Race and crime in the United Kingdom article, you have to ask since everyone has to have a race why there is a section called "explanation"?

Wikipedia already recognises that many categories that can be formed are not suitable

WP:OC#EGRS

Race and crime in the United Kingdom-> Race and crime debate in the UK, Racial profiling /Stop and search and crime statistics

Race and intelligence -> Racism and intelligence and Heritability of IQ

It removes the inclusion of anachronistic ideas and intersects where no control experiment is possible and Polymerase chain reaction has made redundant.

We are not just talking about existing articles that pass the GNG Blood donation and gays[4][5] Blacks and chess[6][7] Tetron76 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Race and Crime article is far from Wikipedia's best work. But it's not going to be fixed with a new policy. (Or you're not having much luck convincing people.) You might have more luck focusing on the reliable source notice board Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Or other small incremental changes. And if you can do enough of these small changes, then you'll have effectively created a new policy that you can sum up. Another idea is to write an essay with a proposed solution, and use it in these discussions and see if it gets any traction among editors in that area. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, for the advice and I will probably try some of those mechanisms but this goes beyond the content of the article and also involves how the page is linked to. The discussion of the race and crime articles has detracted from the main point. That there are some articles that are being presented as if there is scientific evidence to support such a view point when there is no sound evidence. Too often the word controversial is used for when people are deliberately using flawed data to push an agenda. These then are being presented as equivalent to the proper science on wikipedia but with longer articles for what should be seen as

WP:Fringe

via the templates such as for race:

• Template:Human group differences
• Template:Race and crime
• Template:Human intelligence

15 years ago there was still some doubt whether complex charateristics were defined by race via hereditary, however, the evidence from PCR and genetic studies have all come to the conclusion that race is far too imprecise to be meaningful using race. While some subgroups within the races can have genetic meaning there has been no supporting control evidence to show which genetic markers affect intelligence in a healthy adult. Unless this scientific position changes, to suggest that race is a factor in intelligence is absurd.

While it is true that race represents an externally imposed culture beyond any self-indentification or genetic relationship this cannot be regarded as a factor of intelligence. Yet wikipedia is stating it as a factor for intelligence in the human intelligence sidebar. The number of articles that have some element of white supremecist viewpoint as if it was mainstream is significant and unsettling.

i.e.

Racialism in all my dictionaries is purley a synonym for Racism

! But in the human intelligence sidebar many of the listed factors exist purely to further stereotypes.

• Height and intelligence is included to try to indicate that white people are superior to other races.

It becomes clearer when you note how rumoured to be taller African ethnic groups are absent from the data in

Human_stature#Average_height_around_the_world

and that US is broken down into race. Height and intelligence again correlate but have no direct bearing that would be essential to be considered a factor.

Similarly Fertility and intelligence has the aim to demonstrate white superiority. There are many factors which suggest a link to intelligence and yet none of these have articles.

However, this does not mean that the fact that there has been debate over race and intelligence in history is not notable but it should not be presented in a manner that implies race is a factor in intelligence.

I had mentioned race and crime because from examining the created articles the Racist agenda of the creators was clear and what is striking is how little information there is on wikipedia on the causes of crime. Poverty, Addiction and Literacy can all be shown to have high correlations and there is one article that mentions any of the significant causes

Causes and correlates of crime. There have been terms that exist such as Ethnocrimonology and I accept Subcultural theory

.

It is often impossible to trust that the information given without context is even accurate on a page:

• Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Ethnicity gives 38.2% black prisoner population
• Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Prison_data gives 60.21% black prisoner population

Tetron76 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• there are a great many errors in Wikipedia, an there are also many inconsistencies in RW data and especially interpretation.Both articles use data from various years, categorized in various ways, and tend to confuse current incarceration rate with lifetime prevalence of incarceration. There is also a certain disproportionate relationship between the number of crimes committed by some minority groups, and the relative punishment they are likely to receive for them.Almost all data that can be used to try to show that certain groups are inherently more prone to crime can also be used to show that they are treated worse socially. As I see it, everything in these articles to me indicates the persistent structural racism of American society as expressed on many economic, social, psychological, educational, and political levels--others may of course interpret it differently. From my own personal point of view the likely people who would want to conceal this information might equally well be racists who want to perpetuate inequality, patriots who are ashamed of the national record, and liberals who have failed to remedy it. The people who want to try to end this disaster want to spread information about it. Both about the apparent social facts, and the almost uniformly failed theories of causation. (I have my own idea of what is the correct theoretical and practical approach, but that's not relevant to the encyclopedia.) Please excuse what may seem like an unnecessarily personal statement altogether, but if there is anything worse that the situation, which is not the fault of Wikipedia specifically, it is the ostrich approach to dealing with it in an information resource, which , if we were to adopt, would very much be the fault of Wikipedia. as an information resource, we had the right principles here from the very start--a commitment to NPOV and NOT CENSORED. They're the only principles that can do whatever good an information resource can do. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not about censorship but about facts. The sources that wikipedia considers reliable have to have some form of editorial control. The purpose of the editor is to provide a level of fact checking and ensure that appropriate balance is given to the material. Wikipedia has no editorial control only policies and guidelines. Problems arise when there are multiple sources making contradictory statements, when you don't have a fact checking mechanism.

In a paternity dispute DNA evidence is clearly more relevant than claims that a child doesn't look like their father. There are equivalent situations where expert analysis clearly favours oneside of an argument. To take a recent issue that is being handled in an encyclopaedic manner

Obama birth certificate redirects Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

. Here the title clearly puts a slant on the information that dismisses the claims, although I don't recall Donald Trump admitting that his accusations were baseless.

Many of the articles are an under-synthesis because there is not sufficient interpretation of conflicting information in the sources. This is like having an article The nationality of Barack Obama. Race and intelligence was originally in the article Racism and the problem arises is that it gives legitamacy to the intersect with respect to intelligence and now the article appears alongside Environment and intelligence and Neuroscience and intelligence. There are also sources of information being cited that give statistically impossible data.

Race and crime shows how these pages attract incorrect information even when there is a synthesis. But where are the causes of crime pages, Race and crime in France, Race and crime in South Africa. any article that has the word and has the potential to be misleading.Tetron76 (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to start a discussion to why Wikipedia has a NOTNEWS policy/guideline. It must be the must misunderstood and policy ever on Wikipedia and used/applied wrong on numerous AFDs for example. I mean everyone here perfectly knows that if we removed all material based on news from around the world not much of Wikipedia would be left. And if Wikipedia is not news then why do Wikipedia have an ITN section?. I think personally that the NOTNEWS policy should be re-written or removed completly has it is obviously not near the truth of what Wikipedia is. Because in my opinion Wikipedia is based on news and that shouldnt be denied.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTNEWS should apply to added material like "Paris Hilton buys a new car". Or "Cristiano Ronaldo buys new shoes".. Not to every single new Headline news article about a person or neither in sourced articles about an event that happened years ago. Often misapplied to crime articles that recently occured. NOTNEWS is used in the wrong way right now in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTNEWS is easy, as long as you don't read so much into it. The only thing that we're really concerned about is that people don't begin separate articles for every event that occurs in the world. Individual events can be, and often should be, "reported on" within Wikipedia articles that cover the over-arching thing that the individual event belongs to. For example, a new NYT article about some event in Libya would probably be acceptable to add to the

2011 Libyan civil war article, but it would be a very bad idea to start, say: "Turkey Libyan embassy closing during the 2011 Libyan civil war". Does that make sense?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs

) 19:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTNEWS does not say that Wikipedia should not cover events in the news: it says we should be selective, and not cover them just because they are in the news, but only if they have more than short-term significance. The key words are "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Take murders: there are 800 a year in the UK and 16,000 in the US; most of them will get news coverage, but we do not need an article about each and every one. The question to ask is not "did this one get a lot of coverage because it was particularly ghastly and horrible?" but "will this have any long-term effect, such as a change in the law?" Wikinews is available for people who want to write about items of current but passing interest. JohnCD (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

...which is exactly what I said above, no?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTNEWS was quite clearly written to prevent the creation of endless new articles repeating "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." It is currently quite clearly misused to argue or propose the deletion of many articles - and I declare my specific interest here by using the field of crime and murder as an example - which should be kept. It is a classic case of

talk

) 20:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not my statement that Wikipedia "considers the enduring notability of persons and events... ", it is the WP:NOTNEWS policy, part of WP:What Wikipedia is not, which is designed to keep WP a useful encyclopedia. Precisely because notability is not temporary, it makes us be careful in deciding now what we declare notable, and ask when we look at screaming headlines whether anyone will care about this in a year's time. I remind you that notability as measured by news coverage alone is not sufficient: the

WP:GNG itself, in its fifth bullet point, says that: "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not". It goes on to say that "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met... satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." (My emphasis). There are other criteria, and NOTNEWS is one of them. JohnCD (talk

) 20:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You're still missing the point - notability has nothing to do with whether anyone cares about something in a year's time: "notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity" and "notability is not temporary". And yes, there may be other criteria, but NOTNEWS is specifically aimed at celebrity tittle tattle, not aimed at news in general. That is the problem here. NOTNEWS is badly named, which leads people to assume that just because something is in the news, it falls within the remit of NOTNEWS.

talk

) 21:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not just celebrity news. It's also to avoid stories on "routine" reporting - the daily actions of a stock market, the results of a sports game, etc. These get very wide coverage but don't have any immediately significant impact on the whole of mankind to any great degree. Weeks or months later, one of these events may become more than just routine - often the case for tropical storms that are upgraded to hurricanes - but we don't set off to create articles just because we can find a plethera of sources for an event.

Or more specifically, we should consider "event" articles as the last resort if you cannot add the information easily to an existing article. We don't disallow event articles, but as outlined per

WP:NEVENT careful consideration should be made to assure the event notable, otherwise, such news can be added to a broader topic without any issues. --MASEM (t

) 21:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Keristrasza, I think you are missing the point of NOTNEWS. It may be badly named, but nobody seriously supposes it excludes everything that's in the news: it says being in the news is not enough. It uses celebrity title-tattle as an example, but there is more to it than that: the words "enduring notability" and "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" are quite strong, and are there for a purpose. They mean that we should be concerned with whether something will seem significant in a year's time, not just whether it is in all the papers today. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You really can't grasp that notability is also about interesting and unusual ("note worthy") rather than simply "significant." I give up. Honestly, it's like banging your head against a brick wall here. I'm going back to creating more NEWS articles to keep you lot fed. Enjoy.

talk

) 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of good common sense around this area. But I agree the policy isn't clear. Most of the time we delete or merge tiny events like "Obama's 2009 trip to Iowa". And we keep bigger events like "Obama's Presidency". The problem is we don't really explain this practice in the current policy. It's vague, and left to common sense, and we often get it wrong. We sometimes delete stuff that shouldn't be deleted, or keep stuff that shouldn't be kept, and it's somewhat erratic. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that, in many cases (outside celebrity gossip and whatnot), it's a "feel" thing. Your example is a good one for this point, actually. "Obama's 2009 trip to Iowa" could be a complete Wikipedia article, if there's enough content about it to make what "feels like" a decent encyclopedia article. If it's just an event though then that's not likely to happen, but it could easily add to the "Obama's Presidency" article, as you've pointed out. So, we don't have good guidance on this, but really... can we have good guidance? How do you quantify "feels right"? I'm certainly open to suggestions.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• See proposal below: #Rename NOTNEWS to NOTTRIVIA. -Wikid77 05:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

enduring notability

• Comment  Regarding the idea that "enduring notability" refers to events that are still being talked about/significant a year later, please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 rugby union handbag controversy.  The initial 30-second event in a bar, recorded by a security camera, spawned 4 spin-off events.  One of these spin-off events was a handbag auction that involved 1 million page visits in a country of 4 million over a weekend, mentions in two books, and is part of the title of one of those books. A second spin-off, the "handbag haka" generated a worldwide reaction, is preserved as an example for policy discussions in two books, and was still generating internet chatter by sports fans in 2010.  The key argument that deleted this article was that there was no enduring notability, that enduring notability would be shown by re-occurring media attention yearly.  Unscintillating (talk)

My problem with that argument is that its all speculations. Speculations that can only be confirmed if an article gets to stay on Wikipedia for a number of months to see if the interest from media and editors on this site sustains. Its all speculations when someone says "lets delete this and if it is notable in a year please add it again". Instead I always prefer the "lets keep the article on Wikipeida for a few months and lets then evaluate its notability". Should we really delete article on grounds of speculations about a future notability? When infact most of these kind of articles are notable when deleted. I think personally that it if quite a laughable reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the problem phrase, "enduring notability", does not appear in

WP:NOT policy "considers" "enduring notability", the related notability guideline does not discuss "enduring notability".  Unscintillating (talk

) 02:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

But

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE capture similar concepts, no? Fences&Windows

19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I wish you were around for my proposal (quo vide Archive 36) to clarify "enduring" in March:

patsw (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the pitfall comes from discussing what Wikipedia is in a policy about what it is not.  I looked at some alternate wordings that used "transient significance", but none were as interesting as just removing the sentence: 

from: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. to:

Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose removing this sentence, but I think a lot of confusion would be avoided by a one-word change:

from: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. to: Wikipedia considers the enduring significance of persons and events.

The point is that WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOT generally, are not about notability: they are, as it were, a different dimension. The GNG and all the other notability criteria establish an entry standard in terms of coverage in reliable sources, but (as explicitly allowed in the fifth bullet point of the GNG), notability so defined is not sufficient, and the point of WP:NOT is to define the sort of subjects which are not suitable even if notable.

"Enduring notability" is a self-contradictory phrase because notability, in the Wikipedia sense, is not temporary. I suspect its author was using "notability" in the general, rather than the Wikipedia technical, sense; at any rate, since WP:NOT is not about Wikipedia-notability, it shouldn't use that word, and I think "significance" better expresses the intended meaning. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But

WP:NTEMP clearly says that once notability is established, it does not need to continually be re-established.  Even if I agree that "significance" is to be preferred to "notability", why do we want this sentence in the policy?  Unscintillating (talk

) 23:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Enduring is itself a problem. It is being interpreted in AFD's as requiring ongoing or repeated significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So if the significant coverage decays over time, the article is deleted on that basis alone. The time sense is "significance beyond the time frame of their initial appearance in primary and secondary sources". patsw (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

From a standpoint of WP, enduring is the opposite of "flash in a pan" a topic that gets covered by an arbitrary number of sources with coverage lasting for no more than a few days if that much - events such as typical sports games, celebrity gossip, etc. Instead, we are looking for events that have long tails - probably lasting as a rule of thumb more than a week but could be shorter, could be longer depending on how similar topics are dealt with (Again, for a typical pro game, the game's coverage lasts a day or two, but an enduring game may be referenced multiple times after that week if it was something unique. Counter, tropic storms last several days but unless they threaten landfall or lives, their coverage is minimal at best for the days and weeks it lasts. When they did hit land, whether tropical storm or hurricane, the destruction caused becomes the long tail, some more than others.) Looking for this tail means we get an idea of all possible viewpoints on the topic at hand, reactions and fallout from the event, and so on - all necessary to make an article an encyclopedic article rather than a news report. But as long as it had this long tail once, and has never been talked about again, we still considered that to have passed the enduring test. To fix this, we simply need to change Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. to Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events; persons or events that have or had have a period of sustained enduring coverage are considered appropriate for inclusion. making it clear it doesn't have to be constantly sustained. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't know why contributors here are in love with "enduring". If it means "beyond the timeframe of its initial appearance in primary and secondary sources", why not remove that ambiguity with new wording which replaces "enduring"?

2. I think the policy needs to be explicit that a consensus of editors can immediately find that the long-term significance is evident, or that the article will be subject to a later review to determine if there is a encyclopedic quality to it by the event's consequences. patsw (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most all of these changes except I don't see the point of #2.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know why we need this sentence, but on the likelihood that consensus is more achievable by focusing on what Wikipedia is not, here is a sentence from Wikipedia:News articles:

"Persons" is reasonably removed, because the next paragraph and not this paragraph is about persons.  C.f., Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper.   Unscintillating (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Garner is awkward in this context. The meaning of garner transitory attention using our more familiar terminology is receive coverage in secondary sources beyond its initial appearance. But that's not sufficient: Coverage can exist for things which are insignificant, and there's a consensus decision to be made by editors on the significance of the event apart from the quantity and quality of coverage. patsw (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem in withdrawing the previous proposal.  A useful aspect about the "NOT" universe is that we don't have to identify the boundaries as precisely.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

C.f.,

Any other suggestions to organize these policies are welcome. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My beef with the IINFO portion is that it's cited for incredibly inappropriate reasons. For example, "List of superheroes who can fly" may be a trivial list, but it's not indiscriminate, in that flight is a stock superpower. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's still a fundamentally good policy. But that's sort of a related problem. "IINFO" is sort of the last resort. The same way that people throw new things that "Wikipedia is not" under WP:IINFO, people also throw unwritten ideas of IINFO around at AFD. That's a much more challenging problem. But an intermediate step would be to actually put some of the things currently under IINFO under more descriptive headings. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh. If we wanted to bring IINFO in line with how it's actually invoked in AfDs, IDONTLIKEIT should be in there too. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You're sadly right. But not 100% right. There is such a thing as indiscriminate articles and lists. It's just thrown around indiscriminately. (Irony intended.) As a way to start making sense of this section, would you support migrating some of it to a "not news" heading, as I suggested above? Shooterwalker (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reorganizing is certainly worth discussion.  But "NotNews" is itself exactly a meme misused at AfD that we need to deprecate, not promote as a header.  We need to somehow be using Wikipedia:Notability (events) instead.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. NOTNEWS is misinterpreted, but it's not bad policy. But we may as well agree that a re-organization makes sense. Do you have any better suggestion to pull some material out of IINFO and put it into something more clear? Shooterwalker (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"NotNews" is not policy, it is a shortcut.  The shortcut, as read, is inconsistent with

WP:NOT.  Surely there is language that can be used other than "NotNews".  Unscintillating (talk

) 11:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm open minded on the language. I was referring specifically to "Wikipedia is not news reports", which is number four under IINFO. I figure NOTNEWS (specifically "not news reports") could be the heading of a more discriminate section. But we could organize it under a heading that is more consistent with Notability (events). Shooterwalker (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

An approach that could be taken would be instead approach this from the idea of a casebook, like commons does for talking about specific types of images. Mind you, I would think that would need to be on a separate page, leaving this page to simply talk about WP and its discriminate nature, and then have the casebook to describe specific types of topics, now no longer bound to fit specific subsections of NOT, or even necessary just focus on what WP is not. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not focus on what Wikipedia is? That is, Wikipedia is a place for material of long-lasting encyclopedic value. Anything which does not have a reasonable expectation of being found remotely relevant to a topic in five years should not be in it today. The advantage would be that we would not need huge numbers of new sentences to deal with each individual case which can arise. This particularly has relevance to the issues about BLPs and "trial by Wikipedia" as one arbitrator phrased it, and to political "silly season" edits from many nations. Unless an editor can show that someone in the future might actually find a claim to be of some value, it should not be in the article. IMO of cource. Collect (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to get away from WP:NOT completely would probably be a non-starter. Are there two or three things under IINFO right now that could be under a different WP:NOT heading? And if so, is it an existing WP:NOT heading? Or is it a new WP:NOT heading? Shooterwalker (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Wikipedia:Notability (events) for material, how does "Wikipedia is not breaking news reports" work for the title of the new section?  The word "breaking" already appears in two places in WP:NOT.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a decent start to me. What would go under there? I was hoping to get the "news reports" and "who's who" out of IINFO. And it could be joined by NOTJOURNALISM from further up WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with collecting those three subsections in a new section.  Regarding the section title, how about "Wikipedia is not a newspaper"?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good. I'm gonna be bold and go ahead. Worst case, it solicits more discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A goblet is not two faces staring at each other. I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I know one when I see it. Actually, I can tell you what I think it is, but there is always someone staring at it from the other side so there will never be consensus. The holy grail is not a goblet, it is an idea, an unattainable ideal. We are forever stuck with a negative non-definition by counterexample. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion (which I know is contrary to Jclemens') IINFO is best interpreted broadly and this broad interpretation of it should be encouraged at AfDs. Topics that are unbounded (such as lists without proper definition) lead to rambling, incoherent masses of information without any order and are, thus, indiscriminate. Topic definition and being discriminate go hand-in-hand. Improperly defined topics of any nature lead to indiscriminate articles, not just ones on lyrics databases, etc. If anything, this broad scope of applicability should be made clear within the written policy, rather than restricting the scope which would encourage poorer-quality articles. ThemFromSpace 11:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia not a Game Guide place? I kinda miss it being one back in 2004. Slipknot Darkrai (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

See

WP:NIME (an essay which I just started, for full disclosure's sake) Jclemens (talk

) 01:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a counterpoint, the encyclopedia has evolved. Under more scrutiny, it's been subject to a higher standard. As far as I can tell there are virtually no articles about video game weapons. And the Video game items category is pretty sparse, save for a few general concepts, and a few extraordinarily individual weapons. I'm sure at one point people put in entire lists of weapons, where to find them, and so on. But there was a consensus to get rid of them, and policy follows good practice. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think there needs to always be a focus on the readers, on the world at large, as to what they consider "notable" (versus "not-able to write"). I found "Top 10 Video Game Weapon Replicas" when searching for "video game weapon" and I wonder if the restrictions, for what topics to ban, should be backed by a rationale about "who will suffer in pain" if there is a list of video-game weapons, rather than a list of slime molds or "Category:Paralympic 5-a-side footballers of Great Britain". -Wikid77 05:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  This is a question of the proper content for an article on a notable game, and proper content is not subject o notability, just to relevance. The point of the rule is to include a certain amount f detail, but not to the extent of explaining absolutely everything in the full detail a true game guide would do. However, it is impossible to explain what a game is without saying something about how it is played, so it's always a question of balance, with the more important games getting the fullest explanation. But in any case it should be written in the third person. "At this point, the player has a choice: ", rather, than "At this point, you choose..." DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  From what I can tell looking at

  BFG 9000, or significant to the industry such as the Gravity gun. So individual weapons will sometimes be appropriate content. But most lists (e.g.: "every gun in game X", "every vehicle in game Y") are deleted because they tend to descend into game guides. Of course... nothing excludes a summary of some of the important weapons or items you might use in the game. But as DGG said, this is a question of relevance. Shooterwalker (talk

  ) 16:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The rationale behind NOTNEWS does not mean anything about trivia, so it is an inappropriate shortcut change. Editors that read just "NOTNEWS" and assume it means no news source are not even reading the policies behind the shortcuts. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To clearify I think the reason for this request has to do with the attempt to use the notnews policy to delete the

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case article.--76.66.185.169 (talk

) 07:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident.

That Gibson AfD was 4 years ago, and today, it does seem as though "NOTNEWS" is used to POV-push to delete "everything" so perhaps just rename it to "WP:NOT658" and then there would be no misleading mention of "news" by POV-pushers. -Wikid77 08:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTNEWS != NOTTRIVIA, as has amply been explained. Of course, the extent to which NOTNEWS applies to a specific event can be debated, usually at AFD. In this case consensus is that NOTNEWS does not apply - which is fine, the process has worked. And that is why we have consensus discussions - so that interpretation of policy is not at the whim of one or two editors. NOTNEWS is not about pre-cluding all events from inclusion, but about limiting the amount of news content that gets added. Also; quit the snide attacks on me as a "POV pusher", that's about the second time I've seen you alluded to my actions today - if you have a complaint about me either say it to my face or take it to the relevant noticeboard. Thanks. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that "not news" is sometimes vague and sometimes misinterpreted. But renaming it to "not trivia" only gets us more vagueness. The best answer is to reword the policy so it's 100% clear that it's not against using news sources. It's about avoiding coverage of a certain kind of short-term topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There are many news stories which appear every day for which no definition of trivia applies. Most of those news stories cover events which have little significance beyond their initial appearance. Where there's no long-term significance (that's a judgment made by editors), the question of doesn't even arise whether the Wikipedia article should be created on that news story based upon coverage in reliable secondary sources. patsw (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that a better shortcut would be NOTTABLOID, based on Jimmy Wales' statement: "I added Wikipedia is not a newspaper and especially not a tabloid newspaper", see here, where I believe he is talking about the origin of NOTNEWS. JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly a facet of what NOTNEWS is (and there's no reason we can't have more unlisted shortcut redirects if they are helpful), but there's more than just tabloid news that are non-notable and inappropriate for WP , eg regular season sports games, day-to-day business news, etc. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that NOTNEWS is a disruptive shortcut as we must necessarily rely upon news sources for coverage of many novel topics. The word trivial is not helpful because it is subjective and we already use it confusingly to mean miscellania in
  WP:NOT#EPHEMERA? Colonel Warden (talk
  ) 19:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Another possible replacement: "NOTNEWSPAPER", as that carries less the problem that NOTNEWS seems to carry and more readily understandable. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Not newspaper might be a little more useful. It's easy enough to understand. And it refers to a type of content or article. I'm sure the NOTNEWS shortcut wouldn't go away. But at least it would become a little less prominent. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I created
        WP:NotNewsReports
        and propose:

from: {{|policy shortcut|WP:NOT#JOURNALISM|WP:NOT#NEWS|WP:NOTNEWS|WP:NOTWHOSWHO}} to: {{policy shortcut|WP:NOT#JOURNALISM|WP:NOT#NEWS|WP:NotNewsReports|WP:NOTWHOSWHO}}

Of course, WP:NOTNEWS does not change, it just isn't displayed on the page.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would strongly avoid the shortcut NOTTRIVIA as it will inevitably be used to justify removal of "Trivia sections", which is an unrelated matter entirely. I'm okay with NOTTABLOID, although I think NOTEPHEMERA is the closest I've heard to the true meaning. Dcoetzee 21:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• NOT:NEWS and NOT:TRIVIA, while not being the same, are BOTH principles that should be applied to articles. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• While verbose, "NOTANEWSPAPER" would be more closely aligned with the original meaning of the NOTNEWS shortcut. Gigs (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are templates for flagging "Wikipedia is not..." issues, I haven't been able to find them. If they exist, shouldn't this article list them? LADave (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Just fix the articles. We have enough drive-by tagging. Tagging articles accomplishes little and just makes a mess of them. Gigs (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

While I like maintenance tags for complex problems I know I don't have time to fix,

WP:NOT problems are usually a fairly straightforward situation of removing the what should "not" be there. It's not like they need more sourcing, or adjustment, or clean-up...it's just that there is info that doesn't belong. The only ones I can think of that can be helpful are {{Trivia}} and {{In popular culture}},, since sometimes the info is okay, it just needs to be moved around (plus, not everyone agrees on exactly what constitutes trivia/pop culture. Qwyrxian (talk

) 01:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand objections to drive-by tagging. Nevertheless just fixing it yourself can waste an opportunity to educate a newbie about what WP is actually trying to accomplish and how we go about it. Perhaps a stipulation that it's bad form to tag without opening a discussion? LADave (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Like biological evolution, as things get complex - weird stuff arises. Example: Insanity . There are no "insane" ants, perhaps a few insane wombats, several insane chimpanzees, and a lot of insane humans. With WPs wild and wonderful growth, we are seeing messy stuff happen. e.g. Articles that can only be understood by the authors themselves. In the medical area, crazy things are happening. But it's not only medicine, many technical areas have problems.

After reading

The paper encyclopedias did not solve all their problems. The technical articles in the Brittanica and Americana were notorious for starting off with an easy introduction, and then shifting dramatically into material that required a considerable subject knowledge. In fact, the 18th century Encyclopédie was all edited by Diderot--except for the mathematical and related portions which was edited by the mathematician D'Alembert. As for the medical articles in their current form, I think they are becoming models of what such articles should be, and not the least difficult. But then, I've an advanced degree in biology.

with respect to hierarchal structure, the usual way they solved the problems was by organizing into very broad articles and having an index, and a good number of cross references. Separate indexes were in general the basic way of accessing paper reference works, and I've known many where the index was about half the size of the text. Everyone knew to use them first, even beginning students. In an online work, the index is behind the scenes, but it's still there, and normally, the structural aspects of such a database are larger and more complex than the actual contents. And, although we have our own, to a considerable extent people coming here also rely on google, a universal index with capabilities exceeding anything else ever, designed and maintained with skill we can never match. But remember that both paper encyclopedias and Wikipedia are designed for browsing as well as for reference, and the needs of the two manners of use different. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Could we add to our coverage of this that Wikipedia should not be treated as a wiki version of

I've added mention of "cloud" to the section. Certainly not appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And here is a reliable reference to back this up: [8]. I could cite more academic studies on bureaucratization of Wikipedia.

Now, note I do not disagree with the section's content, only with the title. Wikipedia is not a "pure" bureaucracy, but it has bureaucratic elements (just like it had elements of democracy or anarchy, and many others). To clarify this I'd propose two changes:

1. ) in the lead nutshell, change "Wikipedia neither an anarchy, democracy, nor bureaucracy" to "Wikipedia neither a pure anarchy, pure democracy, nor pure bureaucracy"
2. ) in the section headings, change "Wikipedia is not a democracy" to "Wikipedia is not a pure democracy" and do the same for anarchy and bureaucracy.

Let's face it, simple statements are false and misleading. Clarifying them is important. "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" is just plain false, but neither "Wikipedia is a bureaucracy". It has bureaucratic elements, and more besides it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to keep things simple. Get into the details in the discussion under the heading. - Denimadept (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

But the headings are very misleading. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Most brief statements / titles are oversimplifications = not precisely true. North8000 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And long headings, like the one on this section, are usually a bit much. What's the limit, after all? - Denimadept (talk)

I read "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" as a statement of intent. Unfortunately it is often one in practice, but that is a problem that should be fixed, not something that would justify updating a fundamental policy. I am afraid that would lead to Wikipedia becoming even more of a bureaucracy. Hans Adler 18:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We could say "Wikipedia is not designed as a bureaucracy" or "Wikipedia is not a functional bureaucracy". :/ —chaos5023 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is changed I think the first suggestion is better. The second idea could be interpreted as Wikipedia is meant to be a bureaucracy but is not doing a good job at it.--76.66.180.175 (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The format of this page ("Wikipedia is not...") is sometimes misleading because there's no room for nuance. But we do respect people's individual rights even though we're not a democracy. We do have a large disdain for formal rules even though we're not an anarchy. And we do have some amount of respect for process even though we're not a bureaucracy. I think piotrus does the best job of explaining. But this is a purely philosophical discussion, and I haven't seen so much as one person misuse this part of WP:NOT to advocate for something that doesn't fit with the spirit of the policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess you have a point about the level of detail we can tackle in the heading. I see my edit to the para itself is uncontroversial, and it clarifies the reality versus intent. I'd like to add a link to the

Iron Law of Oligarchy, too... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

16:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I really like that last link. - Denimadept (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved in a few AFDs recently where editors have tried (unsuccessfully) to make the argument that "fictional events" and "plot" are different. Most people seem to reject this difference. It strikes me as wikilawyering: "the guideline says Wikipedia is not a Democracy, but it doesn't say anything about it being a Republic". But I'm going to assume good faith that the policy isn't 100% clear. Is there a meaningful difference here, or are they basically the same thing? Shooterwalker (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Same thing: "plot" in NOT is broadly considered to include setting, characters, objects, mythos, timelines, etc. etc. - if it is something that directly comes from the primary source, it is plot-related and qualifies under NOTPLOT. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they really aren't. The geography of a fictional world isn't plot. Nor are the characters. Timelines often are as they are generally plot summaries, but when dealing with the timeline of (say) 100 books by different authors it's pretty hard to call such a thing a plot. A fictional event is almost certainly plot. "the plan, scheme, or main story of a literary or dramatic work, as a play, novel, or short story". That's a plot. Characters, in my experience, are always considered separately from plot in the study of literature, drama and film. Hobit (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically no, but for WP:NOT they are, it's basically all in-universe description of the media be it a book, film, television, etc. With "discussing the reception and significance of notable works." being the point, not description only. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with these bizarre arguments that anything sourced from a fictional work is necessarily "plot", but in the absence of some really compelling counterexample, I would say that no, there is not difference; events are plot. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• policy that "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice." Warden (talk
  ) 13:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • PLOT has repeated been challenge but remains because it has consensus. It does not say "no plot information is allowed", as it is recognized that plot is a critical aspect of the coverage of any fictional work or element within. It does mean that there must be more to the fictional element than just what is pulled directly from primary sources, and the various examples you give are all cases of elements backed by third-party and secondary sources as to avoid NOTPLOT. But for consideration of NOTPLOT, "plot" includes characters and elements and events and so on, so you can't just write an article on a fictional event pulling from the fiction itself and leave it at that. It needs third-party/secondary sources to support it. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Masem said it eloquently - this is a confusion over terminology and the intention of the rule. NOTPLOT is not (contrary to its name) about forbidding plot information, but about forbidding articles about works of fiction sourced entirely from primary sources. It doesn't even matter it's about the setting and characters but not the plot - the same principle applies. Conversely, one could conceivably write an article Plot of Moby Dick about the plot of Moby Dick based on both primary and secondary sources (assuming this was large enough to be splittable into its own article). This would seem to run afoul of the NOT principle but it doesn't. I think the principle as outlined in this policy requires revision to make this distinction clearer. Dcoetzee 13:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Can you give us examples? I recall a recent AfD of a list of the (individually notable) crossovers in the DC Comics universe. While technically all "plot", I would reject such an argument as a cohesive collection of individually notable elements is almost always an appropriate list topic. Help us comment well by showing in which context that argument has been made--I can see occasions where it should stand, and I can see where it ought to fall flat. Jclemens (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Jclemens... I'm not talking about any particular AFD. Here's an example of the type of comment I'm talking about: "It presents events, not plot". I think most people would agree that in-universe events = plot. (To demonstrate good faith, I'll admit that the "publication history" argument you advanced at the DC Comics AFD has legs, even if I don't think DC Comics article reflects that. Without revisiting that AFD, I think we can agree that out-of-universe events are not plot, and a proper publication history is not at odds with WP:NOTPLOT.) Shooterwalker (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    • That case was settled as a copyvio, but would have been settled on OR/SYNTH grounds long before the argument under consideration here was given any serious consideration. I don't see any merit to the argument as posed in that case, FWIW. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If you say they are independently notable, but for sake of completeness you've combined them all, that still means you must have third-party/secondary sources that describe each one and give some critique about them or background of how they came to be. Meaning its not just all plot in the article. On the other hand, if it was just a list of crossover points all taken from primary sources, that would be a problem. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Essentially to be notable for Wikipedia reliable secondary sources independent of the creative individual/team need to note that they are. Notability within the storyline does not matter save perhaps as a passing mention in a plot summary on a larger article which can better be decided by editorial decision on a case-by-case basis.陣内_Jinnai 20:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Arguably, sources that come from the creative team may be ok for notability, but its highly situational. It's one thing for Matt Groenig or George Lucas to talk about the inspiration for a specific character, and for little Jimmy age 5 to talk about the same (eg see Wikipedia:1.5 sources) --MASEM (t) 00:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Well even then you have to be careful its not being used as a form of promotion.陣内_Jinnai 01:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• I see pretty much everyone (Masem, Hobit, Xeworlebi, chaos5023, Dcoetzee, Jclemens, and Jinnai... plus myself) giving an unequivocal answer that there is no difference between "plot" and a "fictional event". Many go further and say all in-universe information is plot, while some stop short of that, but it's best to leave that discussion for another day. In the interest of clarity I'll probably add something to the policy about events and plot once I can figure out a wording that doesn't overreach. If someone thinks of something sooner... I'd encourage them to be bold. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)