Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 59

Alternative proposal regarding NOTDIR

Based on the discussion above it's clear that there is not support for deprecating or significantly changing the wording of the policy, however it is also clear that there are real problems with it being cited incorrectly. A way that might help with that, and which I think is worth trying, is to:

1. Rename the section to something like "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything" (exact title can be discussed) to better reflect its actual content.
2. Deprecate the
   WP:NOTDIRECTORY
   shortcuts, e.g. by retargetting them to a short page or section that explains they have been deprecated because they commonly misinterpreted, explicitly discourages further use of the shortcuts and links (without redirection) to the actual policy.

There would be no prohibition on creating new shortcuts that reflect the new name of the section, but whether and what redirects to create is explicitly not part of this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Can I instead suggest starting a discussion showing how it's been misinterpreted and misused, and changes to the wording that would limit or alleviate those misinterpretation? If the current short cuts are being misused, then any new shortcuts will be misused in the same way unless the root cause is corrected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

How is it "clear that there are real problems with it being cited incorrectly"? There's certainly nowhere close to an emerging consensus that this actually is a problem--at most only 41% of respondents think there ought to be "something" done differently. JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That does not at all sound to me like accepting the consensus. Anyway yes, please elucidate what you feel is wrong or what message you would like editors to take away that presently they don't. NadVolum (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how to phrase it more clearly than I did in the introduction and in other comments, but "Wikipedia is not a directory" is an oversimplification because many Wikipedia articles, particularly lists, are directories and/or share a lot of characteristics of directories. What Wikipedia is actually not is a directory of everything or an indiscriminate directory. Arguing for the exclusion of some content because Wikipedia is not a directory is not helpful, instead argue why Wikipedia should not include a directory of that subject. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

So basically you want to do what removing NOTDIR would do - move the onus onto people who think a directory is inappropriate to argue why it should not be included. So exactly what would your argument be about somebody who wanted to include the full cast of the Lord ot the Rings film or do you think that would be okay? NadVolum (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm explicitly not proposing removing NOTDIR, just giving it a more nuanced title. Assuming you don't want to include the full cast of Lord of the Rings (I have no immediate opinion either way) then argue why we shouldn't include a directory of actors of the film for reasons other than "Wikipedia is not a directory" because that doesn't make sense when we do have other directories of people, e.g. those who have won an Oscar for best actor. If "Wikipedia is not a directory" were true then we wouldn't have either. i.e. you should explain why this directory is inappropriate. Really that's what you should be doing anyway as you should always be discussing the merits (or otherwise) of the specific content not generic types of content. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from - both a list of the cast of Lord of the Rings and a list of people who have won an Oscar for best actor could be seen as directories that shouldn't exist, but the actual relevant text, Simple listings, tells us that the former is not permitted because we cannot show encyclopedic merit for such a list, while the latter is permitted because we can show such merit.

However, I think we need to see evidence that there is a problem before trying to solve it; I agree with ActivelyDisinterested when they suggested starting a discussion showing how it's been misinterpreted and misused. BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The difference between the title and the actual text is the exact issue this is attempting to solve. I'll try and fish out some examples next time I've got time and am sufficiently awake. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Compare IMDB [list of the cast of Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring with The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring#Cast The Lord of the Rings (film series)#Cast and crew. The Wikipedia ones only includes named ones who are of some note in the film, not miscellaneous hobbit children. They have managed to get in despite NOTDIR and I'm happy with them. But I ask again what reason can be given for not expanding the lists to what IMDB gives if NOTDIR is removed? Wikipedia is full of editors who will fight to the bitter end to include every last stupid bit of information they find in reliable sources into articles. NadVolum (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Once again I'm explicitly not proposing to remove NOTDIR. The language of the policy will not change, only the section title and the shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not an answer to what I asked, and it sounds tantamount to going around and changing the edits of thousands of editors to refer to something othe than what they meant to refer to. How it is supposed to help in the future either I don't know as editors will use the new name in the policy. If there is an explanation then it should be linked belowthe title of the section but it sounds to me that you want the policy changed and the way to do that is to actually change the policy. NadVolum (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't want the policy to change, what I want is for it to be renamed so that title better matches the policy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

And redirect all the current links to it to somewhere else. So exactly why would one change the current links to point somewhere else and then have new links to the curtrent text? I do not want any more of your 'I don't wat to' rubbish - just a clear explanation of what the hell you are hoping will happen and why. NadVolum (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, these comments are starting to come across as a bit uncivil. Might want to reconsider some of the phrasing and word choice. Best. —siroχo 20:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I was expressing that I felt frustration at the lack of a clear answer to what is the purpose of the fiddling around with the links, perhaps you could explain why that would would be a good thing rather than causing trouble? As far as I can see it changes what thousands of editors meant to do and in the future editors will ignore the place that explains the policy and would point to the actual policy anyway. If it is so important to have some explanation before looking at the policy then the policy needs changing but they say they don't want to change the policy. Perhaps you can explain why I am wrong or why that makes sense and is a reasonable thing to do? NadVolum (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I explained in the very first post what I propose doing and why. I have since attempt to explain it again several times. I don't understand why you are not understanding me, or why you seem to be assuming I must be doing something other than what I am saying. I will try one more time, I apologise if this comes across as patronising or anything like that but it's literally the only way I can think of to explain in a different way.

• The text of the policy states that Wikipedia does not include specific types of things which might be described as a directory.
• The text of the policy is silent about other types of things that might be described as directories (with the exception of "a directory of it's own contents", which it explicitly permits).
• Wikipedia includes many things that might be described as directories, none of which (other than directories of its own contents) are listed in the policy.
• The policy is titled "Wikipedia is not a directory", despite this not being what the policy actually says and not matching what Wikipedia does and does not include.
• I propose to change the title of the policy so that the title of the policy more closely matches the text of the policy.
• I do not propose to change the text of the policy.
• I separately propose to change the target of two redirects to this policy so that it links to the policy indirectly via a page that explains that "Wikipedia is not a directory" is the former title of the policy but that the title was changed because it did not match the wording of the policy. This would not change the meaning of what anybody said, but provide context so people can better understand what what was meant.
• I am proposing this because:
  • Some people are thinking that the title reflects the policy and are opposing content that the policy does not prohibit (e.g. they oppose content because "Wikipedia is not a directory" even though the content is a type of directory not mentioned by this policy)
  • Some people are misunderstanding opposition to content based on the text of the policy because the title misleads them (e.g. they are told that content is not appropriate because "Wikipedia is not a directory" even though they know that Wikipedia contains other content that is a directory when what is actually meant is that e.g. "Wikipedia is not a simple listing")

Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

even though the content is a type of directory not mentioned by this policy

The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive.

JoelleJay (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see you are agreeing with what I said you were doing but have not tackled the points about it that I said. THerefore I am very much opposed to the busines of fiddling around with the links. As to the rename of the section I don't see that it would accomplish much, the text below it is te policy not the title. Titles are supposed to be shortways of referring to the contents.I'll sit on the fence about the title, I tend to just let people get on with things like that if they feel they must, I just don't see it'll achieve anything. NadVolum (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I definitely support the simple section rename. I also think NOT has some UPPERCASE problems so I am generally supportive of trying to fix them. Your idea of redirecting them to a "deprecation" page would probably help a bit but I'm not sure how much. Will {{slink}} etc, or new UPPERCASE actually solve the problem? Some people will still misunderstand the policies. —siroχo 09:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I remember starting an RM to rename the essay that

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS used to link to, which was explicitly about how that logic is frequently wrong. It closed successfully...and the redirect was later retargeted to an uncritical section about the same thing in ATA, with the hatnote changed to claim the essay wasn't about deletion (it is). Sometimes people go out of their way not to be helped. Vaticidalprophet

09:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• The entire discussion is confused. According to a quick dictionary search, a directory is: A book containing an alphabetical or classified listing of names, addresses, and other data, such as telephone numbers, of specific persons, groups, or firms. Everything at
  WP:NOTDIR to allow what, lists? Which are already valid within articles and already valid as stand-alone articles. The status quo is fine. SportingFlyer T·C
  17:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• I don't see how this alternative proposal is useful or that it would be effective. The intro of this policy already states: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." So this alternate proposal becomes moot regarding that issue. Instead of this alternate proposal, I agree with User:ActivelyDisinterested. They suggest: " starting a discussion showing how [NOTDIR has] been misinterpreted and misused, and changes to the wording that would limit or alleviate those misinterpretations." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I sympathize with what Thryduulf is trying to get at here, but in the end agree with starting a discussion showing how [NOTDIR has] been misinterpreted and misused, and changes to the wording that would limit or alleviate those misinterpretations. I think that would be more effective than fiddling with headings and shortcuts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Side note I told the closer of the above RFC that it might be too soon for a close [24]. The RFC has only been open for three or four days (Sep. 1st to Sep 4th). And I requested that they either self-revert or reopen the RFC. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be inclined to agree. @

  Casualdejekyll: would you consider reopening? jp×g

  05:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  @

  WP:NOTBURO - the discussion doesn't need to be open for 30+ days.

  EDIT: Also, to me it seems that the majority of editors that have voiced their opinions on this after the closure would have also supported Option 3 had the discussion been left open. That seems like a good sign that it was, in fact, snowing. casualdejekyll

  23:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO not a good idea. I don't see any problem which this corrects and do see problems which this would make worse by weakening wp:Not a directory. Most of Wikipedia is a fuzzy system with each situation influenced by multiple rules and guidances which are by necessity written with slightly fuzzy fording that is subject to varying interpretations. This (by necessity and rightly so) is the case with most policies and guidelines yet this thread treats it as inherently a problem that needs to be fixed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• This remains good policy and a good description of general practice. If there are generally accepted exceptions where Wikipedia is in fact a directory, this discussion would benefit from those examples. I have my doubts that they are consistent or important enough to change this policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I have started a

The average person has no say in anything on the Wiki, if I'm not mistaken, but are there checks and balances? If an admin starts banning people for disagreeing (on a non-moderation/disciplinary issue, just discussion), or for asking questions, can the admin be disciplined? 72.72.200.247 (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What is it? Calvinball mostly. Which is to say, an online game where we make the rules up on the go, and its never entirely clear what 'winning' would look like, since we don't all have the same objectives, and there isn't a scoreboard. It isn't an anything-ocracy, since these are terms from political science applied at the governmental level, and Wikipedia isn't a political or economic system. Missapply terms in contexts they aren't intended for, and you can ask all sorts of questions that have no sensible answer. Look up social capital if you want to figure out who gets the most say in making up rules, and on how the 'discipline' system mostly works. Or doesn't work, since this is Calvinballopedia, and we rarely agree on what 'working' should look like. It is what it is, it does what it does. To understand it, study it as it is (from inside or outside) but don't try to fit it into boxes built to contain other things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The average person does have a say in many things, but not everything. How much say depends on the topic, the question, the venue, the number of other participants, the argument(s) made, and other things (including what you define as "the average person"). There are checks and balances - if an admin starts banning people for disagreeing for example then any other admin can undo those bans either unilaterally (in the case of unambiguous mistakes) or after discussion with the admin in question (which can be started by anybody). discussion will happen at a suitable venue - this is usually the admin's talk page in the first instance, then

WP:AARV). If the matter is still not resolved (almost always this will be when the incorrect banning is repeated) or for particularly urgent or egregious matters the final step is Wikipedia:Arbitration. Read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

for full details.

Be aware though that the vast majority of accusations of administrators acting out of process, banning people for no reason, etc. turn out on investigation to actually be examples of good administrative actions being labelled as bad by those who are either trolling or are genuinely unable to see the disruption their actions are causing. It is also worth noting that many, maybe most, anonymous or new editors asking questions like this are people evading blocks or bans, almost all of which are appropriate. This does not mean that this is the case here, just that it is statistically highly probable so do not be surprised if some people respond as if it is. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Richard-of-Earth (talk
  ) 18:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Androcracy, but trying to correct itself. ;-) NadVolum (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Since

{{redirect|WP:SNS|the use of social media as sources|WP:SOCIALMEDIA}} Mys_721tx (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Nah. "SNS" is not everyday language that needs to be disambiguated, but a Wikipedia-internal abbreviation of the phrase "social networking service" that appears in the policy text at this location, and not in the other policy. There is no ambiguity to resolve. However, the target of

WP:SOCIALMEDIA should (and does) have a hatnote mentioning the "Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site" section of this policy, since "social media" is everyday wording and there's a fairly high likelihood the section here is actually what someone meant when using "WP:SOCIALMEDIA" as a shortcut. I think I've made that mistake myself pretty recently, actually.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  00:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The Oxford English dictionary defines a gazetteer as:

"A geographical index or dictionary."

Webster's Dictionary defines a gazetteer as:

"1 archaic : JOURNALIST, PUBLICIST

2 [The Gazetteer's: or, Newsman's Interpreter, a geographical index edited by Laurence Echard] : a geographical dictionary

also : a book in which a subject is treated especially in regard to geographic distribution and regional specialization"

Our article defines a gazetteer as:

"a geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas."

A regular subject of discussion in the Geographical field on here is whether, and to what extent, Wikipedia is a gazetteer. This becomes a particular issue at AFD or in discussions about the notability of certain locations.

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with features of a gazetteer.

2) Wikipedia is a gazetteer.

I'm sure there's others, these are just the two most common ones. Generally speaking, advocates of the second position tend to take a more expansive view of what the geographical coverage hosted on Wikipedia should be than advocates of the first view. However, there is (as far as I know?) no explicit consensus on this expressed anywhere. I would like to ask the people here at

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with some features of a gazetteer. It can't actually be a gazetteer, because it also has many features that are not features of a gazetteer, and (probably more substantively) a gazetteer is a geographical dictionary, and

WP is not a dictionary. Similarly, WP has some features of a biographical dictionary, but is not one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  09:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a project that does not fit cleanly into a single category of print reference work. Most notably it includes a comprehensive general encyclopaedia, but additionally it includes elements of many other types of work. For example it includes many features of specialist encyclopaedias, dictionaries (general, etymological, geographical, scientific, etc), gazetteers, almanacs, and more. So saying Wikipedia is or is not any one of those things is incorrect, because it's more complicated than that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, if there's a named geographical feature then it's reasonable that Wikipedia should have a link for it which either goes to an article about that place or to a more general article about the area. Features like coordinates and photographs work well with such topics too. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• This discussion has gone quiet, but for the avoidance of doubt I essentially agree with SMcCandlish - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. We write encyclopaedia articles, not dictionary entries. It might be that we go beyond what paper encyclopaedias cover, but we do not cover everything in the way a dictionary does. FOARP (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

One thing I would like to add is that Wikipedia has, over the course of the last two decades, completely changed public expectations of what an encyclopedia is. In my view, Wikipedia is as different from a traditional paper encyclopedia as a traditional paper encyclopedia is from a dictionary. Thus, discussions about what is "encyclopedic" can be overly conservative, as we are in uncharted territory. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with FOARP that SMcCandlish put it well, Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia but it's not a dictionary. To give an example I'm not sure Slayer's Slab should be an article. But I'd agree with Thryduulf about redirects, for example I don't see why Lyminster knuckerhole (and possibly Slayers Slab) couldn't be a redirect to Lyminster#Folklore as redirects are cheap. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

My answer to this question, based largely on

WP:5P

, is that Wikipedia is not NOT a Gazetteer

That is, by consensus to date,

WP:NOT

cannot be used to argue on the basis of sitewide consensus that an article, or article content, does not belong in Wikipedia on the basis that Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer, since by consensus at a high conlevel, Wikipedia does have certain features specific to a Gazetteer.

On the other hand, Wikipedia does not by consensus have all the features of a Gazetteer, so it is not simply a Gazetteer, either, even among other functions. Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO 5P is more than an essay but we do not have a category for such. The gazetteer provision is a finger on the scale towards inclusion of geographic articles operating within the framework of Wikipedia:How_editing_decisions_are_made. So the "gazetteer" function is a finger on the scale towards inclusion of such but not a categorical definition that we are a gazetteer on geographic items. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with features of a gazetteer. However, Wikipedia includes articles for some places which are too tiny and insignificant to appear even in a gazetteer. We should avoid accepting such articles in future and consider removing the existing ones. Certes (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This pithy clarification [25] was not a drive-by change, but based on discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Follow-up commentary. More discussion could happen here, but people need not do a reflexive "this wasn't discussed" revert.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

A change with input from only 2 people is not really a smart way to claim that there was a discussion to change a policy page. Masem (t) 12:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That comment doesn't make any sense. There was in fact a discussion, and making a change based on it is not a "claim" pertaining to either the change or the discussion. Maybe you need some coffee? The very reason I posted a notice on this page was to provide a discussion point about this (more central to the page in question), link to the prior discussion for transparency, and discourage any claim of "no discussion". Someone could still revert, of course, and ask for more discussion, but "no discussion" isn't an applicable rationale in this case, and hopefully someone has more useful input than such a complaint, or a weird one that the change was a "claim" about discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with this edit. Wikipedia is independent and does not heed external petitions. Simple clarifications do not require an entire site-wide RFC posted to CENT and closed by an admin before being appealed to AN and then re-closed by a team of admins (optionally with an ARBCOM case on the issue). It is notable how when, in the past, changes were made by BOLD edits that weren’t reverted these are now treated as if written in stone, but if a BOLD edit is attempted now these are reverted with no actual rationale beyond “not discussed”. FOARP (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:DRNC is wise (in fact I might edit some of it into policy ...) Bon courage (talk

  ) 07:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit old school on these things, but I generally think this type of change is fine. There's a risk of CREEP (and NOT is a large policy as it stands). But, this change itself is both an obvious one on its own, and even had discussion on VPR. —siroχo 02:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought I would just throw out there something I've thought for a while but which has been brought to a head for me by the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion article and its talk page. Should new articles on major ongoing news events (particularly/only if they are controversial) be restricted to being only stubs in the first X days of the news story unrolling? These articles currently, and seemingly inevitably, during the first days of their life act as:

1. purely a news aggregator
2. the crucible for (pre-existing) POVs to play out, particularly though not exclusively where CT applies and where enabled by a lack of hard facts.

Sure, the encyclopedia should be up-to-date, but when facts are unknown/confused/disputed simply because it's in the early hours/days of the incident, where is the encyclopedic value?

There really isn't any means by which to do that, since stub doesn't have a precise and enforceable definition, and

WP:DUE).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  08:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes,

WP:CONSENSUS. DeCausa (talk

) 09:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, my point was that carving a hole in a central policy that barely changes (except in non-substantive copyediting ways) like

WP:EDITING just because breaking-news coverage quality is difficult to maintain isn't something that's likely to happen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  09:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I say I didn't think my view would attract support! DeCausa (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is usually quite successful at covering unfolding news stories like major hurricanes. Yes, there is a huge amount of fighting and edit wars for controversial topics (also for largely uncontroversial topics like who won the last US presidential election), and they will take a while to settle down at an encyclopaedic coverage. I think that's a feature of the wiki model, and legislating against it is bad: it is going to make some articles needlessly outdated while increasing the fighting about which articles should be deliberately not updated. —Kusma (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We're usually good when the stories are 1) non-political in nature (like weather events or other natural disasters) and 2) when they happen in a place well-covered by English/Western media. What we tend to run into are lots and lots of misfires of bad info or the like when the event is breaking in an area that has significant political ramifications (meaning that editors tend to overrun NPOV to get in news points favorable to one side or the other) and/or where there's poor clarity of what actually happened from reliable sources (eg the type of coverage happening now in the Gaza conflict). We need editors to not try to fight to include up-to-the-second type level of coverage, but wait until a clearer picture can be made from RSes so that even though our coverage may be several hours delayed from when things are known, we're at least putting in what are significant aspects in a neutral form. Its more of a behaviorial problem than a content problem, though I have long believed that we need stronger NOTNEWS enforcement, where we should prefer to wait to even create articles on events until we have a good indication that the event meets NEVENT, which should be at a point that a good, NPOV-compliant article can be written that represents the best consensus of what has happened from RSes by that point. Masem (t) 12:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, there are certainly a lot of POV editors but I don't think they can solely be blamed for shoddy partisan sourcing; it's just something that exists in far greater quality for political topics. Very few people are covering earthquakes with the aim of owning the libs/cons, so you are unlikely to get that sort of thing in a sweep of available sources, even if you aren't very careful (or familiar with reliability in the field of earthquake journalism). I just referenced a bunch of eclipse articles, for example, and not once did I have to spend a single moment evaluating the political leanings of a source. jp×g 13:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

largely uncontroversial topics like who won the last US presidential election Yes, current percentage of Republicans who believe Trump won is 70% nearly three years later. Everything is political and controversial these days: elections, race, sexuality, books, guns, religion, drag shows, abortion, immigration, education, climate change. When events occur, like the recent hospital explosion and reported beheadings, we have a stream of SPA IPs entering the fray and reams of unverified info is added. We keep forgetting that we are not a "breaking news" TV channel. IMO nothing should be added until the fog has lifted. Media must report quickly to scoop the competition. We should not worry about competition. We should concentrate on getting it right the first time. Of course I know this won't change and I may as well try to nail pudding to a tree. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• The main problem here is there is no definition of what a stub is and even if there was no way of keeping people within that. I do think that covering the subject as a rolling news story makes for bad historical articles though. Just take a look at any story that Wikipedia covered as a rolling news story when it happened and compare it to events that occurred before Wikipedia was created - you'll see that contemporaneous and minute-by-minute coverage dominates, crowding out the more considered historical coverage written later and making the article unnecessary long and essentially not the kind of summary of what secondary sources say about the subject that we look for in an encyclopaedia article. I also think that the older articles are better at maintaining NPOV since they are based on secondary coverage, not primary sources. Some examples:

• The 2008 Russo-Georgian War, written mostly based on contemporaneous news coverage with little re-visiting since to incorporate secondary sources, and very long at 11800 words readable prose. Compare this with our coverage of the pre-Wikipedia First Chechen War - much better use of secondary sources, much more of the kind of summary we should aim to have despite being in every way a bigger topic than the 2008 war, with only 5873 words of readable prose. From an NPOV perspective the First Chechen War article is way better, the 2008 conflict article spends way too much time focusing on minutiae and conspiracy theories.
• The UK 2005 general election (3135 words readable prose) with the UK 1997 general election (2596 words readable prose). Again, the pre-Wikipedia 1997 election was in every way a bigger story since it was a "change" election whilst the 2005 election did not result in great changes, yet in the 2005 election we focused so much more on what happened minute-by-minute contemporaneously without really summarising what happened. There is almost certainly way more written in secondary sources about the 1997 election since it has been heavily analysed, but that hasn't impacted our coverage to the extent that simply having editors editing stuff in as it happens has. The most recent UK general election (2019) weighs in at a whopping 10687 words of readable prose, again for an election that is still a smaller story than the 1997 one. The 2019 article is also pretty bad for NPOV since it seems the partisans of each party have been way more active on it (e.g., referencing the performance of nearly every party including SDLP and Alliance in the lead section)
• The 1985 Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior (2473 words of readable prose) with the 2021 Suez Canal obstruction by the Ever Given (3916 words). Again, minute-by-minute reporting and minutiae dominates in the latter.

Of course I get that this is partly driven by the internet and social media delivering a firehose-like stream of information that just wasn't available in the same way pre-2001, but there really needs to be a review of these articles a couple of years out from them being written to cut down on the bric-a-brac of 24-hour-reportage and meme stories, and also to incorporate secondary sourcing in to replace stuff that was only covered in primary sources (and cut out the primary-source-only stuff where it is undue). FOARP (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be supremely valuable if we could come up with a better actual working definition of what NOTNEWS means insofar as current events articles. Being able to delete or merge breathless coverage would be a lot easier if you could say "this hasn't had significant coverage in X years" and people wouldn't fight you on it. As is, the problem seems to have gotten worse in recent years (I suppose COVID isolation is the reason we have excruciating month-by-month details on the pandemic, or tried to create articles on every single protests in America in 2020) and trying to clean it up is a thankless and often frustrating task because some people will stonewall any improvement if it's still net fewer bytes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue is that at present

WP:EVENTS

?

We need something very general like the WP:TOOLARGE guidelines for when we should start turning these current-events stories into historical articles. Say:

• Less than 2 years - no action needed.
• More than 2 years - start looking for secondary sources to replace primary ones, re-analysing what is
  WP:UNDUE
  coverage.
• More than 5 years - Secondary sources should be preferred for everything. If it can only be sourced to a primary source, then re-consider whether it is
  WP:UNDUE
  ,
• More than 10 years - This
  WP:EVENT
  should be considered historical and analysed from that viewpoint, using historical, secondary sources.

We wouldn't write an article about the battle of Britain based overwhelmingly on contemporaneous reports in the BBC, Times, New York Times etc., why are we doing that for the events of the past 20 years? FOARP (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This is going on a slightly different track than I was originally thinking. But yes I think something like that wold be useful. Articles developed as events unfold (eg armed conflicts, political scandals and like events, crime and litigation) stay cryogenically frozen in the chronological reportage format that they were created in. It's like looking at tree rings rather than the tree. DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A possible first step would be an article cleanup template (eg. {{cleanup news}}) to mark and categorize sections or articles that are still written like developing news even when the news has passed. Such an option gives editors who were/are invested in the news story aspect a transition period as well which might help reduce resistance toward such improvements. —siroχo 16:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Tagging seems a low-drama way to proceed that won't just trigger a backlash because someone decided to delete [insert stuff that can only be sourced to contemporaneous primary sources and has possibly since been ignored or even debunked by secondary sources here]. It also pings the page to see if people there are still invested in the event. Something like:

{{Ambox

| name = Old event

| subst =

| type = style

| class = ambox-Recentism

| issue = This article or section appears to be written about a historical event based excessively on

contemporaneous, blow-by-blow reporting

.

| fix = Please try to place this event in historical context, making appropriate use of available secondary sourcing in place of primary-source news reports, and avoiding

undue

focus on events that did not have a lasting impact demonstrable in secondary sources.

| removalnotice = yes

| date =

| talk =

| cat = Articles slanted towards recent events

}} FOARP (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. —siroχo 18:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Such a template is a great idea to start. Masem (t) 18:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's great. It could benefit from being paired with an essay (later upgradeable to a guideline) that explains the problem as well as you did above, FOARP, and that gives suggested solutions. There'll be resistance (as David Fuchs says) but this may help promote a change in attitudes. DFlhb (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Works for me too (though there's virtually no such thing as someone's essay getting promoted to guideline status, not since the early days of the project. It's more that the core ideas found in an essay that received broad community buy-in might work their way into an existing guideline or policy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This is smart. jp×g 13:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

In this same veon, we need editors to be more willing to allow deletion or merging of events that lack enduring coverage. There is a discussion along these lines at one of the VP's. It seems very difficult to delete such articles because editors insist that contemporary news reports at the time of the event account for long term notability. There needs to be some reworking if that attitude if we are going to correct the path for NOTNEWS. Masem (t) 18:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does a pretty good job of being a news paper, e.g. the "in the news section". That section has far more intelligent and current newspaper coverage of events than any newspaper. Unfortunately those are all Wikipedia articles where NotNews should apply. Maybe we should separate them somehow. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• What I noticed about the
  caveat lector applies to it all. Andrew🐉(talk
  ) 22:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I do think we need to explore processes when we have major breaking stories that draw high attention from a large number (dozens or even hundreds) of editors; the same happened during the Jan 6 events. We dont want to lock down articles if we don't have to, but sometimes there's so many cooks that trying to keep an article both current and accurate and neutral is near impossible without editing restrictions. But even then, I suspect most information will be entered in a timeline / proseline form - the easiest way for new editors to contribute, and will still need the suggested cleanup after we can consider the event in a non-panicked retrospective. Masem (t) 00:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  If there's ever a page that would benefit from just being locked for 48 hours, it's that one. FOARP (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• As discussed above, I've created the template here: Template:Old_news. It looks like this:

This article may be excessively based on contemporary reporting. Please use newer secondary sources; articles on events that lack lasting impact may be merged, redirected, or deleted. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

See also here for my attempt at an essay on this topic: Wikipedia:Old news FOARP (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, FOARP. Tagging to get a better handle on the problem is certainly a reasonable first step. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

FOARP, this template could be really useful. COVID-19 alone will likely require its use hundreds of times. A few thoughts:

• I'm not sold on the name
  WP:PRIMARYNEWS
  , but that's just one idea. Contemporaneous and blow-by-blow also describe the issue pretty well, but the former isn't memorable and the latter is a little informal.
• It should probably be an orange tag to match its parent template: Template:Primary sources
• I'm not sure if "Articles slanted towards recent events" is the right category. It should either go into Category:Articles lacking reliable references or have its own category
• Maybe it should notify editors that articles risk being deleted if secondary sources can't be found.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose present wording of template. A cleanup template for violations of the policy WP:NOTNEWS ought to be based on the wording of the policy WP:NOTNEWS. For example, a template that said "This article may be written in news style" or "This article may treat breaking news differently from other information" would be acceptable, because that is actually forbidden by WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, Template:Old news does not appear to reflect what WP:NOTNEWS actually says. The policy does not mention "articles about historical events based on contemporaneous, blow-by-blow reporting" and this expression should not be linked to WP:NOTNEWS unless and until the policy actually says something about that type of article content. James500 (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@James500 - please feel free to go ahead an edit the template. FOARP (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Also:

WP:EVENT, and style issues are - if it was a straight-forward violation of NOTNEWS that was the problem, I'm pretty sure that we already have a template for that. FOARP (talk

) 11:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Thebiguglyalien - the name I'm inclined to keep as it is at least catchy and says what it is, but the other edits seem reasonable. FOARP (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm biased, but I like the name "old news" because it also suggests to people applying the template that we accept that as news unfolds, articles will inevitably develop in a certain way, but once it's old news, it should be improved in some way. It wouldn't be appropriate to apply this tag to current news. —siroχo 07:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think the greater issue is the cleanup than the creation. Current event articles tend to be so heavily editted so that any problematic additions are usually dealt with quickly. But whether the event has long standing significants is something that needs to be looked at, the new template is definitely a good idea. After the event rewriting and merging may be needed to place the event in its historical context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Perhaps we need to also add to NOTNEWS. Currently we say "Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." I think if we also add "Articles on breaking news with apparent importance may start off highly detailed, often incorporating
  prose line, but should be improved in the long term to better summarize the article, including the potential merger or deletion of news events that fail to show enduring importance." which would help justify the suggested template and certainly in line with expectations here. --Masem (t
  ) 00:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this edit in principle but if we’re going to change a policy we need a clear idea of where this is going (i.e, is it going to be an additional numbered bullet-point in

  WP:NOTNP

  ) and a notability guideline for events - but what we're talking about here is a content issue that is not really covered by any of these. I dislike the expansion of the MOS to cover content issues though there are style elements to this problem, but the MOS also has nothing really to say about this specifically AFAIK.

Actually, having thought about it, I'd support the making the suggested change (assuming it is a direct insert after the sentence "Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.") and I don't think a full RFC is needed on this unless someone demands it - lord knows we have enough RFCs advertised to CENT only to be basically be exhausting drama-fests! FOARP (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I intended it to only clarify that sentence (as that line alone I think appropriately justifies what we're talking about here, but clearly the point doesn't seem to get across). Would not need a whole new section. Now, if one were to start a guideline or essay page about how NOTNEWS should work, that would be different... Masem (t) 11:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Breaking news should be treated differently. Specifically, it should be treated as something that has been said and that might be totally wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm of the opinion that at most what we should do extra about an ongoing situation is simply allow it to be tagged as ongoing and liable to be wrong, the general Wikipedia caveat is not enough. Where Wikipedia is failing though is in getting round to eventually elimiating stuff that was a newspaper headline at the time but had no enduring notability. I fully support the ideas above of having tags for articles based on current news at the time but there has been enough time for a better analysis. And NOTNEWS should then support removing things which have shown no enduring interest. Though I have tried to say to other editors that something was just something to make a headline at the time and later sources have shown no interest and they just don't accept that NOTNEWS means we should just drop it a undue. There needs to be clear direction about that if articles are not to get filled with trivia. NadVolum (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• I just revisited
  WP:ITN for a while. It's back in the news because of the Sakharov Prize
  but seems that, in Iran, a crackdown is underway. So that's still an ongoing situation and the verdict of history is still pending.

Revisiting such news after a year can be instructive and so it would be interesting to have a main page section which combines elements of

OTD

, which does anniversaries. Newspapers and journals often republish their articles in a retrospective section which goes back 10, 50 or 100 years. Having such a section might help drive cleanup of breaking news articles.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Support Andre🚐 23:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Many newspapers are often amongst some of the most reliable and useful sources for history from the nineteenth century onwards. (There are, in particular, many books by historians that praise the reliability and utility of newspapers as sources for this period). We do not need to restrict the use of all newspapers generally as sources or to restrict the creation or retention of articles, or article content, based on all newspapers generally. James500 (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Newspapers can be reliable, but they are not generally secondary sources. Once you can demonstrate an event notable by secondary source, using primary sources to fill in the blanks, to speak, is completely fine. Masem (t) 21:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Newspapers very often are secondary sources, it depends. Andre🚐 22:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Most of what newspapers including the NYTimes and BBC is primary - first hand reporting. They do do analysis stories less often - a few times a week for the NYTimes for example - and those are secondary, but those are usually well after the event has first occurred and the writer has time to evaluate multiple angles on the story. These are usually the long-form pieces that we see and usually have an "analysis" byline, though not always. What we're seeing here is that most sources used in these developing stories are the primary parts of newspaper coverage, which should be replaced with secondary sources and summaries over time. Masem (t) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Nonetheless, I agree that the solution is not to restrict newspapers. Editors don't always understand what is primary breaking news reporting. But there is already plenty of "analysis" and deeper reporting on breaking news even within days sometimes. It's inevitable that there will be fewer secondary sources, and we should use primary sources with caution and not trust them implicitly, for breaking news stories. I'm not sure I like the "old news" idea either. There's nothing inherently wrong with an article that needs to be improved being improved with

  WP:NODEADLINE. Andre🚐

  23:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I fully agree that there is no deadline. However, I think tags like the proposed {{old news}} are a good way of noting the need to improve an article without need for a deadline. Otherwise many such articles get taken straight to AfD and people have to rush to find sources (and sometimes the articles don't even improve when sources are found, or are deleted despite sources being found or deleted without much input, because AfD is such a high throughput/low participation process). —siroχo 00:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is probably where we need a guideline or an essay to describe the life of a news event article typical of those on WP. Phase one is what's written as the event is occurring and immediate aftermath, and that's where its generally reasonable that primary sources are going to be used to hit all the details. But after some time, we do want those primary sources replaced or appended with secondary sources that show the event meets NEVENT and provides a better summary rather than the blow-by-blow that it was created with. Masem (t) 01:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  An essay might be good, but the clarifications I would want to suggest are 1) the use of caution of primary sources isn't an absolute prohibition, and primary sources might remain in conjunction with secondary sources, they shouldn't necessarily be removed (you acknowledge, by saying replaced or appended), 2) there isn't a precise time window that distinguishes phases, as it's a continuous, and discretionary spectrum/judgment zone left intentionally vague to allow for consensus and decentralization, 3) while it's original research to write articles interpreting primary sources e.g. interviews or eyewitness accounts, it's not necessarily a primary source when a news org is writing detailed analysis or further discussion that's 1 step removed from the out-of-horse's-mouth reporting. That line is up to interpretation. Here's a nice summation from a research librarian or archivist who works at the

  University of Nebraska that I found.[26] Newspaper articles can be either primary or secondary sources. A newspaper article that documents an eyewitness account of an event would be a primary source. Alternatively, a newspaper article may be research-based, which makes it a secondary source. So it's the content, and not the timing, that makes the source primary or secondary. And sometimes, a primary source may be reasonable for factual information, if it's been researched, as opposed to a primary source like Congressional testimonies that can be attributed only because it's possibly untrue or significantly biased. Andre🚐

  02:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• A prohibition on news sources less than one year old would sort it and hugely improve the encyclopedia and community IMO. But this will never happen because
  WP:NOTNEWS is a potemkin policy. Everybody knows that Wikipedia does a lot of breaking news stuff (badly) and huge numbers of editors live for it. Wouldn't do to spoil the fun! Bon courage (talk
  ) 05:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• To give an example of where I think we want guidance; overnight (as I write this), a UN school hosting Gaza refugees was hit by an airstrike, killing several. It is one of several such strikes in that conflict, but there's no immediate indication that this particular strike is going to have lasting impact above and beyond the conflict itself. Yet we have someone racing to create an article on it
  Al-Fakhoora school airstrike. In a situation like this Gaza conflict, we should be encouraging that we focus on not necessarily trying to assess individual events being as notable as the whole, but instead making timelines and other similar summary articles to have documentation and sources that can be used to build better summaries down the road - or if its just one incident of many, maybe remove completely.

  I think some take how detailed our coverage of both World Wars as a sign of how detailed we can be, but in the cases of the World Wars we have had 100+ and 80+ years of historical analysis and student to explain key battles and strategies that make almost every major battle notable on its own. That's fine - that's how we should follow the long-term sources, and that's what we want to guide editors towards. --Masem (t
  ) 14:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I warmly agree with every word of that, though am uncertain what policy tweaks would help get us there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think we can enforce that under policy, though we could add something to NEVENT; but we do desperately need a guideline or essay about how the life of a current event article might look like and the expectations for editors to clean it up over time. Masem (t) 15:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand why someone wanted to make this edit, but I think profile is too ambiguous to include. While people at the Teahouse and Help Desk may encounter various noobs talking about "profiles" in the social media sense, that kind of page is already covered by "résumé" in the policy, and it seems very likely to me that "profile" being included would be used to hassle editors who choose to tell, on their own user page, other editors what their education/professional background is, what their interests here are, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Your userpage is a user profile. It's can be very different to a social media user profile, and may or may not tell you anything explicit about the user (but choosing not to reveal any information about yourself is a profile choice) but it is a user profile. The sort of thing that I expect this is intending to prohibit is already covered by

WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. Thryduulf (talk

) 10:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

And essentially the same issue with this edit, which came after an attempt to revert to the version above, despite multiple editors objecting to it. If TEAHOUSE want to create a "WP:PROFILE" shortcut that points to this section, that's up to them, but this policy has no reason to actively advertise that shortcut when it is misleading/confusing. Any given policy section may have 20 or more shortcuts, and we don't list them all. I think that undiscussed change should be undone also.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we add a footnote to this example? Like something that says that its a 1 followed by 174 zeros ^[a] TimeEngineer (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Is NOTNEWS time limited? I had an argument a while back that 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events' meant they should not be trawling archives of newspapers from thirty years ago when there were recent biographies. Basically if it something would have failed NOTNEWS years ago then a good argument would need to be made to include it now if nobody had shown any inerest since. The argument against was that NOTNEWS only applies to current events and they thought the stuff was interesting. Which way do people feel about this? NadVolum (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No, NOTNEWS applies to past events as well. But that doesn't mean primary sources from the past at the time of events can't be used to support a topic that is otherwise considered notable (eg already has secondary sources). Masem (t) 16:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Old newspapers and such are often vital for details in topics (with notability already established through other, better sources), like historical sports figures, especially in sports like

balkline billiards that don't get much modern coverage. Like any primary source, they can be abused. E.g., using a "scandal" in newspapers of 1893 to try to justify a section on controvery would be bogus, because what was scandalous then often is not now, and if the event in question had anything to do with encyclopedic coverage of the subject, it would probably be mentioned in a more modern and secondary source (e.g. when the then-scandal has a major impact on the course of the subject's life). That said, this stuff also has long-term implications for the crap state of lot of our articles on present-day celebs, which tend toward being litanies of whatever the entertainment press has been saying about them lately, 90% or so of which is trivia of no lasting significance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  16:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say routine coverage that pops up in the short period before the event, and shortly after the event every year but not talked about again beyond this would fall under NOTNEWS. I am talking about something like DJ Fat Rabbit will be having Gingerbread theme party for Xmas 2023 at xy bar; and a follow up article that says how that party was. It is especially true when it is sourced to newspapers whose revenue source is from event hosts posting these ads. Graywalls (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, should companies, such as record labels, studios have an exhaustive list of albums released through them? What about for artists/bands? Should publisher page have an exhaustive list of books? How about authors? Graywalls (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

A list of works made by the creative person or group (like a band or author) should be included, but typically not for the publisher, who does not have creative input to those works. Instead a publisher is more likely to have a list of bands or authors that are signed with them. Masem (t) 16:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What about selection discretion in the ubiquitous "Selected Work" sections common in BLP and author articles? Graywalls (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As long as we're talking a creative person or group with a lot of releases, usually there's a separate page for the full list of their works, and the selected works are based on local consensus though usually on those with critical praise. Masem (t) 01:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it could be any other way, given that what proportion of works should be selected and what the selection criteria should be will vary significantly depending on the individual person. For example the article about a prolific author who has multiple notable long series will probably mention at most 1 or 2 books per series, even if the third most notable book in series A got more critical praise than the most notable one in series B. In contrast the article for an author whose books are all stand-alone works will more likely take the most critically praised. However, if one work was significantly controversial then that one should be mentioned even if it got less praise than some others. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In this phrase:

(e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election)

please change "have been moved" to "were moved". The present perfect makes it sound recent, but presumably this movement happened over a decade ago, so the past tense is more suitable. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done --Masem (t) 01:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed some questionable Photos and Captions on this page For instance, here where the link underneath an image of the 2004 Yellow Pages for Auckland, New Zealand. yes (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

As this is a policy page, these are meant to be humorous or non-serious additions to break up this wall of text. No issues with these. Masem (t) 18:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

First, change WP in the NOTFORUM section to Wikipedia for consistency, and second, in the very last part, add the article "an" between "outcomes is not" and "official policy". Thanks! 102.40.79.94 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Airlines destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

CEO/co-directors, defintiely; however what about articles listing out board members, committee members and so on? Graywalls (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Titmouse, Inc.. The section in dispute is Filmography. I feel it ought to be omitted as it's just a catalog of products, although some editors are arguing it should be retained. Please provide feedback. Graywalls (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Re Special:MobileDiff/1208488332

To me it seems obvious that this isn’t the kind of thing “Wikipedia is not a guidebook” is intended to address. The purpose of this section is to explain what the organization does, not to orient tourists. Curious to hear other opinions. Prezbo (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The concerns there is more of

WP:DUE issue as I feel that your removal of reliably sourced unflattering contents while embellishing what the organization wants to prominently feature. Graywalls (talk

) 01:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like shifting rationales/moving goalposts. It’s a judgment call how much negative content is “due.” I have a feeling that if I left it up to you every article about a harm reduction org would be a hatchet job. However you’ll probably get what you want here because you’re more committed to Wikipedia than I am and no one else is interested in getting involved. All I can do is leave a bit of a record for future Wikipedia archaeologists. Prezbo (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I took a quick look. It is a content discussion with many factors in play. Your post here implies that there was a claimed violation of this policy and that such was the sole basis for the removal. Neither is the case and so I think that this is better handled on the talk page of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There was in fact a claimed violation of this policy, fwiw. At least, that was how I read the linked edit summary. Prezbo (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we have a lot of problems in various other policies (like BLP and NPOV) which are arising from what I see is excessively detailed coverage of current events. For example, we still have hundreds of articles created covering COVID as it happened day-to-day based only on primary sources (newspapers), which now need massive trimming to be summaries of more milestone events (for example Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Texas but pretty much any country/state article in this mess) As another example, United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family is above an investigation that only started on Feb 8 and yet is 50k+ of prose. Note that this level of detail is probably more appropriate on Wikinews, just not on Wikipedia which is to summarize reliable sources.
The prose of NOT#NEWS suggests one should not write this way, but obviously this is not coming into writing of these articles. I think part of the issue is that NOT#NEWS doesn't direct editors to write more in a summary style for news events, at least until we have far-removed secondary sources (like acadaemic works) that give us an idea to what level of detail is appropriate. For example, we do cover many of the battles in WWII in high detail but that's because in the half-century since that war, there's been hundreds of books that have focused on those details. That's not going to happen for these current event articles for at least a decade, so we really need more restrait in trying to keep these up to date.
How we go about fixing that language, I don't immediately know, but we do need to do something here. — Masem (t) 23:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

When something like COVID hits policy goes out the Window and it's simply impossible to stop editors doing all the things they shouldn't. And AP2 is currently irredeemable. The underlying issue is that editors largely don't understand that news reporting is generally not a proper basis for writing encyclopedic content. I suspect many editors rather, think the opposite. Bon courage (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• The process of turning current affairs into history obviously takes time. And when writing summaries, you have to start with the detail. In the case of COVID, the official summaries and postmortems are still being written -- see the UK COVID-19 Inquiry. It's obviously unrealistic to expect Wikipedia to wait until they are complete because, typically, they are never completed. For example, the JFK assassination is still ongoing news and we may never get a complete explanation.

  "Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes."

  — Robert Watson-Watt

  Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think we should wait until "complete" because that's not a definable endpoint. Serious measures to nip the problem in the bud might include:

  • Shut down ITN
  • Prohibit use of any source younger than 1 week old
  • Have anew breaking news template that says "Wikipedia by design does not cover breaking news and all information is at least 1 week old"

  That sort of thing would cool the problem down. But this'll never happen because too many editors are heavily invested in making Wikipedia a Dashboard-of-now, rather than an encyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Those changes would only solve the issue of coverage of things that are unclearly encyclopaedic or not encyclopaedic and lead to much worse outcomes for things are clearly encyclopaedic. Things that are clearly encyclopaedic are and should be covered from the moment reliable sources become available - what would be the benefit of waiting a week to cover the deaths of notable people, elections of national leaders or major earthquakes? Things that are clearly not encyclopaedic mostly aren't added, and those that are get reverted or deleted pretty quickly so there isn't any problem that needs solving. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, but it should always be an up-to-date encyclopaedia, not an encyclopaedia of last week. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'd agree there's a problem (there are editors using telegram channels as sources because there the only source for up to the minute details), but I don't think that's the solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  On one hand, I am broadly in favor of some manner of cutting down on the breaking-news crap; a lot of the worst and dumbest articles we have are the result of people mashing f5 on their rss feed for the 4 days something is in the news cycle and then forgetting about it in approx two seconds when told there is a new thing to get mad about (e.g. the famous, and ubiquitous, hour-by-hour proseline that is written in the current tense..... six years out of date).

  On the other hand I think that a lot of our best and smartest articles are also the result of that. jp×g🗯️ 22:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem with the vast piles of covidcruft is not so much that Wikipedians were obsessed, but that society in general was obsessed. At the time, I recall there having been news articles written about the heroism of Wikipedia editors in documenting the pandemic. I imagine that a Wikipedia of 1943 would have had a lot of world-war cruft with multiple pages for every day of battles and movements and et cetera, and we would also have had to trim that at some later point. jp×g🗯️ 18:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

... and the social historians coming afterwards would have been greatly relieved that the trimmed material was still in the history rather than not having been written in the first place. Thincat (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I had not read this for a while and was just refreshing myself. The opening line says The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere. So based upon the above, as there is data recorded elsewhere, do we not need to bother about creating an encyclopedia at all? I know it's a flippant comment, but that is how it reads. Should we actually not reword this to say something like "The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, however Wikipedia, as per encyclopedias in general, does not aim to contain every known piece of information on a subject." Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I may be being dense but I don't get there's a significant distinction. Wikipedia does aim to replicate everything from everywhere. Bon courage (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data" is the bit that doesn't make sense. So digital encyclopedias can't hold every bit of data? We just need to make it clearer. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No encyclopedia aims to contain all information, but only a summary of information. It's a first step to look at if one wants more info on a topic but should never be the final one. — Masem (t) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, so the wording should say that. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

simply by saying we're an encyclopedia should implicitly cover that. Encyclopedias don't try to cover everything in general. Masem (t) 16:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Masem in principle, but there are people who do not know this, including people who edit Wikipedia. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I read it as: "Being "data" does not automatically mean it should be in Wikipedia". But further refining the first sentences (or this policy) might be a good thing. BTW by the most useful definitions, "information" does not mean data. By those definitions, thinning out data usually increases the information content. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I proposed the word information instead of data, as the Cambridge English Dictionary gives the description: Data - information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered and used to help decision-making, or information in an electronic form that can be stored and used by a computer. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I would support rewording that sentence to your proposed one. data or expression is vague. Some1 (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The "therefore" seems unsupported - it presumably means, as Masem says, "No encyclopedia aims to contain all information, but only a summary of information", but that is not glaringly obvious. Some rewording is probably a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• So how about: The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, however Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, does not aim to contain all information, but only a summary of the information on a subject. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  It would be better to say 'summary of accepted knowledge' rather than 'information' to align with the goal stated later (and also with what encyclopedias are). Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have no problem with that. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't that too limited? WP:NOT excludes some stuff, not just requires things to be summarised. I would suggest all that needs to be done to the existing text is to add something that makes it clear that "all" is meant literally there. Eg "does not aim to contain absolutely all data or expression" or underline or italicise "all". Something like that. DeCausa (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, I think at this point it seems the original text opens (or can be seen to open) some cans of worms. Perhaps we should take it back to the metal and rebuild. What is the point of this text? isn't it just saying, in effect, just because Wikipedia has practically unlimited space doesn't mean you need to fill it, since an encyclopedia is selective by its nature. This sets up the context for

  WP:NOT as a policy (describing things which should be selected out). Bon courage (talk

  ) 10:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Some of these are covered by other policies. I think that this policy is focused on dealing with cases where there is legit data (which might be information in some contexts) that still doesn't belong in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Of those categories, I think the only ones relevant to this policy are summarisation and likeliness of being useful to readers:

• Accuracy and verifiability (these are the same thing):
  WP:V
• Bias/agendas:
  WP:NPOV
• Utility to readers:
  WP:DUE
  )
• Quality of presentation:
  WP:MoS
• Summarisation:
  WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Thryduulf (talk
  ) 15:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I view information as an answer to a question, and so is context sensitive. If I ask two credible people to tell me a good barber in Chicago and one gives me one phone number and the other Googles "barbers in Chicago" and gives me a list of 1,000, in that context the person who gave me the one phone number gave me more information. So for Wikipedia, the question is whether it answers questions which people would come to an enclyclopedia for. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

They gave you not just information but knowledge (assuming their recommendation is grounded & good). But the problem here is that this text can open up the whole debate about the ontology of data/information/knowledge/wisdom. Isn't the point being made a lot more simple: just because we're digital doesn't mean we need to be over-expansive. I suppose it's a counter to the argument one sometimes comes across "there's plenty of room on the servers, so no reason why my additions can't stand". I wonder now if we even need to be saying this? Bon courage (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the point is that while we theoretically could include everything (legal and verifiable) in practice we don't because there is consensus we shouldn't. The policy sets out the general types of content we don't include and why we don't include it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Very true. I think that this "foundation" conversation (including the reasons for the consensus that you refer to) is useful towards potential further tweaks on this policy. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Starting with: we're not "the internet" we're an enclyclopedia. North8000 (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This (differences between an enclyclopedia and the internet) is a good comment. I just wanted to draw attention to it. It describes the consensus well, I think. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on some of the conversation, how about this: Although the amount of information Wikipedia can hold is practically unlimited, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and like all encyclopedias, it does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The sentence is getting pretty long. You could drop the first part and no information would be lost. Even shorter, you could say Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections to that. Its far better than what we have. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I also think that leaving that first part off would be good. A second reason is that it a bit works against the main sentence. I encourage the effort on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

On second read, it is a little weird to describe what an encyclopedia is not without a little more about what an encyclopedia is. For brevity, I might suggest:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a
  summary style
  reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject.

I think it helps editors to note the style of writing for an encyclopedia is, so they don't go down the rabbit hole with databases, archived news posts, and so on. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage@DeCausa@Johnbod@Masem@NadVolum@North8000@Shooterwalker@Some1 Do you think Shooterwalker idea is best way forward. Do you think we need an RFC or just name the change? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Something along those lines is good with me — Masem (t) 13:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should change and Shooterwalker's idea looks great. Let's make sure we have the details worked out (e.g. exactly what is being replaced?) and have a consensus here and just do it. It's not a policy change, just a wording tune-up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a clear improvement. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I like Shooterwalker's proposal. - Enos733 (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Shooterwalker's proposal looks good to me. To answer North8000's question, I'm assuming this is a change to the first bullet point of the "This page in a nutshell:" box. Some1 (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"[A] reference work in

summary style that does not aim to contain all known information or data, or everything that has been expressed on a subject." I would quite happily change "all known information or data" to "all knowledge", which is already in the opening lines. Ham II (talk

) 17:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ham II I think the online encyclopedia idea has been agreed by the others that it is not really relevant anymore. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the point of 'The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited'. It may have meant something inthe past when encyclopaedias were books but it dosn't really say anything much today hen people use smartphones and discs hold hundred or thousands of gigabytes. It should be removed as a bit of dated chest thumping. NadVolum (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm inclined to agree. I think this hearkens from an age where this new-fangled digital stuff was unfamiliar, and we needed to point out that people shouldn't go mad given the huge storage space on tap! Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It not only has no useful meaning, it confuses the issue and does harm to the point being made. North8000 (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)