Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May - July 2007) Topic: "Unencyclopedic" (2003) Topic: Trivia (July 2007 - ongoing; partially archived)

WP:NOTPLOT replacement

Written by Masem, and has been agreed to by him, myself and Gavin with Shoemaker's Holiday largely on board. So I think we have something. "Concise" going to continue to be a point of debate, but...

(Wikipedia is not) Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including aspects of development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary, but these ultimately should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted. For more information on writing about fiction, see Manual of Style (Writing about Fiction).

Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Some infelicitous language ("Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary, but these ultimately should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted." seems to lose track of what it's talking about part-way through), but let's implement it as another step in consensus-building and work on tweaks after. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd actually prefer to update "as written" and then worry about the tweaking. I have a fear of the tweaking resulting in no consensus and I'd _really_ like to see this done. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I contacted a few editors who have been involved in these discussion about this in an attempt to get enough folks. I think I picked the "right" people (Kww, Randomran, Protonk, Pixelface), but feel free to notify others. This is not an attempt to bias anything and I'm sure they are all watching this page, but I wanted to get them here quickly to reach consensus quickly if possible. If we get most or all of them on board I think we can update NOTPLOT.Hobit (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary" does not work for me - it is basically a get out of jail for free card. This should be changed to "Articles on such works that contain only plot summary should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into an article that does, if outright deletion is to be avoided". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That language is too prescriptive ("Fix it or it's gone") for policy, and also is a bit too harsh per the RFC feedback. The way I've worded it, it takes into account WP:IMPERFECT implicitly, and is more descriptive. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Change only to primarily or essentially only, and I'm happy. I really detest the the fictional equivalent of WP:COATRACK articles: a bit of casting info used to justify 90 paragraphs of plot retelling. To address Masem's point, perhaps change should either be expanded to must be expandable, which would stress potential over actuality.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If Masem wants to get rid of the perscriptive language, then he has to get rid of all of it, not just those bits that he likes. I would go along with Kww on the grounds that the guidance offered is clear, but no exemption or loophole based on WP:IMPERFECT is acceptable. Rememeber, userfication is better than creating a class of articles that is permanently imperfect. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I thought you'd agreed with what Masem wrote yesterday. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no prescriptive language in my version ("should", not "must"). But the issue is that in the RFC, people pointed out that PLOT was being used to delete works-in-progress. I agree we don't want plot-only articles to fest indefinitely, but at the same time, there's no deadline either. That's why "ultimately" implies that if you don't work on getting past plot-only, it could be merged away at any time. Yes, your suggested wording says that too, but it says with a heavy hand, which we should avoid. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

MASEM, I agree with your sentiments, but think you've left a loophole in your wording - "should" can mean "preferably" or it can be interpreted as "must". You migth want to be more explicit. --Philcha (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually like "should" here. I read it as "are to be" which is less demanding than "must" but covers the same ground. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on everything I've seen, WP policies generally follow the MoSCoW Method for verbage; for example, the WP:BLP is one of the few places where we use "must" and make it descriptive; everywhere else "should" and "could" are better verbs. As this is still policy, "should" fits fine - it's advisable to follow it within the spirit of WP:IAR - with logical and common sense exceptions. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Kww, which of the "onlys" are you suggesting this for? And I prefer the original language over Gavin's suggestion even with Kww's fix (which does improve it, but still is significantly stronger than I could support.) Hobit (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"... containing only a plot summary ..." to " ... containing primarily a plot summary ..." or "... containing essentially only a plot summary ...".—Kww(talk) 15:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad I asked, I figured the other one. I can get behind "containing essentially only a plot summary" if that brings you on-board. Masem, you okay with that? Hobit (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to several of these, but I couldn't get behind "primarily" in this case: That's fine for a guideline, but this is meant to be the most basic of basic policies. I honestly still think we're going way too prescriptive for basic policy even as it is, but am willing to withdraw my objection for the moment, in the interest of allowing some reasonable consensus to be worked in to the currently edit-protected page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with "primarily" or "essentially"; my concern was on Gavin's suggest that deletion will happen, which should still be descriptive (as we allow for things like episode lists and lists of characters, but I'd concern those as part of a larger topic). --MASEM (t) 23:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:NOT#PLOT needs to be removed. Enough already. Policy must have wide acceptance among editors and by all indications, a section on plot summaries in this policy never will. This has gotten insane. It's as if people who don't want WP:NOT#PLOT removed think no plot-only article will ever be deleted again if it is removed. The proposed replacement completely ignores plot-only articles where there is no consensus to delete (or merge) like Fictional history of Spider-Man [1] [2] and Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) [3] [4] and so on.[5]

Masem says "we don't want plot-only articles to fest indefinitely." Who's "we"? Certainly none of the people who argued to keep in those AFDs. Speak for yourself. An article about a fictional character, like Iago, is going to be, for the most part, a plot summary. The "development, critical reception, and legacy" of Iago, while perhaps nice to have, is by no means a requirement. Enter Iago into Wolfram Alpha: A fictional character who is the villain in William Shakespeare's tragedy who tricked Othello into murdering his wife.[6] That would be an okay stub on Wikipedia (and not much shorter than the initial draft).

I already suggested a rewrite of WP:NOT#PLOT in January, but the time for rewrites is over. It's done. People need to stop turning policies into their wishlists and start describing what's actually done, in article space. Enough page protections every few days. Enough bandwidth wasted on what's become the NOTPLOT talkpage. The majority of people in the straw poll above said that WP:NOT should not include a section on plot summaries. What is so difficult for some people to understand? It's over. --Pixelface (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I want to note for the record that I largely agree with Pixelface, but I don't see that in the immediate future thus my effort to find some kind of a compromise. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If every slightest attempt at compromise on the part of those of us who object is going to be turned into hard-line deletionist crap, as seen below, then I think we should ask for it to be deleted. It would be clear that no consensus would ever be possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected Edit?

• I'd say we are at the point we should be asking for a change by an independent admin. I think we have general agreement. Masem, if you agree would you request that edit? I think the only change we are looking at from your wording is adding essentially. I realize we don't have Gavin or Pixelface on-board, but I think getting Kww, Masem, Shoemaker's Holiday and myself in agreement is enough to request that edit. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• You misunderstood. I was replying to Gavin, and was agreeing with Gavin's wording, and making suggestions based on Gavin's wording. Gavin's concerns about a "get out of jail free" card are legitimate. That said, I won't be an obstacle. Go ahead if you must.—Kww(talk) 03:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear then, the wording we have agreed upon is as under:

Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including coverage of its development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works that containing essentially only a plot summary should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into an article that does, if outright deletion is to be avoided. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I think this is fairly concise, and adds an element of guidance about rectification that Masem has added. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's not what I agreed to. I can't agree with the heavy-handed pro-deletion. Indeed, I think that's stronger than the version that caused the controversy. I think that's completely unacceptable. This is the version I agreed to:

“ Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including aspects of development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary, but these ultimately should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted. For more information on writing about fiction, see Manual of Style (Writing about Fiction). ”

That one says they generally should not be deleted; yours, that they always should be unless people immediately improve them. Are you actually interested in working to achieve consensus? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hobit, the fact that I'm not on board is irrelevant. The fact that a majority of editors said this policy should not include a section on plot summaries[7], however, is relevant. Why are those editors being ignored? --Pixelface (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I still agree it should be removed. In fact the latest DrV I've been involved in makes me think it really needs to be removed. But finding consenous for that is nearly impossible. I also think the fact that there isn't consensus for NOT#PLOT means it should be removed. But I didn't get anywhere with that (even though reading policy any other way is nearly impossible). So I took the low-hanging fruit and worked to improve it rather than remove it. If someone else wants to work to remove it, they have my endorsement but I've been warn down by the discussion and want to duck out. Some improvement was better than no improvement (which is where I think we were otherwise headed). I'm actually quite pleased we got somewhere and worry that doing so will reduce the odds of actually getting rid of this silly thing. But bird-in-hand was taken. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding the change I thought Kww had suggested and SH had agreed to. Just a one-word change from what SH had written.

“ Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not essentially be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including aspects of development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary, but these ultimately should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted. For more information on writing about fiction, see Manual of Style (Writing about Fiction). ”

• Kww, Masem and SH: can you all live with that? As with Kww I'm not really endorsing this as I think it's still the "wrong thing", but I think it's the best comprise we are likely to get... Aslo, Gavin, can you explain why you agreed with this when Masem proposed it in the section above, but now don't? What changed?Hobit (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally agreed with Masem approach, because it represents a concise way of wording the prohibition for plot only articles, but providing a temporary licence for plot only articles is not necessary. The phrase " Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary" is such a licence, an is effectively an exemption from WP:V which requires articles to contain coverage that independent of their primary source. I can't imagaine why you would think how this is supposed to work: one part of this version says plot only articles are not allowable and the other says they are. The conflict between is hard to accept, as Wikipedia can't cater for a class of articles that don't fit within its framework or policies and guidelines, otherwise we would need to have some sort of editorial board to regulate such articles, even if they were allowed to exist on a temporary basis.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, WP:IMPERFECT implicitly applies to every NOT phrase including PLOT; technically we don't need it. The problem is , as expressed by several no !votes in the RFC, is that PLOT is used to target articles that are works in progress. In the spirit of reaching consensus, it is necessary to reassert that plot-only articles are starting points but not valid final articles and are expected to improve or be merged in time; in what time frame and how to resolve plot-only articles is an exercise left to other policy and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can live with it as an updating of the compromise. I don't think it should be our final word on the matter. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary" is basically an invitiation to spam plot only articles, and it can't stand. You may as well say "Articles about living persons may start with slander" or "Articles may start with orginal research". Are you kidding?--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A plot summary is an acceptable part of an article; on the other hand, slander and original research are never appropriate, thus this is not a valid comparison. Yes, someone could create articles on every episode of a show, but that could happen with or without this statement, and the second half of that statement along with other policies and guidelines will deal with those that are just spamming those out and those that believe they are acting in good faith. The only way to prevent what you are asking is to modify WP:CSD to include plot-only articles, and I'm pretty sure that will never fly. In other words, there is nothing that we can do in NOT to prevent what you're concerned with. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

But plot summary on its own is not acceptable for the same reason as slander or original reseach; it can't be regulated within the frame of Wikipedia style and content polices. The distinction between plot only articles and plot summary as part of balance coverage is very different (like a dinner comprised only of salt or a dinner sprinkled with salt), so using this excuse to water down the prohibition is not acceptable. The wording can't conflict between its objective (plot only articles are not allowed) and its implimentation (plot summary only articles are allowed temporarilty). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there's a huge difference. Slander and original research cannot be improved into an article and must be removed on sight. On the other hand, plot summaries can be improved. If your goal here is to try to ban plot-only articles at any time, you're not going to succeed. The goal here is to discourage them as much as possible and suggest alternatives, but WP:NOT cannot prevent the creation of potentially useful material. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the goal was to discourage plot summary in cases where it is very unlikely that the article will ever be substantially more than that. Rd232 ^talk 17:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Masem, your claim that plot-only articles are not valid final articles is blatantly false. Don't try and pass off your personal opinion as if it were fact. Your view flies in the face of multiple AFDS where editors felt plot-only articles were acceptable.[8] --Pixelface (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say we are in as much agreement as we are likely to get. Masem, if you agree, I think you should propose the edit formally. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see a much stronger demonstration of consensus than just 4 or 5 editors before changing it. Whether that's a new RFC or just a straw poll, I don't know. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I'd say it's in your court. What's the plan? Hobit (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Further, I don't think an article that could normally be edited by anyone with an account really requires an RfC or straw poll. We already have an RfC that shows there is no consensus for this to even be here and thus, per WP:POLICY it should either be removed or tagged as lacking consensus. I don't see what an RfC or straw poll can hope to accomplish at this point beyond what has already been done with the last one. Hobit (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Before we make this and establish this as policy, I want to avoid all the issues with its dubiousness as Pixelface and others have pointed out that the original addition of PLOT had, and make sure that in the current phrasing that it is acceptable. An RFC noting that this wording attempts to address those issues from the previous RFC should be sufficient that as long as agreed to by consensus, the long past disputes over PLOT will no longer matter. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I view this as a stop-gap. If you are asking people to accept this and withdraw all concerns about PLOT even being here, I really don't think you'll find any language that will get consensus. Heck, I can't support that. And given that half the people in the last RfC felt it shouldn't be here, that's a sense of consenous that won't get met. Is that what you are looking for? Hobit (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't viewing it as such; understandably that would be fine, but before changing, I'd like to know what the next step is in the first place. To me, it seems most were looking to a reword based on RFC comments to finalize this, but if this is only a temp step, there's been no talk of what's next. --MASEM (t) 02:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but after we get something I'm going to walk away from this issue: I'm just warn down. If there is another RfC and I notice, I'll !vote to remove PLOT from here. But I want _something_ positive to get done as a result of the RfC before I pack it in. Hobit (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you would like to avoid the issues Masem, but unfortunately for you, you can't. I'm right, you're wrong, and you have put me through absolute hell. WP:NOT#PLOT did not have consensus to be policy[9] when it was initially proposed, and an admin closed an RFC merely 9 days ago where a majority of editors said WP:NOT should not include a section on plot summaries, with the closing admin saying "There is no consensus on whether NOT should include a section on plot summaries or not." Policies must have wide acceptance among editors. So in what world could the current phrasing possibly be acceptable? One would have to ignore that the RFC ever happened.

WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy, which is what I've been trying to tell you for over a year now. And what a long goddamn year it's been. WP:NOT#PLOT has never had consensus to be policy. What is preventing you from understanding that? I am sick and tired of your repeated attempts to plug your ears and bury your head in the sand. You think you can change the outcome of the RFC merely 9 days later, just because you commented in the "Yes" section? I'm sorry, but where exactly did the editors who commented in the "No" section agree to the current wording? And for you to say "the long past disputes over PLOT will no longer matter", you would have to be completely insane, which, now that I think of it, is actually beginning to make a lot of sense to me. Enough is enough. I'll remove WP:NOT#PLOT myself. For the last time. I hope. --Pixelface (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In scanning through the discussion above, I don't think I saw the following point touched on -- how about non-notable episodes of otherwise-notable shows? If 90% of, say, the Star Trek articles have plot summaries with details about reception etc., do we have to delete the articles of the 10% that disappeared without a splash? (Actually, the example I was thinking of, the episode that took place on Memory Alpha, is probably a bad example -- although that's the only memorable thing about that episode, it's passed into fairly wide use...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we're all worn down. If we can get some agreed temporary wording, I suspect a month's break wold be the next step, followed by a review of what happens in that time. If we can't, I dunno. Delete it as no consensus? I'd prefer, though, to have a compromise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Sarek, they don't need to be deleted, but the coverage of their development, critical reception, and legacy should be expanded. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Shoemaker, I have suggested a compromise. If you are unhappy with this wording, please say why and perhaps we can work towards a form of words that is acceptable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I did say why: It completely ignored all previous discussion by coming out much stronger pro-instant-deletion even than the phrasing that started all of this. That's not a compromise, that's a... not sure of the word... landgrab? If you want to compromise, you're going to have to accept that saying that all articles with more plot summaries than real-world information should be deleted on sight, or heavily edited to remove said summaries isn't going to fly. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As for what to do next, I will offer up the option of another RFC (yes, I know, tiring) but with 4 options:

• The revised version to stay in NOT, based on the feedback of the previous RFC to identify the areas that others felt failed the systems, as the option to keep PLOT in NOT. (This option does open for possibly rewordings to improve, but does not ask for a drastic diversion from it.)
• The option to create a new page to house PLOT as a policy, but not in NOT.
• The option to move PLOT to WAF
• The option to completely remove any statement like PLOT from any policy or guideline.

Unlike the previous RFC which didn't really provide for a good followup, the results of this consensus pretty much should be impossible to disagree on interpretation, and thus a direct action can be taken as a result and lay to rest (for at least a month :) any disagreement about PLOT on its outcome. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that What PLOT is meant to be is still uncertain. Is it a deletion policy for articles with too much plot? Does it insist that plot summaries be kept short until real-world material substantially balances it? Or is it simply a statement that articles should seek to move away from being mainly focused on plot summaries as soon as possible? It makes a big difference. If we don't decide what PLOT is, where it's meant to go is meaningless. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In answer to Shoemaker's earlier post, I think you exagerate when you say "all articles with more plot summaries than real-world information should be deleted on sight, or heavily edited to remove said summaries". Masem's wording never suggested this, nor did my amendments. But we could change the wording so that it is less prescriptive:

Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including coverage of its development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works that containing essentially only a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I feel we are quite close to a compromise. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe I over-reacted. If I might just tweak the wording for grammar and style

Plot-only description of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real-world context of the work, (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting. Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I've bolded a couple minor changes in meaning. For the record:

• "such as": Some works won't have information on one or more of these; for instance, little can be said of the development of an anonymous work.
• "reasonably concise": In some articles, with lengthy, sourced analysis of the plot, the plot is necessarily longer. See most FAs.
• "plot, characters, and setting": This is probably clearer than "fictional content", while meaning the same thing.
• "literary analysis": Perhaps a little book-centric, but if it's possible to analyse the plot, we should encourage people to do so by all means.

I also rearranged some things for clarity, such as giving real world context before plot, characters and setting, to simplify the sentence structure. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That wording is clear but flexible and has my support. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Note that I've made a tiny tweak: I had accidentally deleted "legacy" from the list. I also put the list into parentheses, to help readers a little bit more. If you're happy with this, I'm happy.

One possibility instead of "literary analysis" might be "sourced analysis of the fictional elements" (more generic, though a little wordy)Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am good with this as written (without the changes SH just proposed ideally). I don't see the need for an RfC at this time however. If we find language that Gavin, Masem, SH, and I can all live with I think an RfC is not needed. If this weren't a protected article we'd certainly make the change without it. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the language too - however, it would be nice to get a few more hands to confirm it before seeking a protected edit request (and to make this totally legit, even though I could do it, I would rather not be the one to make the edit just to any possible COI issues. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd just request the protected edit if nothing changes in the next 24 hours. I certainly agree you shouldn't do it. I'd say a request to the protecting admin would be the way to go. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, I'm proposing we go with the text in the last box written by SH (but, of course, without the bolding of the added terms). Hobit (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, now that it is no longer protected, I suggest it would be fine (and probably ideal) for Masem to make the change. Hobit (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I know I have contributed nothing here since the WP:FICT era months ago, but I do read - and personally, I like it. — Ched :  ?  21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I already thanked Gavin, but thanks to everyone who was involved. I think we did a fairly good job. Hobit (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I too am glad we worked this out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Nothing was worked out. A majority of editors said this policy should not include a section on plot summaries[10], so why are those editors being ignored and why are people still trying to rewrite WP:NOT#PLOT when it obviously does not belong here? --Pixelface (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I count 69 no, and 66 yes; not much of a majority (WP:NOT a democracy). Also if there's any sampling bias here, who do you think it favours? Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Please read WP:POLICY. We should not have policies that lack consensus to exist. This one clearly does. Pixelface is in the right, but the current version of NOTPLOT is the best I think that could be achieved. If we actually followed our own policies, NOTPLOT would be long gone. Hobit (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Who said Wikipedia was a democracy? Policies must have wide acceptance among editors. Over half of the editors in the straw poll said this policy should not have a section about plot summaries, and WP:NOT#PLOT is about plot summaries. Is that what you call wide acceptance? Regarding bias, I can't say for sure, but I'd say many of the participants are people who are familiar with {{cent}}, or who follow policy talkpages regularly, which I'm guessing inflates the yes numbers. People who write plot-only articles probably don't spend much time in WT space, but people who hate plot-only articles have every motivation to express their support for WP:NOT#PLOT in WT space. --Pixelface (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
              • I've added {{Disputed-section|talk=WP:NOTPLOT replacement}} just above WP:NOTPLOT, as it does not have consensus in this Talk page nor in the poll 2 months ago. Sorry if it's not the most appropriate tag, but it's the only section-level one I could see that did the job.--Philcha (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
                • This is inappropriate to mark it disputed. Yes, the straw poll, if you looked at the numbers, showed a 50/50 split for the question. But that's just the numbers. The responses give much more insight to what editors' concerns with about PLOT in NOT more than just what the numbers gave, and in several cases, they still suggest it should remain in NOT as long as their concern was dealt with (eg identifying that articles may start as plot summaries and shouldn't be summarily deleted as such) Thus, in the preceding discussion, we discussed what those issues were and how to establish a statement for PLOT that would address those issues, and came to a consensus (including the person that started the straw poll) and waited to see if anyone disagreed, and, at least for me, I was going to get an uninvolved admin to consider adding it, but Gavin added it boldly after page project . To me, this is a logical, consensus driven result from the straw poll, everything that we want to come out from discussion of WP policy. If an editor still wants to argue there's no consensus, then we probably need another straw poll to see if the current version has consensus. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • The only way that marking WP:NOT#PLOT disputed could be "inappropriate" is the fact that removal is the proper edit to make. The only course of action is removal. Period. WP:NOT#PLOT has been marked disputed multiple times, so what's different now? What changed? Do you call 50/50 "consensus"? That is no consensus. There is no consensus for this policy to address plot summaries. And the majority of people said this policy should not address plot summaries. I'm not surprised at all you want to ignore the numbers, because sticking your head in the sand is your favorite tactic.
                    
                    If people felt that this policy should have a section about plot summaries, they would have commented (along with you) under the "yes" section, but the majority said no. And as long as you're painting people under the "no" section with a broad brush ("they still suggest it should remain in NOT as long as their concern was dealt with"), care to quote anyone? Cite anyone specifically? Have any of them come forward and said their concern was dealt with? Should I generalize people's comments under the "yes" section? Should I say that you suggested it should not remain in NOT because you gave no reason under the "yes" section? I can make up stuff too. But I won't. Stop being ridiculous.
                    
                    Where's the evidence that the concerns of the people under the "no" section were dealt with with the rewrite? How could their concerns be dealt with when they said this policy should not have a section about plot summaries? From that, how do you possibly conclude "Okay, let's just write a section about plot summaries for you then."? Enough already. Rewriting WP:NOT#PLOT is absolutely not a "logical, consensus driven result from the straw poll." Removal is. No consensus, no policy. Rewriting WP:NOT#PLOT after that straw poll is totally illogical, totally nonsensical, and a waste of time. I'd remove WP:NOT#PLOT myself, but I know that you would only revert me, again [11]. 15 months of this garbage from you... Remember this?
                    
                    And why have a new straw poll for the current wording, when you simply ignored the last straw poll? If you're just going to ignore the next straw poll, what's the point? --Pixelface (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So what is your proposal, Pilcha? If you don't have a proposal, you are spitting in the wind. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the default is that, since WP:NOTPLOT clearly does not have consensus, it should be ignored in the short term, and in the longer term be either modified to a form that obtains consensus or deleted. --Philcha (talk)23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this policy is disputed because you make a bald assertion that it should be ignored. Why should it be ignored, exactly? What modification do you wish to make? You can see all the discussions that resulted in the current version. What is is that you object to? I have removed the disputed tag in the absence of any proposition. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, you are claiming that the current WP:NOTPLOT has consensus. The burden of proof lies on you. At present the available evidence indicates that WP:NOTPLOT does not have consensus. Hence you need to produce convincing evidence for consensus. I am reinstating the "disputed" banner. I suggest you read WP:EDITWAR. --Philcha (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins has asked me to state my own views. I thought I'd already done that, but this discussion has gone one for so long that I've forgotten a lot of it - or perhaps it was in a previous discussion on this Talk page. So:

• WP:NOTPLOT does not have consensus, and should be made inoperative until it gains consensus.
• Rigid application of anything resembling the current WP:NOTPLOT would be bad for Wikipedia's long-term future:
  • Most fiction-related articles start as plot summaries. There are good reasons for that:
    • Many are written by newbies. Most WP editors stick around for only 2-3 years. Biting newbies will drive away potential good editors, but will do much less to drive away POV-pushers and even less to deter vandals. So any guideline or policy that amounts to a threat of deletion for plot-only articles will both make WP stagnate and make it more vulnerable to POV-pushers and vandals.
    • There's little point in adding independent commentary if there's no indication of what the commentary is about. Adding commentary first would create a book of cuttings, not an article.
• Even those that later reach GA or FA remain sub- or start-class for a long time, until someone makes a concentrated effort to upgrade them. Any guideline that sets or implies deadlines would be harmful, by killing potential future GAs and FAs.
• The same applies to many non-fiction articles, most obviously to articles about non-fiction books but also to e.g. scientific theories - they all start with summaries of content, and for the same reasons. It's hard to see why there should be a fiction-specific guideline that condemns articles with only content summaries.
• The revised version of WP:NOTPLOT should:
  • Be a guideline rather than a policy, so that it is subject to WP:IAR.
  • Avoid threats of rapid deletion or any explicit or implied setting of deadlines.

PS I do not expect that the views I've just expressed are consensus. That does not change the fact that WP:NOTPLOT is not consensus. --Philcha (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nearly every point you state above, save for the non-fiction aspect, are all potential issues with pretty much every content-based NOT phrase in the present policy - article may start as guides or catalogs or whatnot and end up getting improved, and thus, implicitly buried here at NOT is the fact that improvement over deletion is called for. But I see no one running around calling for getting rid of NOTGUIDE or any other aspect. The only reason that PLOT is "special" is that it is the most visible of NOT cases. But regardless, that's why the above section talked about a satisfactory rewording that removed any call for deletion and instead recognized the points you stated above - articles may start as plot-only, and that in the long-term, improvements or merging should be done. Most of this language is fluff given the implicit nature of NOT, but being explicit is what meets all these points. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you've just said. My main reservation about your proposed wording was about the ambiguity of "should", which deletionists will interpret as "must". And I think WP:NOTPLOT a should be a guideline rather than a policy, so that it is subject to WP:IAR. --Philcha (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, same logic, every content phrase in NOT should thus be a guideline for the same reasons; the only reason PLOT is an issue here is the visibility of fiction. IAR applies to policy too - that's why "must" is rarely used in policy pages save for when WP's wellbeing is at stake (namely, BLP and non-free content). Editors that regularly seek to delete articles citing only PLOT without attempts to improve or work towards improve is an issue that needs to be dealt with outside of WP:NOT. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents, as previously stated, is that NOT#PLOT lacks consensous. I feel that the current wording is a significant improvement, but given that the RfC asked if NOT#PLOT should even exist and a (very slim) majority said no, it shouldn't be part of policy. I'm not going to be involved at this point; it was way too much time and stress to get what we got. I do think the the exact tag should be changed: I believe there is one for policy rather than a "factual dispute". But I think tagging is the least we can do given the wording of WP:POLICY (If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus; possibilities include silence on the issue and acknowledgement that editors disagree on the point.) I'm going to take this page off my watch list as I really don't want to spend time on this again. If anyone wants my further input please go to my talk page. Hobit (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Every policy is open to challenge, and from that point of view is disputed. But unless there is a working alternative put before us in the form of proposal, we can't address the source of the dispute, nor resolve it. Without a proposal, this tag little more than trying to make a point. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I urge you to look beyond the flat out numbers and consider what was said in expanded statements. Several "no" said "it should be policy except it has *this* aspect", which is what the revised wording attempted to address. There are some "no"s that are never going to be met while it remains in NOT, but many can be addressed. This is why I suggested, before adding it back, another straw poll to reassert consensus on the new wording with the understanding if that did not have consensus, we'd drop it back to WAF. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been hashed out? It seemed like there was a long and dramatic debate over this entree and that it was resolved with a reworked wording that satisfied outspoken partisans on either side of the issue. This is the definition of consensus: working out a mutually acceptable solution rather than relying on polarizing straw polls. Once that has happened, we can't just have one editor coming in and slapping disputed tags on the material singlehandedly.

Philcha, its not really productive to keep rehashing an old straw poll that was taken before an honest search for consensus was made. Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I quote: "The ultimate goal of any article discussion is consensus, and a straw poll is helpful only if it helps editors actually reach true consensus." Quoting further, "article straw polls should not be used prematurely. If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming." Finally, "Because straw polling cannot create consensus, polling is rarely helpful in the development of policies or guidelines, and frequently counterproductive." The straw poll did not help editors reach a true consensus; in fact, the present consensus was reached in spite of the straw poll, and clearly after it was taken. Further, the purpose to which and manner in which the straw poll was taken were clearly not consistent with virtually any of the principles in the above guideline.

In a nutshell, please stop trying to use an outdated and flawed straw poll to justify tagging this entree. Wikipedia operates by consensus, not by polling, and a (at least tentative) consensus has been reached in the present wording. Locke9k (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. No large organization of human beings makes decisions by the process that WP calls “consensus.” No government does, and the United nations does not. The Supreme Court does not. Juries are small bodies, and even they deadlock, so consensus is not a realistically achievable goal for all cases even at this small size (and in any case, juries operate by repeated internal polling, so “consensus” for juries means only universal polling agreement, and is not the same thing as the term is used on Wikipedia). Nor do any professional societies or large businesses with boards of directors operate by consensus. (Nor does WMF itself in its own board-level decision-making, if you’re looking for denial-of-reality). Nor (more internally for en.wiki) does ArbCom. Going back to the “real” world, nor does the military, or any large academic organization, either publicly or privately funded. Not the American Bar Association or the American Medical Society or the United Association of Plumbers and Pipe-fitters. If you have some large organization of human beings which you think operates by consensus, state your example.

What about Wikipedia? Well, it doesn’t actually operate by consensus, except in very small decisions involving two or three and never more than a handful of editors. It wants to. That is its ideal. Some people think it does. However, I’ve been here for 3+ years and seen many a large edit war during my 14,000 edits (see WP:LAME if you like this kind of thing; though these are mostly not things I've been directly involved in). Here, in any case, is what I see happening when many people are involved in any issue: 1) there is a lot of arguing, 2) this goes on until most people on one side are exhausted and give up, leaving the diehards. 3) These square off to see which side has the most wiki-juice (number of involved administrators and their supporters). Then the side with the most juice makes the changes it wants, and if 4) the other side reverts, they are accused of editwaring, breaking “consensus” and become subject to the many sacred accusations which have names like SOCK, CIVIL, COI, AGF, 3RR, EDITWAR, and so on. This gives some involved administrator a reason to block them, so they can no longer participate in the argument. Going to dispute resolution or RfC only results in more arguing of the same type. The worst edit wars where nobody can see to block enough of one side to settle the issue, go to ArbCom where consensus is not the mechanism, but rather arbitrators vote, and more often than not, disputants are topic banned, or banned altogether. That is not consensus. So that’s what REALLY happens on Wikipedia-- it's NOT a consensus much of the time. In case you didn’t know. SBHarris 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Locke9k, how can you say "it was resolved with a reworked wording that satisfied outspoken partisans on either side of the issue."? Where's the evidence it's a "mutually acceptable solution"? And there has been long and dramatic debate about WP:NOT#PLOT ever since Hiding wrongfully added it to this policy after there was no consensus for it to be policy.[12] If the majority of people said this policy should not have a section about plot summaries, how could any rewording be a "mutually acceptable solution"?

Once it's been determined that there is no consensus for this policy to address plot summaries, which the straw poll did, the first person in the "yes" section can't just come up with yet another new wording with five other people and say "It's fixed now." The straw poll showed that there is no consensus for this policy to address plot summaries at all. Period. And there is no "present consensus" on the wording of WP:NOT#PLOT. You can't just pretend the straw poll didn't happen. Policies must have consensus to be policy. WP:NOT#PLOT does not, and it never has. Policies must have wide acceptance among editors. WP:NOT#PLOT does not.

In a nutshell, the straw poll showed that there is no consensus for this policy to address plot summaries. You said yourself that Wikipedia operates by consensus. Masem has been resisting any and all efforts to remove WP:NOT#PLOT from this policy for 15 months now, and enough is enough is enough. --Pixelface (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, I certainly accept the argument that consensus is an ideal that is often not properly put into practice. However, the edit warring and so on that you describe is exactly a result of people not honestly seeking consensus. I agree that straw polls can be useful to determine consensus, but I don't agree that it is almost ever valuable to open an RFC with an immediate straw poll, particularly one framed in a super polarizing yes-or-no way. The purpose of an RFC is to encourage editors to discuss the issue and seek consensus, not to simply solicit more votes on one side or another of an already-polarized debate. A straw poll should be conducted after discussion has occurred, or alternately the RFC should be formatted in a views/proposals setup where editors can contributed views and proposals and others can endorse them. Now that a new wording has been developed which addresses some of the issues raised some of the objectors in the straw poll, we have a new situation. More progress of this kind could possibly be achieved by honest consensus seeking rather than by polling.

On a side note, there is also no consensus to allow pure plot summaries on WP. This is the sort of case where by removing the material from policy, we would be defacto setting a new policy (of allowing more plot summary), which by your own argument also does not have consensus.

Finally, I'll note that I am not particularly a partisan of either side in this dispute. There are pages of almost entire plot summary and in-world content that I enjoy quite a lot and that I am inclined to feel benefit WP in some ways. On the other hand, I sympathize and somewhat agree with arguments to the effect that this sort of extensive in-universe content does not belong in an encyclopedia. In a essence, I will not be particularly devastated if the outcome of this debate goes either way. As someone invested in the improvement of Wikipedia, I am just concerned by the polarized nature of this debate: moderate voices seem to get shouted down by partisans of either side, and resolution processes get framed in a way that leads to more polarization rather than resolution.

Remember, there is no binding content resolution here. The very straw poll you put so much credence in shows an almost exactly split result. The only way you are going to get any progress is by reaching out to people on the other side and trying to find some kind of middle ground or more broadly acceptable proposal. Locke9k (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

When the community is split right down the middle on an issue, you cannot make a policy out of that issue. Policies are standards that have community consensus. Policies are standards that have wide acceptance among editors. When it comes to policies, consensus is not merely an ideal, it's a requirement. No consensus, no policy. I've written 33 reasons why WP:NOT#PLOT cannot be policy, and the recently closed straw poll is yet another reason. There is no consensus that this policy should address plot summaries, so it can't. WP:NOT#PLOT has no consensus to be policy. So it cannot be policy. Can you honestly look at the straw poll and say it indicates that the community feels WP:NOT#PLOT is necessary?

There have been reams and reams of discussion about WP:NOT#PLOT on this talkpage ever since Hiding hastily added it to this policy page nearly 3 years ago when there was no consensus for it be policy [13] [14] [15]. You cannot claim consensus where none exists, and you cannot force a policy on the community in the absence of consensus. If you want to look at all the threads about WP:NOT#PLOT on this talkpage and all the edits to WP:NOT#PLOT and conclude that people are not honestly seeking consensus, I would disagree. I look at them and I think they show that consensus on this issue is simply not possible. And the straw poll was more evidence of that. If consensus has not developed after a reasonable time period (and I think three years qualifies as more than reasonable), that means a proposal has failed. If the sentiment is neutral, or unlikely to improve, that also means a proposal has failed. WP:NOT#PLOT is a failure. And it was a failure ever since it was initially proposed.

The "polarization" you're talking about was created by Hiding himself, when he added WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy page after there was no consensus for it. This policy either addresses plot summaries or it doesn't, and the straw poll showed that the majority of people said this policy should not. A new wording has been typed up, but what issues does the wording supposedly address? When I see a straw poll where the majority of people say this policy should not address plot summaries, and then I see a small group of people who think it should address plot summaries writing yet another section about plot summaries, that does not look like they're "honestly seeking consensus" to me. It looks to me like they're simply ignoring what they don't want to hear, and trying to force other people off the cliff with them.

You say there's no consensus to allow pure plot summaries on Wikipedia. Maybe you're right. That's fine. There doesn't have to be. This policy is a list of things Wikipedia is not, not a list of everything Wikipedia allows. Nobody has to obtain consensus before creating an article. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, and they can create an article on any topic whatsoever. That doesn't mean that the article will remain on Wikipedia though. But maybe you're wrong. Over 1/3 of the articles on Wikipedia fall under Category:Fiction — over 1 million articles [16]. And I'll bet that most of them contain plot summaries. The category is full of articles like Baldrick (created October 2, 2001), and Faber (created October 24, 2005) and Julia (created June 2, 2005) — long before WP:NOT#PLOT came to be. If a specific editor feels that "extensive in-universe content does not belong in an encyclopedia", they're entitled to their opinion. They are not, however, entitled to enforce their opinion upon everyone else as if it was a code of law. When you acknowledge that Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit, you must also accept that Wikipedia has redefined the concept. And Wikipedia has articles about all kinds of topics that other encyclopedias do not. Like Fictional universe for example (which has no citations by the way). There is no article about "in-universe." What's the difference between "in-universe content" and descriptions of a story or character? How much "in-universe content" is in The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?

Wikipedia existed for 5 1/2 years without WP:NOT#PLOT. And it was only proposed after this thread at WT:COMICS, and this thread about comic book story arcs started by Hiding at WP:WAF. And if you'll notice, most of those "problem" articles noted in that WT:COMICS thread are still around, over 3 years later.

Speaking of WP:WAF, Hiding marked it a guideline and then closed the straw poll to make it a guideline (which he participated in, and where he gave his support). Admins are not supposed to close discussions they've participated in. 25 minutes later, DJ Clayworth expressed concerns about how widely known the straw poll to make WAF a guideline was. For those reasons, WP:WAF's guideline status is also dubious (not to mention all the plugging of for-profit websites founded by Jimbo Wales it does). That was 13 days before Hiding proposed WP:NOT#PLOT, and he cited WP:WAF in his proposal. But there was no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy after he proposed it.[17]

At AFD, sometimes plot-only articles are kept[18], sometimes plot-only articles are merged[19], sometimes plot-only articles are deleted[20], sometimes articles like this, sourced entirely to comic books, are snow kept. From that you cannot say that "Current consensus is that articles are not simply plot summaries." The article Fictional history of Spider-Man survived two AFDs[21] [22]. The article Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) also survived two AFDs[23] [24]. If someone nominated those articles for deletion tomorrow, and everyone who participated in the straw poll commented, do you think there would be consensus to delete those articles or not? I say there would not. Or would they be deleted in an act of bureaucratic nonsense[25], like Plot of Les Misérables and History of For Better or For Worse, articles that were deleted by admins simply because WP:NOT#PLOT was present on this policy page, even though there was no consensus to delete those articles at AFD?

Removing WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT would absolutely not set a new policy. Plot summaries are allowed on Wikipedia, and many plot-only articles are clearly also allowed on Wikipedia. By removing the section on plot summaries from this policy, you'd simply be honoring the straw poll where a majority of users said this policy should not have a section on plot summaries. You can say the straw poll is not binding, but policies must have wide acceptance among editors. Did the straw poll demonstrate that? It demonstrated the opposite. How could anyone look at the straw poll and say that WP:NOT#PLOT has community consensus? The answer is it doesn't, not in theory, nor in practice. It doesn't now, and it never did.

If I proposed a section for this policy that said "Wikipedia articles should not be...Summaries of abstract concepts", and a straw poll showed an "almost exactly split result", would it be proper of me to then add that text to this policy page and when people object I just leave it on the policy page and rewrite it and rewrite it and rewrite it and refuse any and all attempts to remove it for years? Policies are not based on stalling, or feet dragging, or burying your head in the sand, or plugging your ears, or closing your eyes, or denial. They are based on wide acceptance. Policies are not based on middle ground. They are based on common ground. Policies are based on consensus. And WP:NOT#PLOT has none. WP:NOT#PLOT is an illegitimate policy, and it cannot be policy[26]. Until there's consensus that this policy should address plot summaries, along with consensus on how that should be done, WP:NOT#PLOT has no business being here. End of story. --Pixelface (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that the straw poll was not conducted in a manner that was conducive towards finding consensus. I strongly feel that it was polarizing and tended to push editors into checking one absolute box or the other rather than striving towards a "common ground" as you put it. On that basis, I do not believe that it should be given as much weight as you afford it. However, you have made some other good points, particularly regarding the fact that there are many longstanding articles that are largely plot. Given that policy is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, this seems to me to be a particularly strong argument against inclusion here. Of course, its not an absolute argument, since it is possible for a consensus to form to overturn existing articles. I'll also note that I don't think that the lack of consensus-seeking is limited to opponents of this section; I believe you are correct in your statement that there is stonewalling on the other side as well. I also agree that there is something to your argument that there is not necessarily a clear demarcation between 'in universe' and 'real world' content. However, this alone would not necessarily preclude a policy statement on the issue, as there are plenty of areas in Wikipedia with serious demarcation problems (see the many science / pseudoscience debates for example). In any case, inaccordance with all I've just said, I'll definitely think over your arguments more and try to see where things can go productively from here so that some kind of progress can be made

In the meantime, I think the following exercise would be helpful, and I have address Gavin Collins with the same question below. What, in your opinion, does the present section say that is not actually said elsewhere? We clearly have policies against material that does not establish notability, and we have policies against material that is not verifiable from WP:VS, among many others. Do not those policies and guidelines have the cumulative effect of prohibiting most 'plot only' coverage of a fictional work? What, if anything, does the present section prohibit or require that is not cumulatively prohibited or required by those guidelines? Maybe if you could clarify that it would help me understand your strong opposition to inclusion of the section in question.Locke9k (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT, you'll learn more about why I'm strongly opposed to WP:NOT#PLOT. And I never would have imagined that 145 people would comment on WP:NOT#PLOT in 5 weeks. I've never seen so many people comment on WP:NOT#PLOT before, so I do place a lot of weight on the recent straw poll you started. For comparison, in the initial proposal thread from June 2006, 12 people commented (and it was split down the middle[27]). If WP:NOT#PLOT had consensus to be policy, if it had wide acceptance, if it had community consensus, if it was a standard that people felt everyone should follow, a majority of people would not have said that this policy should not have a section about plot summaries. But a majority of people did just that. It's impossible to find common ground on how WP:NOT#PLOT should be worded when you can't even get people to agree that this policy page should address plot summaries.

Perhaps one could look at WP:WAF and WP:N and WP:V and think they have a cumulative effect of prohibiting 'plot only' articles, but that assumes that all the text on those pages actually has community-wide consensus. Amcaja wrote WAF based on User:Uncle G/Describe this universe [28] [29] [30], WAF was marked a style guideline by Hiding on June 16, 2006 after a week-long straw poll where under 20 people voiced their opinions, WP:N was rewritten by Radiant! in September 2006 and then marked a guideline by Radiant! all by himself after 16 days and then he edit-warred over the guideline tag[31] (saying such things as "We don't vote on proposals"[32] — apparently forgetting that he created Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal as well as several of the sub-proposals [33] and then said it was "open for voting", proposals that people voted on and then some were added to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (often with a note about the votes), a page which Radiant! marked a policy), Hiding added the first summary of the subject-specific notability guidelines to WP:N (which then evolved into the "GNG" after Uncle G put his "PNC" onto the page), and the line about topics needing third-party sources in WP:V was proposed by Hiding in April 2006 because he was having an editwar over an article he nominated for deletion (which was deleted). And Hiding proposed WP:NOT#PLOT in June 2006, 3 weeks after marking WAF a guideline. If there's a "cumulative effect" with WAF, N, and V, it's because four editors manufactured it out of thin air.

Oh, and Wikipedia has no notability policy. There is no requirement that topics must be "notable". Wikipedia:Notability is a "guideline", despite Gavin.collins's proposal to make it a policy. The policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy does say (at WP:DEL#REASON) "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):" ..."Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" — but that's just a longwinded, flowery, overly complicated way of saying that many topics have been nominated for deletion for being "non-notable" (or "nn") and many people have voted (yes, voted) to delete saying "non-notable" and many of those topics on Wikipedia no longer have articles after admins deleted them. If it was being descriptive, it would say that articles about topics that editors feel are "not-notable" are often deleted, or that "non-notable" is a common reason people give to delete an article. Wikipedia:Deletion policy has had 1646 revisions as of now. The oldest version available is from November 29, 2001. The word "notability" didn't appear on that page until October 18, 2005, when Radiant! added it. The word was removed on October 20, 2005 by Kappa (probably because most of those pages were not called "notability guidelines" at that time). It didn't appear on that page again until April 20, 2006, when Kaisershatner added that articles "that fail the criteria for notability or that lack sources or context) can be placed into Category:Proposed deletion." It was removed on June 10, 2006 by Causa sui, saying "notability is not a deletion criterion" (possibly a reference to speedy deletion criteria, which "notability" was not). It didn't appear again until December 11, 2006, when RSLitman expanded the titles of several guidelines. Besides vandalism and page-blanking, the word "notability" has remained on that policy page until the latest version available as of as of June 20, 2009 — June 17, 2009.

Radiant! appears in the top 20 editors of 62 policies and guidelines, more than anyone else on Wikipedia. And this is the guy who marked Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep a guideline for crying out loud. He's edited under 2,900 articles. Wikipedia currently has over 1,000 times more articles than that, over 2.9 million. Who is he to give advice on anything?

Why does Wikipedia have notability guidelines? Because some editor by the name of Jiy made a proposal in December 2005 to rename several inclusion guidelines "notability" guidelines in order to have a "common naming scheme." And a grand total of four people supported the move. That's it. There was no big decision by the community. It was one editor renaming pages in project space[34]. And people take this stuff as a given. It's asinine.

I don't think there's a cumulative effect from policy against 'plot only' articles. I think one can write about any subject in Category:Characters of Les Misérables verifiably, fairly, and without using unpublished opinion — all by using the novel itself (and the musical if one wants). If you summarize a novel, you are giving a plot summary. An article about a fictional character will contain a plot summary. As seen in several featured articles (The Empire Strikes Back, Quatermass and the Pit, Casablanca, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pattern Recognition, etc), an editor can summarize a story directly from the fictional work, and the fictional work is the implicit source. Wikipedia does have a policy that information must be verifiable, but everything in the Cosette article is verifiable. If you want to get lost in the details of what Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research say from day to day, and focus on the letter and ignore the spirit, I'm sure you could find several sentences that say the way those featured articles do it is "wrong." But Wikipedia is not a moot court.

If, like you say, that other policies and guidelines have a cumulative effect of prohibiting most 'plot only' articles, then why is WP:NOT#PLOT necessary at all? If that's the case, it's completely superfluous. If WP:NOT#PLOT is meant to prevent editors from creating plot-only articles, it's useless, since nobody is required to read any of Wikipedia's 300+ policies and guidelines before creating an article. And if they did read all 300+ policies and guidelines before creating an article, they'd probably be too confused to do anything. When it comes to policies and guidelines, the inmates are running the asylum, and the tone is usually set by the first inmate in the door.

On April 10, 2009, you changed WP:NOT#PLOT to link to the guideline Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. Do you know how that became a guideline? The person who wrote it marked it a guideline immediately after "rolling it out", that was opposed, then he tagged it a guideline again. With people marking their own proposals as "guidelines" and with over 250 guidelines on Wikipedia, the term is beginning to lose all meaning.

What does the current version of WP:NOT#PLOT say that is not actually said elsewhere? I think it's a bad idea writing policies based on other policies and guidelines. Writing policies based on what other policies and guidelines say is like a bad game of telephone. It's a horrible feedback loop. Imagine if Wikipedia articles were written based on what other articles (with no citations) said. When it comes to articles, people can request references and look at the references and verify that yes, the reference really does say that. How do you back up bare assertions on a policy or guideline, written by complete strangers on the Internet? --Pixelface (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that there's no consensus for any form of NOTPLOT at this time. Why don't we just remove it and put in some version when there is a consensus? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what Pixelface and others forget is that plot only articles fail all Wikipedia's core policies. You can apply any of them to plot only articles; like other random stuff there is no rationale for keeping the way they are.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

While there does exist consensus on certain aspects of covering fiction, there obviously isn't consensus for keeping PLOT in NOT. Why don't we take it out for a bit, and let people work on a consensus to put it back in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Because if you read through the rest of this thread, you will see that there is agreement on the current wording, which is the current consensus. If you have alternative wording, then do please put it forward for discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The vote showed there was no consensus. Just because a few editors after the vote think they can agree on something doesn't change the larger vote. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No consensus for what? To give plot only articles an exemption from WP:V and other content policies? No dice. There is just too many guidelines and policies that prohibit plot only articles for a variety or reasons. The consensus at policy level is for it to stay . --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that, and maybe it's true, but there is not consensus on a NOT#PLOT being in NOT. It should be taken out, and then we can work on whatever plot related stuff should be in NOT, if any. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are fogetting that all the prohibitions on content are contained in this policy. Instead of saying what Wikipedia is, it is easier to say what it is not, which effectively sets the boundry between the content that is or is not allowed in Wikipedia. Plot only articles fall outside that boundry because the existing framework of policies and guidelines can't be applied to them. So it makes sense to keep it here, with all the other stuff that has the same problem. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it does make sense, but it doesn't have consensus, and policies should not contain statements that don't have consensus. It should be removed, and consensus should be found for what it should say. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to give plot only articles an exemption from Wikipedia content policies, so the prohibition must stay. There is no consensus for either the disputed tag, so that should go. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is no consensus then the whole section on plot needs to go. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to explain for what reason, it is not simply enough to say "it has not got concensus". Why do you want this policy removed? Make a proposal.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, I'm not clear what you mean by saying that removing the section from this page would create an "exemption" for fiction only articles. As you have pointed out, there are many other policies and guidelines that would potentially apply against a plot only article that would in no way be limited simply by removal of this section. For example, if a plot only article was not verifiable from WP:RS an editor could challenge unverified material and remove it. If a plot only article did not meet notability, then it could be deleted on that basis. These rules would apply whether or not notplot was included in this policy. As you have seen above, I have argued for working towards some consensus wording here. However, what is the crucial prohibition that you feel this section adds that is not covered by other policies and guidelines? Maybe if you would answer that question in a straightforward way it would help resolve what the actual dispute is. If the entry doesn't actually add something new, it seems that since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there is no clear reason to be fighting to keep the same limitations in two places. Locke9k (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If plot only articles don't meet WP:V because they don't cite any reliable secondary sources, then they fall into the category of stuff that does not belong in Wikipedia, of which plot only articles is only one type of stuff that is prohibited. All of the other sections in WP:NOT fail one or more of Wikipedia content polices, which is why they are all here: to specifically disallow them, just in case someone came up with the idea they should be included using the one or more of the arguments for inclusion listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The bottom line is that there is not a single good reason to keep any of the content prohibited in WP:NOT, since it all fails Wikipedia's content polcies one way or another. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that there would be no technical difference in what is allowed in WP regarding plot summaries if this section was removed. The effect of the section in your view is simply to restate general policy in a more specific way to help ensure that people don't violate it in this case. Is that a correct assessment of your view? Locke9k (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) I take a rather different view of this than Gavin. The NOT#PLOT applies to a "fictional topic". That means we should expand articles on a fictional topic that are only plot or else consider more appropriate places to put them. A topic is not the same as an article - a topic may have one or more articles associated with it as support (a view I know Gavin doesn't support, but is necessary as a compromise between inclusion and deletion). These sub-articles that are part of a fictional topic coverage (such as character and episode lists, or the articles that Pixelface references) are sometimes necessary due to WP:SIZE issues. These are appropriate places to merge in content from articles on individual topics (such as specific characters) that have no chance of being improved beyond a reiteration of the plot. But this is not the place to put this particular part of the advice - that's over in WAF. The core part of NOT#PLOT, in general that a topic should be more than just plot summary, is a necessary piece of information - we need to provide more context for a fictional work than just saying "here's what it is about" - similar advice for all other aspects of NOT#IINFO. In other words, there are correct time and places for "plot-only articles", just that we should not be having "plot-only topics".

Reviewing the comments in the straw poll, there were two major responses:

• "Plot summaries are a valid part of WP" - that is, the implication that by having NOT#PLOT, plot summaries would be banned - which is not what the statement of what PLOT originally said nor its revised version. No one is saying we can't have plot summaries, and in fact recognize that as a necessary part of the coverage of fiction.
• "NOT#PLOT is used to delete articles in progress" - that is, a strict reading of the former version of NOT#PLOT and WP:DP means that a nascent article on fiction which 99% of the time starts with a plot summary can be readily deleted because of this. Though everything in NOT should be taken with an "Improve before deletion" (per WP:BEFORE), a good number were concerned this would be abused, so the wording was changed to strongly encourage improvement and merging instead of deletion and noting that plot summaries are usually the first signs of life for a new fiction article.

So yes, while the straw poll (which morphed more to an RFC) showed a very tiny fraction of majority that said "no", I think what they were saying "no" to got lost in the shuffle (at the same time, this could have happened with "yes" votes too); thus, despite we don't use simple majorities to decide policy, this was just too close to make a decision one way or another about it. I have no problem considering the section still in dispute as opposed to saying it is either to stay or to remove, and thus why I encouraged another poll on the newly proposed wording to determine that a version that addressed a majority of comments, was acceptable or not, and noting that if that clearly failed, then I would not argue any farther and move PLOT to WAF. That's my point in going forward, making sure that the poll clearly says "is this wording acceptable for PLOT to be a part of NOT policy". --MASEM (t) 17:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A second RFC might be helpful at some point. However, I'll ask that anyone hold off for a bit on creating one just yet. I think before doing so it would be helpful to work together to find a mutually acceptable wording for the RFC. I also think some more discussion first is appropriate to clarify what the exact differences in position are. I am still not 100% clear one what everyone thinks this section is saying (or should be saying) that is not said elsewhere in guidelines/policy already. I'm waiting for responses in the discussion above from a few active participants. Maybe if we can get really clear answers from everyone on that question we could even improve the section wording slightly prior to an RFC and can sharped the RFC wording to be quite clear. I personally agree with the distinction you have made, Masem - I think the topic vs article distinction is key. However, in the interest of moving things forward, it might be helpful if you would also explictly state the answer to my above question - what is new / different in this section relative to other policies/guidelines requiring such things as notability and reliable sources? Is it your position that some pure plot summary topics may actually meet notability and reliable sources, and that such hypothetical topics should nevertheless be deleted?Locke9k (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a key line in WP:V which Gavin pointed to: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Let's assume that's fixed, and that it's clear that it's applying to a topic - whether the article is the main article of the topic or an appropriate sub-article of the topic.

It is completely possible that for some works of fiction (for purposes of example, an episode of a modern television series), one can write an standalone article on that fiction topic using primary third-party sources works that simply describe the fiction's plot in detail, in addition to the actual work itself. Such an article is perfectly acceptable via WP:V. (WP:N technically applies here, but I'm sticking to the policy level) No other policy can directly apply. So the question is, if one can exhaust all sources and only develop a fiction article that is its own topic and that is adequately sourced to a third party but goes no farther beyond plot details (and basic factual details of the work such as publication date), is this acceptable? From the way we treat these as well as articles on garage bands, web sites, and the like where no demonstration of importance is made and thus are material for CSD, then yes, we do not accept these. As no other policy calls this out, then NOT#PLOT seems to fit that need. I'm not suggesting a new CSD (nor do I think WP would ever put such a case in), just that there are comparisons between those that says that this is not meant to unfairly deal with fiction compared to any other topic; we want topics to demonstrate their importance to us.

If you add notability to this, that changes the picture - the requirement of secondary sources is in line with adding context per PLOT. However, I'm hesistant to allow WP:N to assert this, partially as it's a guideline (meaning people with IAR a lot with it) and that I personally believe it needs a significant overall to meet with this topic/article dichotomy - not that the GNG goes away, just that it's more than just the GNG (but this is glacier-timeline change so don't expect anything soon). Simply stated, WP:N is weaker than NOT, and I believe from what I've seen, this plot-only topic issue is a general caveat across WP and strong enough to be in NOT. Again, I'm willing to put out another RFC to affirm the newly current wording (the one that is described above in this section that includes changes that reflect the straw poll responses) to make sure that this is clearly the case. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If there's another RfC, it should:

• Present all the options, including scrapping NOTPLOT.
• Explicitly ask whether NOTPLOT should be sufficient grounds for deleting an article, if it passes the AfD test of "can be made notable".
• Also ask whether NOTPLOT should be sufficient grounds for forcibly merging an article, if isormation is likely to be lost in the process, e.g. if the "receiving" is or is likley to become so long that information will be lost. --Philcha (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If we were to do an RFC, I would have two questions:

1) Do you agree or disagree with the current statement of PLOT as part of NOT policy (barring any small changes to its text)

2) Given you disagree with #1, what should be done with PLOT?

a) Complete rewrite but remain a policy in NOT or elsewhere

b) Move to guideline WAF (or elsewhere) with possible rewrites

c) Remove it altogether

The questions of deletion and merging are really beyond NOT and PLOT and more matters with other policy/guidelines (like WP:DP). These two questions would settle the dispute right off the bat. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I think if we do a new RFC we should use the more open "opinion / proposal" format that has been on display in many of the RFCs posted on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion lately (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction for a relevant example of this format). Let anyone who wants to put a proposal on the table do so, and let other editors sign their support for that proposal. That should allow a pretty clear tally of support while at the same time not shoehorning editors into predetermined categories if they would like to go in a different direction. To make things fair, I suggest that we would set a predetermined time for the RFC to go up so anyone active in this discussion can have a proposal ready to post at almost the same time. As I have before, I will volunteer myself to create the intro for the RFC as I believe I have demonstrated myself to be a centrist in this debate, hopefully avoiding any questions of the fairness of the RFC wording. However, as before, I think some more time for discussion before beginning an RFC would be prudent. Locke9k (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not stop a larger RFC like that but I would caution against one, only because 1) we've had at least one RFC before this straw poll to discuss it, and 2) most involved editors know all the issues, we need a point of decision here to put this to rest once and for all - at least, to the point if it should stay in NOT or not. The current version is a remedy from the straw poll results, so I don't think spending time to work out alternate wordings or the like is going to produce much more fruitful solutions.

I'll also point out that at an offshoot page from WT:FICT that I've recommended that we really need a more holistic determination of how fiction is handled. To that end, how PLOT is dealt with may be an issue, but it shouldn't be treated otherwise as a separate piece; it goes hand it hand with notability and other factors. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm more interested in alternative proposals other than wording changes, such as the one I outline below for moving coverage of plot to a different, briefer place within WP:NOT. To my knowledge that sort of idea hasn't been thoroughly discussed, if at all. There also might be other possibilities we haven't considered for ways to include some advisement against plot only articles in a dramatically reconfigured way, perhaps even removing the word "plot" entirely and going in a somewhat different direction.Locke9k (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I've changed the "disputed" banner to point to this specific section and to point out that whether NOTPLOT should even exist is one of the issues. I think that's an accurate summary of this discussion. --Philcha (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT absolutely does not need to be removed. It's the only thing standing in the way of wikipedia becoming a fan site. Most plot summaries start off in the original article, and eventually gets so big that somebody decides to move it to a new page. Thus, we have a new page with just a plot summary of the fictional work. This absolutely needs to be deleted since an encyclopedia is not the place to come find a recap of a movie or a TV episode. An editor watching a TV episode, and then proceding to write a recap is absolutely unencylcopedic to me. Corpx (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do wish we could ban the words "encylcopedic" and "unencylcopedic" - they usually mean simply "I like it" or I don't like it". -Philcha (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think (as a completely separate issue to this but impacting much) that a guideline or policy to state what "encyclopedic" is supposed to mean wrt to WP would go a great way. Deciding on those issues is much more difficult, but its part of the WP vernacular but never defined. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I've changed the "disputed" banner to point to this specific section and to point out that whether NOTPLOT should even exist is one of the issues. I think that's an accurate summary of this discussion. --Philcha (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT absolutely does not need to be removed. It's the only thing standing in the way of wikipedia becoming a fan site. Most plot summaries start off in the original article, and eventually gets so big that somebody decides to move it to a new page. Thus, we have a new page with just a plot summary of the fictional work. This absolutely needs to be deleted since an encyclopedia is not the place to come find a recap of a movie or a TV episode. An editor watching a TV episode, and then proceding to write a recap is absolutely unencylcopedic to me. Also, wasnt there a tidbit in WP:NOT#PLOT a while back about possible copyright infringement on detailed plot summaries? Corpx (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a statement on copyright. Until we are told by Mike Godwin (WP's lawyer) that we've got plot summaries violating copyright, we should not worry about legal issues with it. (There have been cases of other works that summarize fiction works that have been successfully sued, but I'm sure if that happens to WP, we'll be second in line after the Foundation to learn of that). Where copyright does become of a concern is that as a retelling of a work gets more detailed, the more and more it likely will be considered a derivative work, which places the ownership of the text with the copyright holder. Per the GFDL, this creates a problem with redistribution, which is why we need to encourage "concise" plot summaries to avoid this possible situation. But again, we're not in any legal problems with what plot summaries we do have so we should not be worried to this end. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem, you're right, we shouldn't worry about legal issues regarding plot summaries. But you've shown again and again that you know very little about derivative works — so you should really stop talking about them. Are derivative works a concern over at aselia.wikia.com? Does Wikia encourage "concise" plot summaries? The whole copyright/derivative work paranoia when it comes to plot summaries is just that, paranoia. By your logic, if analysis of a fictional work was copyrighted, then wouldn't a summary of that analysis be a derivative work as well? Wouldn't a plot summary of a copyrighted work and a summary of copyrighted analysis be one big derivative work? Wouldn't any citation on Wikipedia to something under copyright (like a newspaper article) be a derivative work? How many references on Wikipedia do you think are under copyright? We don't need to encourage concise plot summaries in order to avoid problems with redistribution. Wikia doesn't seem to have any problems with appropriating Wikipedia content for profit. So let me know when Wikia is sued for something like http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/Akatsuki. And there is positively no issue whatsoever with fictional works that are not under copyright. --Pixelface (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy, so it needs to be removed. A majority of people said this policy should not have a section about plot summaries, so WP:NOT#PLOT needs to be removed. WP:NOT#PLOT did not have consensus[35] to be policy when it was first proposed, so it needs to be removed. WP:NOT#PLOT does not have wide acceptance among the community, so it needs to be removed.

Corpx, I know you argued to delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables, because it "violated" this policy, and you're certainly entitled to do that. But there was no consensus to delete in that AFD. Yet the article was deleted anyway in an act of bureaucratic nonsense. That AFD even led to this thread on this talkpage (one of scores of threads about WP:NOT#PLOT on this talkpage). And I also know that you made several edits in that thread. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. I know you argued to delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Highschool of the Dead. That article was deleted but there was no consensus to delete that article either. Seven people suggested a merge. I also know that you argued to delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Naruto: Shippuden (2nd nomination), and you're entitled to do that. But I'm having a hard time finding consensus to delete there either (among your screaming at other editors [47] [48]). The article was kept after the first AFD. I know you argued to delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of InuYasha, which was nominated for deletion by a banned user and deleted by an editor who's no longer here. I also know that you argued to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Rurouni Kenshin, and you're entitled to do that. I also know that you argued to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Fairy Tail, and you're entitled to do that. But there was hardly consensus to delete there either. Why should every article about something fictional be affected just because some people created some articles called "Plot of some Japanese cartoon"? I think "Plot of ..." articles are generally a bad idea. But there was no consensus to delete in several of those AFDs.

WP:NOT#PLOT is the "the only thing standing in the way of wikipedia becoming a fan site"? I've addressed that ridiculous logic here in User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT. Wikipedia existed for 5 1/2 years without WP:NOT#PLOT. Was Wikipedia a "fan site" from January 2001 until June 2006? And please define "fan site" for me. That label has always perplexed me. Do the 28 articles[49] under Category:Lewis Carroll characters make Wikipedia a "fan site"? Do the 1001 articles[50] under Category:Poker make Wikipedia a fan site? No, those are articles about topics that some people happen to be fans of. Does the article HornFans make Wikipedia a fan site? How about Hook 'em Horns? Texas Longhorns football? Texas Longhorns? Most of Wikipedia was written by fans. If someone has made a considerable number of edits to an article, chances are, they're a fan of the topic.

WP:NOT#PLOT affects much more than just "Plot of ..." articles for lame anime. I address that [here. There is nothing wrong with giving summaries of movies or TV episodes. There are over 120,000 articles under Category:Films [51] (minus about 4,700 articles under Category:Documentary films [52]) and over 10,000 articles under Category:Television episodes [53]. Speaking of TV episodes, articles for those have over seven years of precedent on Wikipedia. A television show is a source just like a newspaper article is a source just like a film is a source. If someone has the ability to summarize one, they can summarize the others. If you personally think that summarizing something on TV is "absolutely encyclopedic", then you don't have to read any of those articles. You're free to test out your idea of what's "encyclopedic" at britannica.com. Or feel free to go to that self-proclaimed "fan site" Wikia, and go make money for Jimbo Wales there with your pageviews and/or unpaid labor. --Pixelface (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone asked Mr Goodwin about his thoughts on this issue? Corpx (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Copywrite is a bit of a red herring when it comes to plot summary - afterall, contributors generally summarise all sorts of sources in order to write articles, and plot summary is no different in this regard. The real problem with plot summary only articles is the lack of signicant real world coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject matter. All three of the core content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV & WP:OR) all require this type of coverage in order to provide assurance that a topic is suitable for its own standalone article. Since plot only article can't provide this coverage, they can't be regulated in any way. For instance, editors could write about any fictional topic under the sun, regardless of notability; they could create multiple content forks and duplicate articles by slicing the plot summary into slightly different segments; they could engage in original research by constructing fictographies for characters and they can use fictional works that contain contraversial viewpoints to push certain points of view. The argument used in defense of this activity has always been "its just a summary of the primary source", but that won't wash. Plot only articles are just random stuff that falls outside the scope of Wikipedia, and because content polices cannot be applied to such articles it is not possible to regulate them. I have removed the disputed template because no one has explained by plot only articles comply with any of Wikipedia core policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, I've reinstated the "disputed" template:

• There is an actual dispute in progress here.
• Your "Plot only articles are just random stuff that falls outside the scope of Wikipedia" is nonsense. Most fiction articles start as plot-only, possibly citing a single review comment or a best-seller lifting if someone raises WP:Notability. Fiction-related GAs and FAs languish at start-class for years before someone takes a serious interest in them. Do you want kill off potential future fiction-related GAs and FAs at birth?
• With a few legally-based exceptions, e.g. WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO, WP policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. That means they have to adapt to editor's practice, not be used as a whip against editors.
• Plenty of people have stated objections to NOTPLOT here. Masem thought he had reached agreement with you on an amendment, then you torpedoed that. It looks very like you're the one who's out of step. --Philcha (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact it would help if you could explain why you make so many edits at fiction-related policy & guideline Talk pages when it's very hard to find edits to fiction articles in your contributions. --Philcha (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Philcha, I don't think there is a dispute, as nobody has put forward a proposal as to how or why plot only articles should be allowed if they can't meet any of the core content policies. If a topic cannot demonstrate notability, then it is just random stuff from the viewpoint of Wikipedia, because there is no verifiable evidence to the contrary. You can dismiss this argument with bald assertions that it is nonsense, but it won't wash, becasue WP:V says that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Plot only articles fall into this category, because a summary of the primary source cannot be independent of the primary source itself.
I would like to think that you have a constructive proposal get the status of plot only articles changed, but if you don't, then this discussion is leading nowhere. There are other guidelines, such as WP:WAF, which make it clear that plot only articles are not acceptable because they don't provide balanced coverage of their subject matter. If you can think of a reason why they should be accepted, then make your case why you think plot only articles should not be improved. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability can be established by just 1 citation of e.g. a review or a place in a best-seller list. If it does establish notability, IMO the article not should be deleted, and probably not merged, for all the reasons stated above. If it does not currently establish notability, those who object should make a conscientious search for refences that could establish notability - note that WP:DELETE says improvement is always preferable to deletion. --Philcha (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BK disallows the use reviews that contain only plot summary (i.e. flap copy) or listings in best seller lists (which are tertiary sources in this context) as evidence of notability, so you are mistaken in this regard. However, I agree with you that deleting an article is not only nor the best way to deal with such articles, and WP:PLOT says that such articles should be improved so that they provide balanced coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, if numerous editors disagree on something, then it is by definition disputed. An assessment of the merits of the other side's case do not change this fact. Second, it seems based on your answer to my question above and on your statements here that you believe that the totality of the prohibitions in notplot are already provided for elsewhere in policy and guidelines. If that is the case, isn't a rigid insistence on also having it here essentially bureaucracy? I am not saying that it shouldnt be here, I am just raising the following question: if you believe that other policies already would prohibit every single thing prohibited by notplot, why is it so important that the rules be stated again here?Locke9k (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Disputed" is just to broad a generalisation to have any real meaning; you have to say why its disputed, and what action should be taken to resolve the dispute. I think it is must fairer to say that WP:PLOT has been "challenged" many times, but nobody has repudiated the fact that plot only articles are not supported by the existing framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidlelines. That framework exists to provide us with the freedom to create or contribute to articles without having to obtain permission from an editorial board or a cabal of administrators, and although they may be subject to challenge, they are not goinga away anytime soon.
All of the prohibitions in WP:NOT are are all provided for elsewhere in policy and guidelines. This is why they are here, to set the outer boundry between What Wikipedia is not and what it is, so it makes no sense moving any of these prohibitions from this policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Disputed" has a simple, well-known meaning: [54]. I've often read in Wikipedia that something isn't really disputed because the other side is wrong, but that isn't what it means. I haven't studied the issue itself here, but the length of this talk section should be enough to prove it's "disputed". Art LaPella (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what this thread shows why attempts to remove WP:PLOT have failed: no editor is prepared to make a contstructive proposal that either defines or resolves the so dispute. In the absence of an alternative proposal, I would conclude the opposite: generalisations that this policy is disuputed or is not consensus have not been substantiated. Sure, lots of people don't like it, but that is not the same as disputed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "lots of people don't like it" matches the dictionary definition of "disputed" pretty well, so perhaps you meant to say that the tag should be removed. Art LaPella (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not to be fair. Lots of people don't like to go to the dentist, but there is no disputing that it is a necessary and healthy to go. No one in this debate has said why WP:NOT#PLOT is not a good idea other than to say "it is disputed". Until you say why it is disputed, it seems to me there is no dispute per se. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, please read the recent straw poll, particularly the comments of the majority — that said this policy should not have a section about plot summaries. And also read User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT. Why is WP:NOT#PLOT necessary? If it was necessary, then why did a majority of people say it wasn't needed? If WP:NOT#PLOT is removed, there is nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from nominating plot-only articles for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't hide behind "consensus" or the "majority view", when it is actually your own point of view that you are pushing. If you have a proposal, put it forward, and make your view explicit, don't hide behind the straw poll. Please explain why you are putting a proposal to remove WP:PLOT forward. You still have not explained why balanced coverage of fictional topics is a bad, and plot only articles are good. When you can explain this, come back to us. What is needed is a rational argument for its removal, not vague generalisations that it is not consensus.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Idea for different approach

Right now we have an entire entry dedicated to NotPlot, and it is placed in the "indiscriminate collection of information" section. This arrangement has always struck me as a bit strange, since even if we wish to prohibit plot only articles they don't seem to me to fall under the "indiscriminate" label. Furthermore, having an entire section, with the accompanying intro of something like 'Wikipedia is not plot summaries' may be causing acceptance problems among editors by threatening to make the rule 'too strong'. A more natural place to start seems to me to be "Mere collections of public domain or other source material" under the "mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" section. How would people feel about a comprimise where we get rid of the standalone notplot section, and instead add an extra line to the above mentioned section?

Here is the sort of thing I have in mind, with the new material added in italics:

"Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Summaries or excerpts of such source material should be used consistent with Wikipedia's objective to report on, and not merely reproduce, such material. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)."

My objective with this proposal is to try to find a middle ground where we retain the intent of the policy message that 'its better to have more than just plot' without making it seem so strong that it worries editors about overuse in AFD. Please try to view this proposal through a lens of seeking consensus - this is just an attempt to break some of the gridlock above via a novel approach. Locke9k (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing strange about WP:PLOT. An topic that does not provide evidence of notability is "indiscriminate collection of information" until such time that verifiable evidence is provided that it is notable. Locke9k may be misinterpreting WP:PLOT when he says that "Wikipedia is not plot summaries" when it actually says "Wikipedia is not plot summaries only". An analogy would is comparing a sprinkle of salt with your meal to having a meal comprised only of salt. Plot summaries are not reporoductions of primary works, they are summaries of primary works. This proposal is very wide of the mark when it comes to addressing the problem of plot only articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I am aware of the difference in wording. However, despite that difference, I think that many editors still see this as a dangerously strong wording that may excessively encourage article deletion. Mind you, I am not taking a position on that. I am simply acknowledging that there are a sizeable number of editors with that apparent position, and I am attempting an alternative proposal to break the gridlock and find a consensus. As I said, this proposal would keep the heart of notplot in my view while radically changing the approach in a way that might find more consensus. Like it or not, there is presently no consensus in any direction, either to keep or to remove. This is an unacceptable situation, and 'outside the box' thinking may be necessary to solve the problem. Locke9k (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

These are precisely the issues that the new wording addresses: WP:PLOT explains why plot summary articles are approporiate, whilst at the same time making the prohibition less threatening. So in this regard, I am happy to report that the dispute has been resolved. However, if you can better the current wording that addresses the issue that plot only articles do not provide balanced coverage, then I am sure many editors would be open to a new proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My above proposal does exactly that. It makes clear that excessive summary of source material (such as plot) is not preferred. Rather we want articles that report on the overall subject, not just reproduce source material in some complete or shortened form. In that sense, I would expect it to still satisfy your wish to have something in WP:NOT that you can point to as speaking against plot only articles. My hope is that by merging it into another section and putting it better in the overall context of WP, we will satisfy the 'remove' proponents more as well. Locke9k (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, plot summary is not a reproduction of the primary source, they are a summary of the primary source, so the proposal is wide of the mark. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As you may have missed, the wording I have proposed would apply to "summaries and excerpts" of source material. Locke9k (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They are no more similar than chalk and cheese, so its not clear why you would put plot summary and plot excerpts together when they are completely unrelated issues. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Policies reflect consensus

Anyone mind explaining how PLOT has "wide acceptance among editors"? I don't think the straw poll indicates anything of the sort, and I think teh spirit of Wikipedia's policies, which we adhere to, rather than the letter, demand of us that we remove it and the re-propose it. It's gone too far now, and there's too much gaming the system. If we have any respect at all for the ideas of consensus, good faith, civility, collaboration and collegiate atmosphere, we need to recognise that PLOT divides us rather than unites us. Hiding T 12:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The straw poll suggests that there isn't that, but at the same time, the results of the poll in straight up numbers are too close to be making rash moves. I'm willing to still say it is in dispute and a more formal RFC to review it, but to say it is splitting the community is not a fair statement:

• Read the input provided by the straw poll, not just numbers. It indicates two things to me that first, the question people were responding to was unclear and thus completely reasonable to have a better constructed poll or RFC on it, and that there are concerns that were raised that could be (and were) written into a new version to address these, which I did suggest another poll to double check consensus but that wasn't done before it was readded. The poll's numbers are dubious, but the input provided was valuable to assert what a next step could have been.
• The people fighting against it strongly are those that believe PLOT is being used as a reason to delete at AFD. While this might be true, without PLOT, the same articles would still be deleted through WP:N (and I've yet to see an AFD that cites PLOT as the only reason to delete, it is always tied with WP:N or a SNG at worst, if not other policies). If it were the case that PLOT was being used as a sole reason to delete, I would be worried too; eg this would be like TTN's actions prior to the Ep & Char cases, and thus needing some change. But there's a lot of other play going on here that PLOT is not the root cause of. (That said, I've asked and gotten no feedback on the question: is there a fundamental difference between PLOT and WP:N?)

I'm not against another RFC to resolve the matter once and for all, but I'm not willing to move PLOT right now because of the insistence of a few editors. There are edit wars if PLOT should be on this page, but I have no seen how PLOT has influenced any other bad editing behavior elsewhere, and that's where I'd be concerned and would want quick action. It also may be inconsistent (the examples Pixelface gives) but it doesn't mean its wrong (again, I point to the "article"/"topic" discrepancy from above that is probably the core of this and notability's problem and how they interact with Summary Style writing).

Another RFC should simply limit the outcome to 4 options: 1) keep in NOT, 2) keep as a new policy page, 3) move to WAF, and 4) remove completely. My only problem with #2 is that this goes against the current trend to avoid creating new policy and the fact that if you removed the visibility of fiction articles, PLOT is doing exactly the same thing as NOT#GUIDE or NOT#DIRECTORY, and is a good fit in these in NOT#IINFO. But in the interest of resolving this once and for, it needs to be considered as a possible option as to ensure that it still has support to be policy).

But again, to remove PLOT based on the current arguments is jumping the gun. It is a dispute on this page (and with primarily only a few editors arguing to keep it in dispute) but it is not disrupting any part of WP as far as I can see. (This is in contrast to the recent Date Delinking case that just closed by ArbCom, where contested changes were propigating across WP and led to the case). If there was evidence of PLOT being used as the only reason to affect content in a contested manner, then yes, I'd be a lot more open to its removal in the interest of minimizing problems, but without it, it is a problem we can still work at resolving without external pressure. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don;t follow your logic at all. Since it is disputed, it seems reasonable to remove it to the talk page until we get agreement on the wording. I don;t believe it is unfair to say it is splitting the community, so I would ask you to prove that assertion. I would point to the numbers of the poll itself, which tells a different story. And if, as you say there were concerns which mean [[WP:PLOT could be re-written, I would say that it is quite clear that everyone who opposed WP:PLOT would support a rewrite anywhere else but on this page. I therefore fail to see how any attempt to satisfy a consensus derived from that straw poll would involve PLOT remaining on this page. It would involve an iteration of PLOT in another policy page, since that would satisfy the supporters of PLOT as well as the opposers of PLOT. I think the community consensus would likely lie behind a page akin to BLP for Fiction. Hiding T 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding an RFC, I could get behind that if you would agree to a moderated RFC similar to the way Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll was set up. Hiding T 13:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated before, I strongly oppose any RFC at this time that is formatted as a simple poll. The effect of such RFCs is to shoehorn editors into predetermined categories rather than to work towards consensus. Particularly since the last RFC got turned largely into a straw poll with that effect, I don't think we need more of the same. A proposal / support format allowing the community to take things in their desired direction would be much more likely to lead to consensus. Locke9k (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First, regarding the poll, we're not a democracy, so just because "no it doesn't belong" got 3 more votes out of 100+ total voters, ignoring any additional and valuable input from their comments, that's not enough to say that there's no consensus that it doesn't belong either. I know Pixelface's listings of the history of PLOT, but to be frank, up until the above poll it has enjoyed consensus on this page for a couple of years (irregardless of how it was added) save but for a handful of editors (including Pixelface) that disagree with it; a handful of editors does not make for a disputed policy. (and counter to that, I'm sure it can be argued that only a handful of editors including myself have maintained that it is still policy despite this, but again, at least from my perspective, until it was shown that there was a larger number of editors in dispute with the statement as determined by the straw poll, it appeared to have consensus, and thus maintaining it was the status quo) But I will agree that the poll points that we need to figure out what to do with PLOT but the results, as close as they are, are not sufficient to say that PLOT can stay indefinitely without question, but nor should we be so quick to remove it. I've no problem leaving it marked "disputed" while we seek the right answer as long as we have a path to get there (in this case, a moderated RFC/poll). But because one of the options is that it stays as NOT, it should remain there, marked disputed, while that RFC/poll is conducted so that it remains current working advice for editors but should not be used as policy.

To Locke9k, actually, the last started as a straw poll and became an RFC. But I think we need a straw poll to start to determine where PLOT needs to be; any further discussions on changing the wording or the like can't really continue without knowing its location, and trying to achieve both at the same time is going to make it very difficult. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

MASEM, I'm not at all sure that "until the above poll it has enjoyed consensus on this page for a couple of years". It's quite possible that there was simply grudging acceptance of a fait accompli. We may now be seeing a backlash against the fait accompli. --Philcha (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be backlash, but again, I've not seen evidence that alone WP:PLOT has "damaged" the encyclopedia as has been claims; at most, its been shown to be inconsistent. It is definitely worthwhile to mark it under dispute in order to prevent it from being used as a sole argument to influence article development and retention, but unlike, say, FICT, which was being used to remove article via fait accompli prior to the E&C cases, there's no negative mainspace impact that PLOT seems to have that necessitates us removing it while we discuss its fate. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Philcha, there needs some form on honest proposal which makes it clear and explicit that an exemption from Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines is being sought for plot only articles, as this is basically the change that you are seeking, and why you think it would be a good idea. A proposal which hides or is silent about the impact of the change is unlikely to have any lasting impact, legitamacy or acceptance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think removing notplot would lead to an "exemption" for plot articles? Given that you have argued that totally separate policies and guidelines also serve to prohibit plot only articles, it doesn't seem consistent to say that removing notplot would create any exception at all. Rather plot only articles would remain unacceptable based on those other policies. If this does not seem like a reasonable conclusion based upon your previous statements, then I would appreciate a clarification. Locke9k (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely. All 3 of the core content policies require an article to contain real world coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent to ensure that they are not in breach of the principles of verfiablity, NPOV and NOR. In order to counter any arguements that plot summary only articles should have their own standalone article based on subjective criteria, the prohibition against them, and various other items that also sit outside the existing framework of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines, are stated in WP:NOT. The reason given, which is quite reasonable, is that fiction should be the subject of balanced coverage. What reason do you want to allow coverage that is (a) falls outside the existing framework, and (b) is unbalanced? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe that all topics covered in Wikipedia should be subject to the core content policies you have mentioned. I also find it hard to imagine how any fictional topic with only plot coverage could meet those policies. My objection to your argument is that it almost seems to be a straw man. Although there may be a few people arguing to create an exemption from these policies for fictional articles, that number seems to me to be very small, and not the issue of the real debate. It seems like you are painting anyone advocating removal of notplot as wanting to "carve out an exemption". On the contrary, my impression of the recent RFC and of the discussion here is that most opponents of notplot instead have the sense that notplot is making some statement or prohibition beyond those core policies. It is this extra prohibition or statement to which they object.

It is for this reason that I have been pushing people to clarify what they see as the difference between what core policies have to say about plot summary and what notplot says about it. From the responses, it appears that you and some others believe that notplot is simply restating emphasizing what is already in core policies, as an insurance policy against editors IARing the policies. You thus seem to presume that attempts to remove notplot must be one prong of an attempt to create some kind of broad exemption for fictional articles. On the other hand, many opponents of notplot seem to feel that a significant additional burden is being applied to fictional articles beyond that required by core policies. They thus seem to see attempts to retain notplot as part of an overall deletionist movement that has a general bias against fictional topics. Certainly there are some people who don't fall into these categories. There are probably a few who actually support extra burdens on fictional articles or who want to carve out an exemption for fiction. These individuals are a small minority however.

What I am thus trying to do here is carve out a consensus among the editors who believe that core policies should apply to fiction in the same manner that they apply to everything else - no more, no less. I think it is highly likely that the majority of people on both side would support that statement, and it seems that we should be able to find a consensus way to reflect that position. So to that end, I'll ask you and others to avoid making anyone's position seem more extreme than it really is. Realize that the majority of people on both sides are essentially "pro-Wikipedia"; they are trying to word the policies in a way that best reflects WP's core principles rather than in a way that pushes some narrow agenda. Locke9k (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the problem at this point is intransigence and filibustering. I can see a dozen policies or guidelines which could get a less than ringing endorsement (or have in the past) but we retain anyways. There is less than 60% approval for admin tenure. IF we straw polled notability we might not get a supermajority in support (especially if we phrased it as the poll for PLOT was phrased). Yet both of those policies are important to what wikipedia is as a resource and how editors and admins navigate it. A snapshot of who likes or doesn't like something is a terrible way to govern. As I see it changes were made to the main page of the NOT section (and then used to contest some deletions on the grounds that the straw poll somehow eliminated PLOT as a deletion criteria), what is the continued push for? Protonk (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Protonk, I think those arguing that we must have WP:PLOT in the face of A) it lacking consensus to even exist and B) WP:POLICY being pretty clear that things without consensus should not be policy are the ones literally filibustering. That is arguing over and over and preventing the lack-of-consensus from being acknowledged and acted upon per WP:POLICY. I mean the person that added it is asking that it be removed and there is a demonstrated lack of consensus for it to exist in NOT. Let's just please remove it and move forward. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You have all done a good job of talking yourselves into a corner, but you have still to explain why plot only articles are such a good idea. I have still yet to hear why balanced coverage of fictional topics is bad. I have not read any proposal which says that plot only articles should be exempted from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So far there has been no constructive proposal tabled.
When attempting to change policy, it is best practise to openly and honestly state where, why, and what is the benefit from departing from Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines, rather than attempt to ignore, or worse, to hide such departures.
I think some sort of constructive proposal has to be tabled, rather than threaten to revert the wording which you subscribed to (on my talk page[55]) only a few weeks ago. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there is no reason to disallow a pure-plot spinout article that otherwise meets our general inclusion guidelines. Balanced coverage of any topic is good. However 1) there is no good reason to single fiction articles out and 2) for major works (Star Wars, Les Mis, etc.) it might (and I'd say, usually does) make sense to spin out well-sourced plot-only articles. Not allowing well-sourced, plot-only articles means that we often have plot dominating the main article because it can't be spun out. That produces unbalanced articles. Finally, NOT#PLOT is used as an excuse to gut articles. I honestly believe the latest change (we/you made!) helps that last point considerably. But there is still a long history of NOT#PLOT being used to remove relevant and sourced material. That bothers people, including me. Hobit (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I've made no secret that I've felt that NOT#PLOT should be removed and that while the change which you made was a good one, but that I'd still favor removing NOT#PLOT. Plus the way the AfD and DrV of the Plot of Les Mis was handled has made me realize that a group of editors and admins will largely ignore the text of NOT#PLOT, claiming as long as it is around articles once deleted/redirected under NOT#PLOT will not be able to be recreated unless NOT#PLOT is removed. So here we are. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is such an article that meet WP:N that is a pure-plot summary. Well source articles tend to comprise of balanced coverage, as it would be unusual for a reliable source not to contain any real world commentary, and in any case, a well sourced article would be unlikely to be plot only, otherwise it would fall foul of WP:UNDUE. For this reason, I have never seen an article been deleted that cited real world coverage, and I doubt you could find such an example in the AFD archives. The reason why plot only articles tend to get merged or deleted has more to do with the fact if they don't have citations, then tend to attract original research, or are excessively detailed. You know yourself that plot only articles like Kender are once cruft magnets, but now know is it balanced and sourced, original research tends not to stick. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If no such plot-only article can be written that meets our other guidelines, NOTPLOT isn't needed. Hobit (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if plot only articles don't meet the content guidelines, then WP:PLOT is not needed. However, the same can be said about virtually all of WP:NOT - since they all fail one or more content policies, you would think there would be no need for WP:NOT at all. However, this policy needs to remain in order to provide clear boundries in terms of the content which Wikipedia should or should not support, just in case editors use one or more of the arguments contained in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to say that they should be allowed despite the fact thay they falloutside the remit of Wikipedia content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That argument seems to boil down to otherstuffexists. We don't need to debate the justification for the other entrees in WP:NOT in order to assess this one. Please realize that as much as you are legitimately concerned with people overriding other policies, Hobit and others are legitimately concerned about this policy being overused. The two concerns are logically equivalent and both are realistic. Since both are good points, we need to work on drafting a consensus that addresses both. The recent rewording is a good step; however, even at the time it was clear that this was a temporary improvement, not to be taken as a final outcome. For this reason, I have suggested the above proposal to move the content of notplot into the part of WP:NOT on source material. This or something similar would retain an extra policy statement that could be pointed to, as Gavin and others want, but could significantly tone down the perhaps undue weight presently given to the entry, as Hobit and others would like. We really should be considering these sorts of alternate solutions rather than just rehashing the keep/remove debate.Locke9k (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We would have a better chance of finding the correct wording if it first removed. Either that or do a an RfC that only allows a few options. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The existing wording is quite good, unless you can think of any improvement? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(redent) No partiular wording has consensus to be on this page. Take it out and do a big RfC to find what, if anything, should be included in NOT. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is too sweeping a generalisation - it can neither be proved or disproved. If you think there a particular form of wording that is better, bring it forward, otherwise we are not addressing the problem. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If the perceived problem is that NOT#PLOT doesn't belong here, then removing it is addressing the problem. I, and others, believe the RfC showed that there is no consensus for NOT#PLOT to be here. So removing it is the right thing to do per WP:POLICY. You've not responded to that as far as I can see. Hobit (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're still arguing why PLOT should be included, but that isn't the point anymore. Why do you think it has consensus, after the results of the RfC. It seems pretty cut and dried to me. It's not "what are the pros and cons of PLOT", it's "PLOT either does or does not have consensus to be included in NOT". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that no one has put forward any particular reason why it should it be removed. I am still unclear as to what the proposal is. We still have to work out what the objectictions are. Sweeping genralisations are not helpful: we need a specific proposal to address what ever concerns there are. All the concerns about WP:PLOT that have been made explicit so far have been adressed in the current wording. If you are unhappy with the wording, I think you have to provide specific reasons why, not hide behind vague generalisations such as "it is not consensus". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason that it should be removed is that policy pages shouldn't include anything that doesn't have consensus. Simple as that. If you want to determine what has broad consensus, and which policy or guideline page it should go on, go for it. That's a separate issue. So, the specific proposal is remove PLOT, then do an RfC or whatever you want. It's silly to keep something in NOT that doesn't have consensus, because some people think that at some point in the future it will be replaced by something that does have consensus (which may or may not end up on another page enitirely). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not work that way. You have to make explicit the issue or issues which you feel are the problem. An analogy would be Kafka's The Trial]; simply saying something is wrong but not saying why is a parody of WP:CONSENSUS in the same way that saying that "Committee of Affairs" accuses K of an unkown crime is a parody of the criminal justice system. If you have a formula that will replace the current policy, then do propose it. But if you don't, then there is no charge, no crime and no dispute. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We are proposing what to replace it with: nothing. That's the whole proposal. Per WP:POLICY, stuff that lacks consensus (new or old) shouldn't in in policy. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but then you need to define consensus. Even if there was consensus here (which there never is), consensus on an obscure policy page - yes, all policy pages are obscure to 90% of Wikipedians - doesn't equal site-wide consensus. On that basis, we wouldn't have our non-free image policy, because even though it's Foundation policy, the majority of editors that come into contact with it do so because some copyright violation of theirs has been removed, and so of course they don't agree with it. But a collection of people complaining because their images have been removed doesn't qualify as site-wide consensus; and if it doesn't qualify there, it certainly doesn't qualify here. Hence why modifying PLOT rather than going for the nuclear option is by far the best idea. Black Kite 20:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Stricly plot-content articles routinely fail AfD, and when they are kept it is almost always b/c editors thresh out enough real-world significance to satisfy our GNG. That is the best demonstration of ongoing consensus that exists (far exceeding a small, WT-specific RFC) and it suggests through praxis that the current wording has general, if not unanimous, support. Eusebeus (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Some contributors seem to be under the misconception that policy must necessarily (and some apparently think continuously) be supported by consensus. Consensus is surely necessary to create new policy, and most would agree that consensus is necessary to remove or alter policy (the alternative being a form of wiki-anarchy where "motions of no confidence" would overturn "unpopular" policies from one week to the next). In this case, what the RfC determined was that there was no consensus. No consensus equates to no safe basis for changing policy.

In addition, consider that consensus is only one of the things that informs policy. There are also legal concerns, office actions, foundation issues, and a number of areas where these overlap - and no consensus can override these. For those who are wondering is this is relevant, consider that what Wikipedia is NOT is necessarily determined by what Wikipedia IS, which is defined to a large extent by the WikiMedia Foundation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Some contributors think that "If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus; possibilities include silence on the issue and acknowledgment that editors disagree on the point." Leaving the "disputed" tag in WP:NOT is one way to go, as is removing the policy statement (being silent on the issue). Hobit (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If "consensus is surely necessary to create new policy", then WP:NOT#PLOT is not actually policy because there was no consensus to create it when it was proposed.[56] It's clearly "policy" in name only. Anyone can click "edit this page" on any of Wikipedia's policies, and the idea that all of those edits reflect community norms is preposterous. The top of this talkpage even says "Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic." Hiding changed this policy page, so people thought WP:NOT#PLOT was some community standard, but it wasn't. He got away with his edit it for 3 months, and then WP:NOT#PLOT was removed for the first time.

A section of a policy page must have consensus in order to be policy, not merely no consensus to remove it. A majority of people said that this policy should not have a section about plot summaries, so it can't. You say that the RFC determined there was no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT. How can you have a policy with no consensus behind it? You can't. Policies are widely accepted standards, standards that have community wide consensus. There are no legal concerns, office actions, foundation issues etc. behind WP:NOT#PLOT. The Wikimedia Foundation didn't propose WP:NOT#PLOT. Hiding did. Because of this thread at WT:COMICS, and this thread at WT:WAF. And if policies represent widely accepted community standards, it's impossible for a real policy to be "unpopular." --Pixelface (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Material which is unencyclopaedic doesn't belong in Wikipedia. That's because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and that in turn is a foundation issue. Show me an article that consists solely of plot summary that you believe belongs here, and if I think it's encyclopaedic, I'll concede you have a point. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Unanimous support? Citation needed. Do you have anything to back up what you're saying except bare assertions? You're claim that "strictly plot-content articles routinely fail AFD" is false.[57] Even if it were true, it would depend entirely on which story was being summarized wouldn't it? And to describe the GNG as "our GNG" and not Uncle G's GNG is ridiculous. The "GNG" is also not policy by the way, and will never be policy. You're so far gone in the cult of Wikipedia, you don't even realize it. And the people scrambling to "satisfy our GNG" are playing Radiant! and Uncle G's MMORPG they invented, and those people don't even realize it either. --Pixelface (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If Wikimedia makes a declaration that PLOT should be in NOT, that would end this. They haven't done so, so comparing PLOT to policies based on their directives is a red herring. Take it out until it does have consensus. Pretty simple. - Peregrine Fisher (talk)

I haven't seen Wikimedia make many declaration on many policies recently, so perhaps we should scrap them all? (I won't comment on the use of the word "simple"). Black Kite 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(contribs) 18:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. We should scrap all the ones that don't have consensus, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And that brings us back to where we started ... you need wide not narrow consensus to change policy, and as I said, how do you measure site-wide consensus on an issue that hasn't had site-wide input? Black Kite 06:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

GNG may not be policy, and GNG may never be policy, but GNG does not need to be policy. Deletion policy says that an article's subject failing to meet the relevant notability guideline is a valid reason for deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Peregrine Fisher, it is not a valid arguement that any policy or guideline can be scarpped based on the subjective reasoning that you disagree with it. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines exist so that we can create or contribute to an article on any topic (including controversial ones) without having to obtain permission from an editorial board or a cabal of administrators. For instance, if we set inclusion criteria for standalone articles based on verifiable evidence rather than subjective importance, then we have to accept there will be content that is just not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Plot only articles are not suitable for inclusion because they the the type of content which, like the other types of content described in WP:NOT, can only included based on subjective reasoning. Saying that they should be included on that basis that it is the "consensus" view is just another way of pushing a subjective viewpoint, and carries no weight here.
However, if you can put forward some sort of non-subjective agrument why plot only articles are suitable for inclusion, then we have a basis for dialogue.
Remember, the staw poll provided many non-subjective arguments why plot only articles should continue to be prohibited. If you simply ignore or discount them as the "minority" view, your arguments that removing WP:PLOT is flawed, because this ignores the whole point of the staw poll - to make explicit what people's views on the issue are. You must also follow this process and put forward some form of proposal. With over 100 participants contributing to the staw poll, I expect you will find some form of wording for you proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@BK: Policies don't default to keep with no consensus, they default to not being policies.

@GK: There's only one reason to remove PLOT, and that's because there doesn't exist consensus for it to be policy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Says who and says who? DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. If you can find a community wide consensus to remove PLOT, as opposed to a few people shouting the loudest on an obscure policy talkpage, then we can look at it again. Until then, it has to stay. Because otherwise, anyone could float an idea to remove a policy on a policy talkpage, and when hardly anyone argues against it (because no-one ever reads the page) then they could complain that there's no consensus to keep it. Which is clearly absurd. This comment by ArbCom member Risker (on a different subject, but the point is the same one) is instructive. Black Kite 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@DreamGuy: You can read about it at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

@BK: We just had an RfC in which over 100 people participated. This whole thing isn't about my opinion, it about the opinion of the community. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And the opinion of the community was that there was no consensus to remove PLOT. In the absence of a consensus to change the status quo, the status quo must naturally remain. If PLOT did not already exist, the RfC would not have created a consensus to create it, either. Black Kite 22:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that policies should include stuff that doesn't have consensus? - 22:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, by the looks of it you're deliberately missing the point repeatedly. I don't think I need to repeat myself ad nauseam if that's the case. Black Kite 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is very clear from other guidelines, such as WP:BK and WP:WAF, that plot only articles go against the consensus that coverage of fiction should be balanced, and not plot summary only. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

After years of discussion and what must be gigabytes of text by now, I see not one new argument or justification for the attempt to remove WP:PLOT. It's a useful rule. It makes the encyclopedia better. It reminds people that we're writing an encyclopedia, not a bunch of primary-school-level book reports. Leave it alone and spend your time improving the articles. Rossami (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I restored the disputed tag as at the very least the RfC showed that having NOT#PLOT here is disputed. And I continue to believe that ""If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus; possibilities include silence on the issue and acknowledgment that editors disagree on the point." makes it pretty darn clear that acknowledging the disagreement on the topic is the least we should be doing here. Hobit (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no proposal to replace WP:PLOT on the table; all there is is an assertion that the policy is disputed. All of the prohibiitons in WP:NOT are disputed one way or another, but what is lacking is a proposal to replace them.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, the proposal is to remove NOT#PLOT. You know that. Just because you disagree with the idea doesn't mean that this isn't disputed. Hobit (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:Hiding is correct - there is no consensus for WP:PLOT. It should therefore not be included here as policy unless and until there is a version supported by consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Folks, the basic debate we have, as noted way above, is the nature of policy and inertia. Do we keep policy that lacks consensus? I think we all agree that PLOT wouldn't be _added_ to NOT given the current situation (RfC, opinions expressed here, etc.) So the question is, do we need consensus to remove a policy or do we simply need to show it lacks consensus? The quote "If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus; possibilities include silence on the issue and acknowledgment that editors disagree on the point." from WP:POLICY makes it clear to me what the answer is to that question. We should either remove PLOT *or* label it in a way that makes it clear there is no consensus for it. I'd prefer to remove it, but can live with the labeling as that meets the requirements of WP:POLICY. I'm not sure exactly what policy-based argument is being used to argue that this should be kept on the basis of "inertia". To me the RfC, which asked exactly the question of keeping PLOT here or not, makes it clear there is no consensus to have NOT#PLOT (in fact a slight majority didn't want it here). Hobit (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A poll where the margin of winning was only 3% (2-3 votes out of 100+) should be not used to decide significant change to policy - we are not a democracy, and that's not how consensus is determined. Now, mind you, I'm fine to say that it is disputed, and I complete agree that not addressing as many of the issues with PLOT that were given in the poll would not help (that is, our attempt to reword it to address those was a correct step), but close results of the poll give no momentum to do anything else with it. Again, I suggested we perform another RFC to address the new wording, making sure to explicitly point out that this was changed to reflect concerns of the previous one, and make it clear that the RFC looks to see if there are any problems keeping the new wording in NOT, or should it be moved to WAF or removed entirely; this question needs to be explicit to avoid the ambiguity of the question (based on the type of input from the resulting statements) from the previous poll/RFC. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Replacement Wording for PLOT

This RFC seeks to determine whether a modified version of WP:NOT#PLOT, rewritten to address concerns raised in a previous poll/RFC, has consensus to remain as policy or should be moved elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Since there needs to be a clear rationale as to why WP:NOT#PLOT should be remain or be moved, I think this RFC should be modified so that it is clear to everyone why this policy should or should not be changed. The current consensus, as shown by the wording of WP:NOT#PLOT (written by Masem himself), is that fictional topics should be the subject of balanced coverage. This RFC should be amended to obtain feedback as to whether this view is still consensus. The real issue is whether or not fictional topics should be the devoid of real world context, such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis . --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement of dispute

In a previous poll/RFC for whether WP:NOT#PLOT should be kept in WP:NOT, the results were roughly split equally, showing that consensus was still split. However, as a result of comments provided in that poll, there were two concerns that were identified with the then-present wording of PLOT that were common to many:

• By being in WP:NOT, it may be read that any plot summary is not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, which is certainly not the case but a point understood.
• Plot summaries are often the first thing written in developing articles on fiction; NOT#PLOT may be used to delete them before they can be expanded.
• It actively discriminates against a key part of the encyclopedic coverage of a fictional work.
• It encourages the deletion or hacking down to a paragraph of sections with encyclopedic content (plot summaries) in articles. This plot summary will just have to be recreated later when the article gets longer, and in the meantime, we've ruined what most people have come to Wikipedia to find.
• Plot summaries are encyclopedic content. Since when has encyclopedic content been part of what Wikipedia is not?
• Other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Britanica, have articles all or primarily plot summary.
  • The vast majority of users of Wikipedia will be seeking information about the work itself. A plot summary gives this information. Under these guidelines, we say not to provide it in early stages of the article.

Given these two points, the old wording (as before and during the above-mentioned RFC):

The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

Was changed to the following:

Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting. Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

This replacement wording has been added to WP:NOT but there is still dispute that NOT#PLOT does not belong in NOT for various reasons, including the straight-up numbers result from the previous poll/RFC which give a slight margin of victory for the removal of NOT#PLOT, that there are selected instances of plot-only articles that are kept through WP:AFD and other processes, and other reasons.

This RFC seeks to gain final determination if NOT#PLOT, with the new wording, should remain/be part of WP:NOT. There are three likely options for the fate of NOT#PLOT:

1. Keep/retain as policy in WP:NOT with the current new wording.
2. Move to the guideline Writing about Fiction (WAF)
3. Remove the concept entirely from Wikipedia

There may be other options (one that has been suggested is to make a new policy page for NOT#PLOT itself) but these are not considered to have reasonable consensus to be a likely option; however, this RFC is open to any other suggestions.

Please indicate with any comments below what you believe should be the fate of NOT#PLOT, based on the present wording. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Proposals

In a previous poll/RFC for whether WP:NOT#PLOT should be kept in WP:NOT, the results were roughly split equally, showing that consensus was still split. However, as a result of comments provided in that poll, there were two concerns that were identified with the then-present wording of PLOT that were common to many:

• By being in WP:NOT, it may be read that any plot summary is not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, which is certainly not the case but a point understood.
• Plot summaries are often the first thing written in developing articles on fiction; NOT#PLOT may be used to delete them before they can be expanded.

Given these two points, the old wording (as before and during the above-mentioned RFC):

The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

Was changed to the following:

Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting. Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

This replacement wording has been added to WP:NOT but there is still dispute that NOT#PLOT does not belong in NOT for various reasons, including the straight-up numbers result from the previous poll/RFC which give a slight margin of victory for the removal of NOT#PLOT, that there are selected instances of plot-only articles that are kept through WP:AFD and other processes, and other reasons.

This RFC seeks to gain final determination if NOT#PLOT, with the new wording, should remain/be part of WP:NOT. There are three likely options for the fate of NOT#PLOT:

1. Keep/retain as policy in WP:NOT with the current new wording.
2. Move to the guideline Writing about Fiction (WAF)
3. Remove the concept entirely from Wikipedia

There may be other options (one that has been suggested is to make a new policy page for NOT#PLOT itself) but these are not considered to have reasonable consensus to be a likely option; however, this RFC is open to any other suggestions.

Please indicate with any comments below what you believe should be the fate of NOT#PLOT, based on the present wording. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A third concern was that no other aspect of fiction, nor coverage of any other type of article, is singled out in this way. By doing so, whatever sensible advice might be offered by this is mutated into an obsession against plot summaries - a basic part of encyclopedic coverage - specifically. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Plot summaries are not a basic part of encyclopedic coverage. In fact they're generally the exact opposite: total fanwank material. WP:NOT has always been against plot summaries; in fact the original version was a lot more explicitly anti-plot summaries than the current one. Please do not misrepresent this policy's history to pretend that your attempt to gut this policy is at all in line with the original intent of this project. DreamGuy (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a funny thing to say, DreamGuy. I'm all for WP:PLOT's inclusion, and have defended it in discussions many times, but never was the policy "anti-plot summary". Some of us in this discussion where here through out the policy's history and would be happy to correct any other misconceptions you might have. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep PLOT as policy in WP:NOT with new wording

1. The new wording is superior and achieves the goal of deprecating long plot "summaries" except in rare cases where the length is appropriate. If it still has a few problems, they aren't significant enough to avoid implementing the new language. Powers ^T 16:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice: This language presumesthat articles are improvable, and that seems like a bit of a stretch.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I think this answers the concerns of fiction enthusiasts, while still allowing deletion of plot-only articles that can not be improved/explanded due to a lack of sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice. It probably does need re-wording slightly, but this isn't the forum to do so. Black Kite 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Second choice. I would prefer moving it outside of NOT to elsewhere, but the new wording is at least better than the original. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   Second choice, per Kww. First choice is to restore previous wording. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC) struck 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

6. Good compromise. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Second choice, after restoration of old wording. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
8. My second choice as well - this seems like a fair compromise and I don't have any major objections. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
9. First choice. Also seek an injuction to stop these RFCs happening time and time again until the "correct" result is achieved, like what happened to FICT. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
10. First choice. There is clear consensus to soften plot and to loosen the leash on fictional sub-articles, but binary decisions get us nowhere. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Second choice, after restoring the old wording.  Sandstein  06:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
12. The new wording is clear and sensible. Keep it. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
13. New wording is an improvement. Makes it clear that plot summaries in of themselves are not bad, and that a brief plot summary is often appropriate for encyclopedic coverage of a work (imagine trying to write an article on Jane Eyre without saying what happens in it); the problem is only when an article is nothing but a plot summary, or the plot summary is enormous (as in, for example, The Adventures of Dr. McNinja). People here often [incorrectly, I believe] cite NOT#PLOT as an argument that WP should not have plot summaries at all, when all NOT#PLOT really says, even in its old form, is that articles shouldn't be nothing but plot summaries...the new wording also expresses that, but does so more clearly. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Second choice. The new wording protects against over-zealous deletions but also highlights the problem with plot-only articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
15. I came here from Shoemaker's Holiday's user page, where I read a hilarious argument in favor of plot summaries. Nobody will ever benefit from a 200 page summary of a Talespin episode. Such things are written solely to satisfy the writer and maybe one or two fellow fans. A featured fiction article on Wikipedia, e.g. The Illuminatus! Trilogy or I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, should have a plot summary of about 4 paragraphs. I disagree that summaries are entirely useless, but our articles should be kept in the real world, and not submerged in the fantasies of fiction. Shii (tock) 04:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
16. I'm not crazy about either version, but this would be acceptable to me. I learn towards the idea that we shouldn't get hung up on how much "plot" is on each page, but rather how much plot is on the coverage of the topic. I feel it's mostly a technical matter if something is a "sub article"/individual document or not. -- Ned Scott 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Second choice. I like the previous wording best. Karanacs (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
18. First choice. I think it explains the prohibition quite well, and its rationale is clear. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Move PLOT to guideline within WP:WAF

1. First choice. WP:NOTPLOT just seems misleadingly titled given the substance of the policy. Second choice would be the "New wording" option. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice.Hobit (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
3. This is where it would seem to fit the best. Failing that, I'll take the rewrite which is far more generous than the previous version. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice, this should be about how articles are written, which is properly placed in the manual of style guidelines not in a policy page that defines things that wikipedia is not. No matter what the wording, having WP:PLOT here misleads as a plot description is needed as part of a good article and thus is not a good subject of this page. Davewild (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
6. First choice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Second choice - my first is "Remove PLOT entirely". --Philcha (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
8. First choice, per Davewild. It's better to treat this as a guideline on how to improve an article than to risk it being treated as a delitionist's dream. And in that context it makes more sense to provide information on an appropriate size, no spoiler warnings etc. And even the WP:WPO expectation to embed aria etc names into an opera plot summary, and similar could be done for key Shakespeare speeches.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove PLOT entirely

1. Second choice. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice - wishful thinking, but I'd be perfectly fine with this. BOZ (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice. Any other option seems likely to result in a few editors working and working to make sure that even sourced articles discussing a major work's plot - such as Plot of Les Misérables - get deleted, out of some idiotic ideas about encyclopedicity. Plot is not so evil as to need specific, top-level policy attacking it. No other elements of fictional works are singled out in this way, nor specific aspects of any other type of article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice per my above comment, I struggle to see how any article that would meet our other policies and guidelines should be removed due to this wording. Davewild (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice and the common sense obvious choice. Not plot is one of the top three or four most idiotic things ever come up with on this site that serves no honest or constructive purpose, but instead tries to force a narrow-minded and elitist viewpoint on the community. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Second choice. Plot-only articles are not such a problem that we need to muck up the NOT list with this one. Having fewer items on the NOT list makes it more likely that editors will read and be able to apply it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
7. First choice: Most articles related to any kind of "fiction" - including films, comics and games as well as the the obvious ones, generaly start as plot summaries - otherwise there's nothing else for the more "scholarly" parts of the artcile to refer to. Statisitcs cited much earlier in this long debate indicate that most articles that eventually reach GA or FA languish for quite a few years as "low grade" articles (start-class, etc.) Deleting such artciles or cutting the plotsummaries ot the bone will at best for editors who wish to improve such articles to re-do qwirk that has already been done. There should be no policy or guideline that gives any encouragement at all to deletion or mutilation of plot-only articles. --Philcha (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep PLOT as policy in WP:NOT with previous wording

1. Neither of the stated reasons for changing the language seem to be valid. The words "should not be a mere plot summary" make it clear that this isn't about all plot summaries, but merely (ahem) about articles that consist solely of a plot summary. Also, we shouldn't assume that deletion is necessarily a bad thing. I will certainly agree that improvement is usually preferable, but we shouldn't indicate that it is the only permissible solution. Sometimes deletion is the best option, either because of a scarcity of sources containing real-world information, or where it is apparent that improvement is just not going to happen (as with some articles that just seem to be tagged forever). So I find the new version's sentence ("Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context.") to be problematic. Distant second choice would be to keep PLOT as policy in WP:NOT with the new wording. Jakew (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Ditto. The perceived problems with the existing language didn't actually exist.—Kww(talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
3. No need to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist, and agree with Jakew's well stated arguments noting the problem with the new wording. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice, per my comments above. It does need some tweaking, but a backwater policy talk page isn't the page to do so. Black Kite 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Jakew, the old wording covered this need concisely, specifying the goal of plot summaries and how plot-only articles fail to demonstrate general notability or to provide encyclopedic information. The new wording is weakened and less actionable, basically toward keeping unimproved plot-only articles indefinitely. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Absolutely. A encyclopedia is not the place where editors come to recap what they watched 30 minutes ago on TV. Readers should read the book or watch the show in question, rather than come to an encyclopedia to find the Cliff's Notes of the fictional work. While a short summary of the plot is definitely acceptable, it grows as more users contribute to it and eventually gets split off into a "Plot of _______". Corpx (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
7. This is my first choice. The old wording seemed to work fine for me, I don't see any need to mess with it. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
8. First choice, but then we don't have all choices represented with a poll here... I would prefer a return to the more original wording that was more explicit that a plot summary, if it is needed at all (as honestly most pages don't need them and they add nothing encyclopedic), should be "brief" . DreamGuy (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Agree: the original wording is fine - concise, to the point, and agreeable with the larger objectives of an encyclopedic project. Eusebeus (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Second choice. The wording and intent are clear enough to me, though this has been the cause of misunderstandings and disputes among other editors. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Nothing wrong with the old wording and no reason to water it down. Deor (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Despite the strawman statement of the case against above - which I have fixed witht he actiual arguments frewquently made in the discussion - there is plenty wrong with it: A. It actively discriminates against a key part of the encyclopedic coverage of a fictional work. B. It encourages the deletion or hacking down to a paragraph of encyclopedic content (plot summaries) in articles which will just have to be recreated later when they get longer. C. Plot summaries are encyclopedic content. Since when has encyclopedic content been part of what Wikipedia is not? D. Other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, have articles all or primarily plot summary. If it's good enough to be policy, it can stand to have a full description of its problems, and not the strawman one, and still pass this RfC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    I'd be interested in seeing these Encyclopaedia Britannica articles that consist of "all or primarily plot summary." Any citations that you can supply? Deor (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Would you strike your vote and move it elsewhere if such a citation was provided? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    I'll take it that you (and SH) are unable or unwilling to respond to a simple request. Deor (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    Don't fall into Peregrine's trap. There well be billions of plot only articles in other encyclopedias, but that is the decision for their owners or editorial boards to make. Wikipedia is different: it has content policies that enable anyone to create or write an article without the need to refer to an owner or editorial board. Plot only articles are not catered for by Wikipedia's content policies, and so they are not encyclopedic from a Wikipedia perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not falling into any trap. I've done editorial work for Britannica in the past and am fairly familiar with the formats of their articles, so I'd be rather surprised if examples of plot-only articles could be found therein. Deor (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

12. Second choice. Also seek an injunction to stop these RFCs happening time and time again until the "correct" result is achieved, like what happened to FICT. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    You mean like this one, which seeks to overturn the voter to remove WP:PLOT? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

13. Second choice. Much less preferred, given the limited support that PLOT enjoys and the fact that tens of thousands of articles exist in contravention to PLOT. But preferred over removing it or relegating it to WAF without actually treating WAF as a reason to edit/merge articles when required. Protonk (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
14. First choice, because it states more concisely that articles containing mostly plot summary are to be avoided.  Sandstein  06:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
15. While I find the immediately preceding wording less than ideal, it is the better of the two. (My first choice is not included in this "poll.") This policy page is about what kinds of information do not fit within Wikipedia's scope (which I see as a clarification of the first pillar), not what kinds of information to include in a stub. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
16. See comments below about the analogy between NOTPLOT and NOTDICDEF. The concerns being raised about NOTPLOT depend upon a strawman reading of the policy. Rossami (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
17. I'm not crazy about either version, but this would be acceptable to me. I learn towards the idea that we shouldn't get hung up on how much "plot" is on each page, but rather how much plot is on the coverage of the topic. I feel it's mostly a technical matter if something is a "sub article"/individual document or not. -- Ned Scott 08:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
18. First choice. I think rather than completely removing a longer plot summary the article should instead be improved to balance things out. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Yup, take it back to before the disruption. The original wording is and was fine. And those opposed to this need to learn to cope with this and stop the disruption. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
20. A solution in search of a problem. EyeSerene^talk 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
21. I judge such a policy by what effect it would have, and this language would keep be better able to keep out articles consisting of someone watching something on TV and then running to the computer and typing out a lengthy scene by scene regurgitation of what every character said and did in every scene. Lengthy fanspew does not make an encyclopedia. I do not see it as preventing an article from succinctly telling what happened in a notable fictional work. cartoon, movie or TV episode. I do not see it as preventing a list of episodes of a TV show which has a few sentences for each summarizing what happened in the episode, with spoilage, either as part of the article about the show or as a spinoff from the article about the show. It should be policy to avoid the AFD quibble that we can ignore a rule because it is "only a guideline." Edison (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Keep old, succinct wording. The new version merely says how to write an encyclopedic article in a verbose way, i.e., is not of NOT style. - Altenmann >t 17:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
23. First choice. Mintrick (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
24. That my choice --KrebMarkt 18:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
25. First choice. (second is new wording) Karanacs (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Second choice. Although the old wording is short and sharp, its rationale is not entirely clear.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

So we now split the half who doesn't believe it should be in NOT into smaller parts, to create the illusion that there is consensus for it to be in PLOT? I'd like to see some wording at the top saying what type of supermajority will be viewed as support for PLOT in NOT. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a mockery of the RFC process. What we don't have is a proposal saying why it should be moved. Instead this is an RFC without a rationale, and the wording has not been discussed too boot. From this point of view, it is dishonest. If someone could put forward a proposal saying why it would be a good idea, that would be fair. Instead we have blind choice between WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing something completely or moving it elsewhere is a completely acceptable alternative proposal as opposed to retaining it. Just as there have been many reasons to keep it here, there have been good statements suggestion moving or removing it altogether are acceptable outcomes. That's the entire crux of why this is still disputed - there are some that are saying outright there is no place for PLOT in NOT. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think that the previous RfC did a better job of asking the question. Does PLOT belong in NOT, yes or no? Once _that_ is settled we can figure out where to move it (WAF is really the only obvious choice). Hobit (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It may have asked that question, but the responses showed different interpretations of the question all over the map. A large number of "no"s said "Plot summaries are acceptable parts of an encyclopedia" - which has absolutely nothing to with the exact question being asked (since at the time NOT#PLOT said nothing along the lines that plot summaries were unacceptable en masse). It's not just enough to ask "should it be part of NOT or not", because that's two extreme positions and gives no option of a gray area (such as a move to WAF) - 10 abstainers out of 140 participants is a reasonably concerned number, most addressing the lack of a gray area in the poll.

But mind you, in response to PF's issue, I would assume that in evaluating the results that we do consider, at the top level, the weight of all options to keep vs the weight of all options to remove from NOT (whether that includes to WAF or removal all together); the poll is not meant to split the vote as raised but instead to finally settle on an answer. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(Also, my gut tells me very few people would want PLOT outright moved from the equation, though it is an option to consider). --MASEM (t) 19:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Masem, but your proposal can't carry. The RFC claims that it "seeks to gain final determination" regarding this policy's status, but it is not honest in the way it has been constructed, because it does not explain why this policy should be removed, and why this course of action would be of any benefit, if any.
As SheffieldSteel explained earlier, this RFC is analogous a vote on removing the road speedlimit without addressing the rationale for its creation (that excessive speed kills). Unless there is a rationale to acompany the motion to remove WP:PLOT, this proposal does not seek to address the issue of why it was put there in the first place. If this is ignored, then proposing the removal of WP:PLOT must fail if the proposal does not say why. When attempting to change policy, it is best practise to openly and honestly state where, why, and what is the benefit from departing from Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines, rather than attempt to ignore, or worse, to hide such departures. This RFC is just not honest.
I just don't understand why, on the one hand, you have assisted with the drafting of the current wording, which explains why there is a prohibition against plot only articles, yet your current proposal deliberately skirts around why it is the consensus that coverage of fiction should be balanced between plot summary and coverage that includes real-world context, a phrase you yourself constructed. Now, like Pontius Pilate, you are saying it is a matter for the crowd to decided in a simple for or against vote. I think the approach you have chosen for this RFC is just not fair play. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Others have given plenty of reasons - some of them stronger than others - to remove PLOT. I don't agree with their reasons, but I do believe legitimately they have a valid point for being dismissive of having PLOT here - such as potential harm to foundling articles and the fact that there are inconsistencies with it within AFD.

The reason I propose this is, first, I originally suggested an RFC to test the newly worded version, and secondly, I want a clean end to all this mess. I stand by that we need PLOT, but we need better community consensus to affirm or deny that, something that we cannot determine from the previous straw poll-cum-RFC. This RFC at least only identifies better if we need it, but to what degree - a factor missing in the first poll. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Because this proposal does not contain a rationale for removal, it can't provide a clean end. There needs to be an unambigious rationale or a series of rationales for removal, e.g. that fictional topics do not need to be the subject of balanced coverage. Using a blind choice between WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not provide such a rationale, and there is no reason to remove as a result. We may as well have a yes/no on whether we should have articles on such topics "the earth is flat", "abortion is bad" or "Cannabis should be legalised" on the basis that they too would get widespread support, regardless of WP:SOAP.
I have altered the statement of dispute to provide a clear rationale. I don't expect to win this straw pole. but what I do expect is that is made clear why WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed, rather than leaving it to others to interpret what the pole means. We really should have had a discussion about the form and content of the poll in the first place, and I think in this regard, Masem has not acted fairly. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Odds are it won't be removed anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Moved or altered perhaps, but not removed. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is this continually under discussion? The fact is that an encyclopedia requires secondary sources to justify any article, there is too much plot summary in these articles, placed there by editors who don't understand why it is inappropriate and we need this rule to keep the amount of plot summary to a minimum. And for darn sure there should not be articles on plots only. Abductive (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You're stating opinion as fact. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The requirement of secondary sources is also called Wikipedia:No original research and is a policy. Watching a TV show and reporting the plot is using primary sourcing and is not enough for an article. Abductive (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

At least Abductive opinion is based on sound arguments. At no point has Peregrine Fisher explained why plot only articles are a good idea, let alone how they could ever be made to conform with Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines. All we know from Peregrine Fisher is that he does not want WP:PLOT to be policy. We do not know why, or what benefit there would be from this change. In fact, I never heard a comprehensive arguement as to why getting rid of this policy has any benefit at all. There seems to be a complete lack of intellectual input from virtually all the opponents of this policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We've been discussing this for years. You don't agree with my opinion and reasoning, and I don't agree with yours. I stopped reiterating my opinion every time a while ago, when it was cleat we all knew the various arguments. And there all opinions. Saying an opinion is clear or sound does not change it from opinion to fact. Anyways, if you're still curious about my opinion, I think Pixelface and few others still bother to reiterate it frequently. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above:

A. It actively discriminates against a key part of the encyclopedic coverage of a fictional work. B. It encourages the deletion or hacking down to a paragraph of encyclopedic content (plot summaries) in articles which will just have to be recreated later when they get longer. C. Plot summaries are encyclopedic content. Since when has encyclopedic content been part of what Wikipedia is not? D. Other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, have articles all or primarily plot summary. This might just work as a guideline, encouraging improvement. It is appallingly bad policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can you give an example of people actively using NOT#PLOT to remove encyclopedic information? Especially convincing (to me) would be cases where there was good secondary sourcing and the material was removed anyway. Abductive (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_29 Plot of Les Misérables. Highly sourced plot summary, several of us volunteered to improve it with sourced discussion of all the plot elements. Non-admin closure, in violation of Non-admin closure policy, followed by this review, which said that WP:NOT#PLOT meant that it should be simply deleted, and could not be a spin-off article. *I have about 7 fiction FAs. If I and the others willing had been allowed to work on it, that probably could have been well on its way to FA by now. ut, no! NOT#PLOT means that anyone trying to make an article which was voted to be kept a couple years ago but deleted under WP:NOT#PLOT against consensus, couldnot be recreated, even under the new wording, and even with major FA regulars behind it, and even though the summay was highly praised for its sourcing and quality by some - who voted to delete it anyway. So, an invalid non-admin closure gets held up because of NOT$PLOT, putting itfrom a situation where a majority vote is needed to keep, rather than delete, then the thing is kept deleted over an ambiguous vote. Is it any wonder that I'm boycotting editing of Wikipedia articles over the sheer stupidity - such as NOT#COREENCYCLOPEDICCONTENT that makes it impossible for productive editors to work here? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What was the outcome at deletion review? (I assume some compromise was reached, because it is now a redirect.) Abductive (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It was re-directed, and we were told we couldn't recreate it, without making a draft article and going through another deletion review to get our version in, pretty much. In short, "Do lots of work, but we my delete it anyway". Yeah, right. Like that's going to happen. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like the disagreement was over having a stand-alone article, and with the length. I don't know the entire history of this debate, but by The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations, Les Misérables is 7 5 2 5 7 5 2 5 and it goes on like that... What I am saying is that there is such as thing as an encyclopedic treatment, and it is possible to be short. Abductive (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue with having a standalone plot summary article such as Plot of Les Misérables is that it results in a double helping of plot summary: once in the standalone plot summary article and another helping (the summary of the plot summary) in the main article. Trying to justify the creation of a situation which leads to a summary of a plot summary is distinctly odd, and must be a symptom that this approach is seriously flawed.
While I sympathise in some ways with Shoemaker's view that plot only articles are treated as encyclopedic in other publications, there is some doubt that this approach is correct from a Wikipedia perspective. There may be some misunderstanding as to what is or is not encyclopedic when it comes to plot only articles, which may be attributable to certain web and paper based publications refering to themselves as encyclopedias, which is, from the publications' perspective, correct. For instance, publications such as "Musicals101.com - The Cyber Encyclopedia of Musicals" or "The Virgin Encyclopedia of Stage and Film Musicals" refer to themselves as encyclopedias, which is fine in the real world, but from the perspective of WP:PSTS, they are tertiary sources.
The distinction which must be drawn between tertiary sources such as "Encyclopedia of..." type publications and Wikipedia is that they have different inclusion criteria which allows them to publish plot only articles, or articles that are predominately plot, which is what their readers want. As Abductive correctly argues, Wikipedia is a different class of publication in which information about a topic is summarised; Wikipedia is not a directory of musicals made up of complete exposition of all possible plot or production details. The situatin that would give rise to the creation of a summary of the plot summary is absurd. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

{user:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday}'s example above (30 June 2009) explains very clearly why any even slightly deletionist policy or guideline about plot-only articles has to be deleted. --Philcha (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The plot-inclusionists want to keep plot summaries regardless of rules such as no original research. This ceaseless lobbying for the exempting fiction for the rules that other topics must follow is uncool. Picture this; a cadre of frat boys constantly argue for the inclusion of stand-alone articles on every single local chapter of every single fraternity and sorority in the world. When told that the requirement for notability is that secondary sources talk about the topic in a substantive way, they "source" their articles with campus newspapers, Facebook postings and blogs. They start RfCs claiming that fraternities and sororities are popular, and therefore deserve special treatment. They find rules that prevent them from listing upcoming parties and describing how Brah Numba Tuu had to drive the porcelain bus last night, and wikilawyer until the end of days to alter the rules so that those juicy details can be included. And they cannot be made to comprehend why other people don't want Wikipedia to contain this "information". Abductive (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And said frat boys might insist that rulings against them "actively discriminate" by "singling out a particular sort of coverage", and were therefore invalid, and anyway frats are "not so evil as to need specific, top-level policy attacking" them. That would be exactly like this discussion. It so happens that some Wikipedians cannot help but log their fictional entertainment in indiscriminate detail—thus the high level of support for keeping WP:PLOT within policy.. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Those posting in the "Remove PLOT entirely" section with quotes such as some idiotic ideas about encyclopedicity and narrow-minded and elitist viewpoint are making the best point possible about why PLOT should be retained, as far as I can see. If you can't understand that there is more than one valid viewpoint here, then what's the point in having a discussion? Oh, and Shoemaker's Holiday, I make that at least three comments from you recently that are verging on WP:NPA (the one I've mentioned, plus sheer stupidity in your comment above and the impossible for productive editors to work here comment that is clearly suggesting that those who oppose aren't productive editors. If you can't comment on the issue and not the contributor, I'd suggest not commenting at all. Black Kite 11:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And the pro-NOT#PLOT side constantly miosrepresent the views of the no-NOT#PLOT side. Gavin Collins is still claiming this is meant to remove notability requirements. It is not. But there shouldn't be a barrier above that of notability, nor should there be active encouragement to remove or delete encyclopedic content that shows notability. In the support votes for the old wording,t here's a person saying he feels it's not strong enough: That plot summaries should be required to be minimal and brief as well. If we're to be judged based on the worst exemplars of our viewpoints, then having people on your side saying we should be barred from describing a work of fiction more than a very brief minimal description - and even that being allowed grudgingly - is a clear indication that WP:PLOT must be deleted, by your logic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

On that basis, you could discount the original RfC completely by looking at those votes against PLOT who qualified their votes with a comment that there should be some sort of restriction on plot-only articles. Hence why a re-wording, rather than removal of PLOT is indicated. Frankly I don't see the point in repeated RfCs - all that is going to be proved is that no-one can agree on anything. The effort would be better focused on finding a wording of PLOT that all sides can agree on - because let's face it, I don't think anyone's claiming that plot summaries should never be allowed, and equally no-one is claiming that unsourced articles that consist solely of "this is what happened in this episode of *insert random pop culture TV progamme here*" should be allowed either. Black Kite 18:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Shoemaker, plot only articles don't contain sources that are independent of the primary work, and hence they don't have sufficient sources to even be considered for inclusion under WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:OR. There needs to be some form of verifiable evidence that a topic is suitable for inclusion as a standalone article, and plot only articles don't provide that independent evidence of this. The only arguments that can be marshalled in support of plot only articles are based on subjective importance, which is the inclusion criteria used by "Encyclopedia of..." type publications, and I think is ths same inclusion criteria which you are proposing. You may be asking "well, so what?", but by proposing that WP:PLOT be eliminated, you are effectively proposing the creation of an entire class of articles which are not subject to Wikipedia's content policies, and which can't be regulated within the the existing framework of policies and guidelines. You might not think this is not important, but this undermines the whole point of Wikipedia: provided we comply with these content polices, each one of us is free to create or contribute to an article on any topic with having to ask permission from a proprietor, a board of editors, nor a cabal of administrators. For this reason, Wikipedia cannot be a directory of everything under the sun, including stuff which you think should be included based only on your personal opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTPLOT vs WP:NOTDICDEF

Despite the reams of text generated over this clause (the vast majority of it highly repetitive), no one has yet credibly explained how WP:NOTPLOT is different from WP:NOTDICDEF. From reading this latest discussion, it remains clear that there is community consensus that

• A plot-only page is not a good encyclopedia article, just like the consensus is clear that definition-only pages are not good encyclopedia articles. (Yes, there are a few outliers who continue to argue that plot-only pages are acceptable - there is a similar minority who continue to argue for definition-only pages to be allowable. Unanimous consent is not an achievable standard.)
• Like a dictionary-only page, if the page can be expanded into truly encyclopedic content, it should be.
• Like a dictionary-only page, if it can not be expanded after a reasonable period and effort, the page may become eligible for deletion.
• Like a dictionary-only page, deletion rarely happens. During the scrutiny of a deletion discussion, the page is usually improved such that it is no longer so unbalanced. This is good for the encyclopedia.
• Some XfD participants misunderstand WP:NOTPLOT and say silly things that aren't actually based in the policy. People make the same misstatements about WP:NOTDICDEF. It is the obligation of more experienced editors to coach new people through all the nuances of the policy.
• And like DICDEF pages, there will be the occasional outlier decisions and exceptions to the policy. No policy can cover every conceivable circumstance. The exceptions, however, deserve extra scrutiny and discussion.

So why is WP:NOTDICDEF acceptable as part of this page but not WP:NOTPLOT? Rossami (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Knowing the people involved they'll suddenly decide to remove WP:NOTDICDEF too. As far as the claim "Some XfD participants misunderstand WP:NOTPLOT and say silly things that aren't actually based in the policy." goes, more to the point some people seem to think that WP:NOTPLOT should be ignored or removed just because they don't want to follow it. DreamGuy (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely something to this analogy, but there is also a material difference. An article that begins life as a stub by identifying the subject is different from one that begins life by describing the subject. It would be a rare stub indeed that grew into thousands of words, or an entire article farm representing hundreds of hours of contributor effort, while still remaining nothing but a definition. While the purpose served by definition is readily seen as an essential but supporting role, description can more easily be taken to be an end in itself. What seems to be wanting is guidance on the purpose, or consensus on what that purpose is. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

May I make a proposal?

This seems to me suitable, either here, or, much preferably, as part of WAF or another policy. At the least, it takes the time to make the important points that should be made, and avoids the awkwardness of our current attempts. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:WAF is a style guideline, but the problem with plot only articles is that they don't meet any of Wikipedia's content polices. Virtually all of the content listed in in WP:NOT is in the same boat. This is the right place for WP:PLOT, no doubt about it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that once the text at Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works is fully built out with all the nuance that we want to convey, it will be too bulky to incorporate wholesale into WP:NOT. But it looks to me like a reasonable first draft of a drill-down page elaborating on the concise phrasing that does fit in WP:NOT. To continue the corollary with NOTDICDEF, that page could become the equivalent of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am going to be bold and put some tentative tagging on the page to that effect. Rossami (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a simplified form is suitable here, unless it directly points to, and declares itself subsidiary to, the full description elsewhere. I think the main reason WP:PLOT is so problematic is that we cannot dedicate enough space to spell out all the issues in a list article such as this. We could certainly mention the spin-off policy in WP:NOT, but I don't think it makes a good bullet-point.

In short, I think that if we're going to discuss plot summaries at a policy level, we need to do it right. I have - let's call it four, as those are the ones most easily documented - FAs related to fiction. I know what a plot summary should look like, and what other things should appear in a good article. But brevity isn't always a good thing, and in some types of works, such as operas, plot summaries are considered one of the most vital parts of the coverage, here, and in other encyclopedias and reference works, because they are not performed in English, and some knowledge helps with following them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if we can agree on what the expanded content should look like before we worry about precedence. The NOTDICDEF clause and WINAD page exist nicely in parallel and don't usually seem to have any problems with which is subordinate to which. I've taken the liberty of expanding Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works to more closely parallel the content and structure of WINAD. Please tear into it. Rossami (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:V does not attempt to define what all reliable sources are, but instead uses the "subservient" WP:RS to expand that. This is the same being done here, though we use WP:WAF for part of it, though I certain see no problems with the more single-focused page on that. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

STOP THE PRESSES

I have just realised this RfC is actively misleading: The old wording does not quote its most controversial part: The new one is under the header "[Wikipedia is not] Plot-only summation of fictional works". The old one was "[Wikipedia is not] Plot summaries". What, precisely, is being voted on here? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

that can be clarified but it's not controversial. The new wording attempts to point out that we are not saying "Wikipedia is not plot summaries", which as noted gives the impression that we don't allow any plot summary. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but people voting to restore the old wording are not being told they are also changing the header, so, as the vote stands, even if that option wins, the header must not be changed, at least, not with another vote. If it's to be changed, I think that that would require people confirming their vote, or a new section added (with no votes copied in) for 'Old voting with header "[Wikipedia is not...] Plot summaries"'. Otherwise, it's misleading. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. I think Masem's RFC is lousy too. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

STOP 2. The actual issue is whether we should say that Wikipedia coverage of a work of fiction Choice A should not be only about the plot, for which I think we might actually get consensus, or whether Choice B each individual Wikipedia article about the work or any aspects of it must never be primarily about plot, for which I think we cannot get consensus. That second wording eliminates the possibility of having spin off articles on the plot of a complex work, or about major characters in really major fiction where the plot aspects are the major thing to be said. It eliminates having space to adequately describe the nature of the work for new works that are already notable, but where there volume of criticism is still much less than the plot. It eliminates coverage of what matters about fiction--the meta-information about the publication distribution and criticism is actually much less important than the actual contents of the work. I think the practical choice ius between having a weak wording of the policy, or no agreement at all. There is simply no consensus for a strong version. Some people here would prefer a strong version, but a weak version as a compromise will at least partially satisfy almost everyone. Myself, I'd be prepared to say our overage should fully and extensively be about plot and characters, but I don't ask consensus for that either, because I know it isn't there. Let's compromise on a weak version and be finally done with this. DGG (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd be quite happy with a wording that cannot be interpreted as a mandate for deletion but also makes it clear that a plot-only article cannot be regarded as a satisfactory article. --Philcha (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If there's no mandate for deletion, what are you going to do with an unsatisfactory plot-only article? It's all very well saying "improve it" but, back in the real world, we know what really happens to them - nothing. As an aside to DGG above, I've got no problems with spinouts such as "Plot of ... (insert very notable work)", but I think you've got it wrong about character articles - if practically all that can be said about a fictional character is their plotline and nothing else, to me that says they shouldn't have a separate article. Black Kite 06:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Eventualists such as myself would take strong issue with your claim that such articles don't improve, though I don't know if there's hard data to back either view. In any event, remember that There is no deadline. Also, agree completely with Philcha. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:TIND is missing the point somewhat; some of these articles do indeed get improved, but the problem with many of them is that they can't be improved. This is because in many cases there is nothing to say about (insert episode of random TV series) except "this is an episode of series X; these people were in it; this is what happened" because there are no secondary sources except such sites as tv.com which do nothing but list the plot anyway. Such articles are far better redirected to a "List of Episodes of X" article with a brief summary of each one. Of course, if sources and information then do appear which enable the article to be spun out encyclopedically, then they can be without having to be re-written from scratch - the edit history will remain with the redirect. Black Kite 11:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I really do not see why a minority of the editors here are so dead set against plot-only articles. In the example given by Black Kite the hypothetical article is at least supported by a source. What's the problem? It would be a far better use of everyone's time to improve articles which have no citations, contain obvious errors or POV-pushing, etc. I'm going to take my own advice by doing a few GA reviews and getting a few more articles in which I'm interested to GA. --Philcha (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it stems from a firmly held belief that a plot summary is not inherently encyclopaedic. As a tertiary source, we document what secondary sources have to say about a work of fiction. How does a plot summary add value to our coverage? One way I can see is simply as an illustration of the work (roughly analogous to a good image); another way is as a framework, an opportunity to structure all the critical commentary about the characters, plot elements, and dramatic events that form the fictional work. In other words, it makes sense to write at length about the plot to the extent that we have numerous sources commenting on it; conversely, if a plot summary is an unsourced illustration of the work, it should probably be short enough that no one could mistake it for a separate article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So we could do what we do with every other article of that type, fictional or not, and simply upmerge it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thousands of critics and academics from Aristotle on have written articles and books devoted to the plots of fiction in general and specific fiction. Among the most famous are Aristotle's analysis of the plot of Oedipus Rex and RS Cranes "The Concept of Plot and the Plot of Tom Jones". Anything which is covered this way as the very center of the formal study of literature from the very beginnings 25 centuries ago is encyclopedic. An article specifically on plot of X, that has references to people discussing substantially the plot of X, is justifiable. (the problem is what to do with the ones without secondary references--but these are almost always contemporary works in the newer media). I don't think it can be fairly said that the subject is inherently unencyclopedic even for a separate article. The intent of NOT PLOT is to keep the discussion of a work from being entirely a naive plot summary--in the group of articles about a major work, one of them can be--especially if there are references. Asd for the likely number of such references, see [58] , about half of which are relevant -- and the smaller but substantial number in [59]. What we see here is the easily understandable dislike for the convention junior high school book report--but this does not lead to the conclusion that it cannot be discussed seriously also. DGG (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it can be discussed seriously - that is why articles about fictional topics should be balanced between plot summary (which illustrates the work) and commentary (which explains the work): on this point I think we are all agreed. The problem is, as you rightly put it, is what do with the articles without secondary sources. Well I think you have described works or fiction which are not notable, and they fall outside the scope of Wikipedia (as do summaries of non-ficitonal works and product desecriptions) because they are not notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

← I am not sure there is universal agreement that it is merely a matter of "balance." There may be consensus that too much of a good thing isn't, but as long as policy is seen as a matter of degree, i.e. something "appropriate as part" "alongside" provided it is "balanced," it will be seen as arbitrary, whether the proportion is left undefined or is explicitly quantified.

There does appear to be consensus that "discussing the reception, impact, and significance" is inherently encyclopedic, and that plot summary by itself is not. My own feeling is that plot summaries can be an important and necessary component, but ought not be considered something balanced alongside as a separate feature. My preferred wording for NOT#PLOT would be:

Plot summaries. Wikipedia treats fictional works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary or brief description of fictional elements (such as characters or setting) is appropriate only to the extent necessary to identify the nature of the work and to clarify what the encyclopedic coverage refers to.

On its face, relevance to a purpose may seem more subjective than quantitative proportion, but I believe that without consensus on purpose there will never be a stable compromise on practice. If consensus cannot be achieved on the encyclopedic purpose of such content, so that implementation becomes a matter of toward what end rather than how much, then these interminable debates will never bear fruit.

My own preference may be too narrow for a consensus, but consider the approach as food for thought. Discussing broader alternatives might have small hope of breaking the logjam, but I suspect debates that fail to seek a common sense of purpose have none. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Ningauble's "A concise plot summary or brief description of fictional elements (such as characters or setting) is appropriate only to the extent necessary to identify the nature of the work and to clarify what the encyclopedic coverage refers to" has at least 1 major problem. Some works have such complex plots that a summary that is the minimum required to support the reception, impact, and significance may be visibly incoherent and full of holes in the chain of events. I do not see how a plot summary that is full of holes can be part of a good product. --15:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, an incoherent collection of tidbits makes a poor summary. Nobody claims it is easy to write a good summary of a complex plot. Secondary sources can be helpful where judgment is required to distill the essence of the matter.

My perspective on level of detail in relation to encyclopedic purpose is that sheer quantity of objective description (necessarily superficial, lest one engage in original research) does not equate to coverage in depth. Depth of coverage is enhanced by descriptions that inform an understanding of the reception, impact, and significance of the work. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Spin off NOTPLOT and CENSORED

I can't help feeling that both WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NOTCENSORED would benefit from being spun off as separate pages. Compressing an entire policy into a paragraph puts an enormous weight on specific wording, reduces clarity in practice, and overloads this talk page. Can we just spin the current versions of these off, and then go from there? (This might require an RFC.) At minimum it will ease discussion both of those topics and of the rest of the page. Disembrangler (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the prohibitions in this policy are same - there will alway be editors who want them removed. The fact is that plot only articles fall outside the scope of Wikipedia, and with out verifiable evidence of notability, they fail all the other core content policies as well - as do most of the other articles that fail WP:NOT. Either you support WP:NOT or you don't at the end of the day. Make your stand against cruft here. United we stand, together we fall. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you name another part of this policy that's ignored as much as WP:NOT#PLOT? As shown again and again at AFD, your claim that "plot only articles fall outside the scope of Wikipedia" is false. As seen in On NOTPLOT, your claim is false. Gavin, Wikipedia:Notability is not a policy. And "cruft" is a nonsense word. You've drunken the cruft Kool-Aid and have become a cruft true believer, and now see "cruft" behind every rock. Unfortunately, you can't see beyond your invented labels. Oh, and WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't keep "cruft" out of Wikipedia anyway, since nobody is required to read this policy before they save a page. --Pixelface (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but how does that address my suggestion? Neither paragraph will be any less policy spun off into separate policy pages, but discussion and clarification thereof will be easier, and this page would be less overloaded. Disembrangler (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It addresses your suggestion in that all the prohibiitons on content are contained in this policy page, not scattered over many. Together set the out boundry as to what Wikipedia is not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, that's clearer. But I think you're wrong: several WP:NOT headings lead to articles elsewhere in summary style, and that's what I'd envisaged for plot and censored. I certainly take your point that we should try and keep policy as simple as possible; but simplicity is not merely a function of length. It's also about giving the policy enough space to be clear, appropriate links and context, and allowing clarifying discussion to work well. Yes? Disembrangler (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will note that PLOT points to wP:WAF, and the statement here is meant to be a summary of at least the key aspect that we want fiction topics to expand beyond plot summaries. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

NOT CENSORED belongs here--it's a basic policy about what goes in the encyclopedia, applying to all sorts of articles. Nor is it complicated--the application is usually very simple and unequivocal: there are simply a small minority of people who disagree with it as a basic concept, but it has almost complete consensus. NOT PLOT is another matter, because in practice it's a matter of degree, and whatever one says about where the consensus lies, it's not that unequivocal as the other things on the page. It is further confused by being interwoven with WP:FICT and a number of other guidelines, and it would be better to unify this--assuming we could agree on a compromise, which is another matter. In practice the fact that it is here has long been used as a obstructing tactic to prevent change elsewhere, and the presence of the other rules to prevent change here. I no longer argue this matter, because I see no possible way it can be settled, because I think there are too many people who will reject any compromise. (an example of this is the tinkering with the difference between "entirely" plot and "almost exclusively plot" and "primarily plot"--which have very different implications, and should not be attempted to be settled by tinkering with the wording.) Gavin, you were unable to write a single paragraph defending it without confusing it with the concept of notability, and I too am not able to do to write a paragraph about it without dealing with both.. The purpose of NOT is to say that some things are not allowed, even if they are notable. DGG (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that NOTCENSORED being uncomplicated (itself debatable, particularly in terms of scope and manner of application, see eg Main Page, Autofellatio, and Rorschach) is sufficient reason to keep it here. There is plenty of explanation, contextualisation, and recording of relevant consensus either in policy or on one unified talk page or both that would be an improvement. Disembrangler (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. How about writing an article on censorship in user space, moving it to project space when it seems to be ready, and waiting for it to get cited more and more. I think that's a relatively uncontroversial way of approaching the problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mabe, but that sounds like hard work... Disembrangler (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that NOT CENSORED should probably stay here, but I don't think its application is as straightforward as you make it. I have observed a tendency of people to argue for taboo-breaking content by citing NOT CENSORED instead of encyclopedic reasons. I.e. they are basically saying, the content must be included because you don't want it and you have the wrong reasons for not wanting it. A good example is at Talk:Rorschach test#Encyclopedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

PLOT should be spun out as DGG says. It's existence is a barrier to forming a consensus, since it divides the community. I agree with DGG that it might be hard to find another way, which is why I believe we need a moderated RFC on the issue, to ensure that everyone's voice counts as equal. On this issue we have bowed for far too long to those people, self included, who like the sound of their own voices. Hiding T 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT should be spun out into the garbage. You never should have added it to this policy page and you know it. Wikipedia editors for too long have blindly bowed to your whims. If only those blind followers knew why [60] [61] you proposed it. We just had an RFC. What's the point of another RFC if people are just going to ignore that one too? --Pixelface (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I've spun off a Place To Draft here: Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works. If nothing else, moving this discussion to that page's talk page would make the discussion more manageable, and avoid overcrowding this talk page. However it could also permit some expansion of the paragraph into a larger quantity of prose, which by placing less weight on individual words might make the conflict more resolvable. Possibly. Worth a try, no? PS In case it isn't obvious, I envisage the lead of the new page (if it gets adopted) to be reflected here at WP:NOT, summary-style. Disembrangler (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So If I add some crazy new rule to this policy and stonewall for years, are you going to spin that off onto its own page too? When people add things to this policy page that do not represent consensus, that are not a widely accepted standard in the community, we remove them. We don't spin them off onto their own pages. --Pixelface (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd be fairly happy with the current version of Disembrangler's Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works | draft]]. It provides no grounds for deletion and instead says, "Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context." As a GA reviewer I would not pass an article that is (almost) entirely plot summary (e.g. see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1), but I would not vote for deletion. And I agree with previous comments that it must be possible to establish notability - note that WP:DELETE says "improve rather than delete", so a mere complaint that an article currently does not establish notability is no ground for deletion. --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTPLOT and NOTCENSORED both belong here. There's nothing wrong with writing a separate page elaborating on, clarifying or even debating a particular clause of WP:NOT. Over time, the clarification page may move from de facto essay status to guideline or even official policy level. That's sort of what happened with WP:WINAD. It's a structure that works quite well, allowing a single consolidated page for new readers and drill-down pages where more experienced editors can learn about the finer points. But the process starts here and the clause here and the elaboration page should clearly point back to each other. Rossami (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A seperate page elaborating on, clarifying or even debating a particular clause of WP:NOT sounds a great idea - two forums in which Pixelface could put his views forward. I think he would just love it. He could try to convert us all to plot only aricles on both talk pages simultaneously. A bit like have someone shout at you through megaphones in stereo. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting/confusing guidelines

Please note the first pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." I just noticed that in complete contradiction to that first pillar, someone had added that we are "not" an almanac to this page. After I removed it asking for discussion on this apparent contradiction, another account reverted my edit claiming "someone is trying to misconstrue long-established consensus in order to promote his interpretations on some AfDs; also, the cirted page clearly says 'incorporating *elements* of almanacs'", which aside from being an obvious assumption of bad faith, is simply inaccurate as I explained in this edit summary, i.e. "by that same logic we would have Not#Encyclolpedia because the First pillar only says 'elements of general and specialized encyclopedias'". We cannot have this contradictory instructions. So, either we are not an almanac or we are. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get dragged into a lengthy discussion about this too. WP:5P, which A Nobody has been citing his way over and over on various pages outlines the generic traits of wikipedia, and these state that it incorporates elements of various types of works. Saying that it is an encyclopedia, and stating that it does not function as anything other, while incorporating elements from those other things, is clearly not in contradiction of the paragraph he keeps deleting. But enough elementary logic: his view is currently invoked in several debates which are far from finished, and his edits came immediately after a user cited this rule to contradict his reading of the five pillars. Meaning that, aside from being contradicted by logic, his edits are attempting to push an agenda into the core of wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Five pillars has said we are an almanac since it was created on 4 May 2005. Now looking at WP:NOT from the same time, I am not seeing anything about not being an almanac. Also, the disputed addition only appeared on 5 May 2009, i.e. a mere month ago. Earlier discussions, such as Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_9#Not_an_Almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_1#Is_Wikipedia_an_almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_25#Wikipedia:_Almanac_or_not.3F hardly reveal any consensus supporting a notion that we are not an almanac. If there was no consensus to add this contradictory shortcut to the page, it needs to be removed. Moreover, per WP:BRD, it was boldly added and probably in good faith, but now has been challenged and now is being discussed, it you should not have tried edit warring in back in while the discussion takes place. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really a rule, it is just a POV redirect to the rule about having raw statistics as an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ahhh, now I see the difference in the edits. It is about using the word "almanac" as a synonym for "raw statistics". Raw statistics are excluded from Wikipedia. No almanac I have, and I have 5, has "raw statistics", all have organized charts with moderately detailed explanations of the data contained. Most of the entries are country descriptions, lists of popes and presidents and countries ranked by various factors such as GNP. I would say this does not define an almanac at all, and should be removed and changed to "raw statistics". I see STATS is already covered, there is no point having a non synonym like ALMANAC used a s redirect, an Almanac is not raw statistics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that description of how information is presented in an almanac. It pretty much means all of those wonderful stub-type bilateral relations articles are presented incorrectly and should be merged to a list, with the originals deleted. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree it is stupid to say its not an almanac, when in fact the pillars say we encompass the elements of almanacs, among other things. Dream Focus 03:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going with A Nobody and Dream on this one. WP:5 states CORE PRINCIPLES of Wikipedia. (bold and caps mine) To say anywhere in other (struck per KingTurtles observation)policy or guidelines that we won't have elements of an almanac is simply ludicrous. It is a poorly phrased redirect, and should be removed - plain and simple. I'm not saying there's a real problem with item 3. of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" stated as: "Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. " The key words here being indiscriminate and excessive. I'm not sure who put it (NOT#ALMANAC) in there, but it wasn't there last December, or even last March from my view of history. To be honest, it's not really important who, but it should definitely be removed. Talk about confusing to new users .. geesh. Delete with extreme prejudice. Full Stop. — Ched :  ?  05:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed. The usage here of the misleading redirect "NOT#ALMANAC" must go. Editors who do not wish the use of that term "Almanac" should rally a consensus to change the WP:5 Pillars to the WP:5 Generic Traits and before they take it upon themselves to interpret "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" in any way other than what the words wisely, sweetly, and quite clearly say. To use "NOT#ALMANAC" in that specific section in that specific manner implies that almanacs are "an indiscriminate collection of information", which they most certainly are not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Desagree WP has never been an almanac, and should not become one. WP:Almanac linked to this page by July 2008, so the claim that this is a "new" sort of connection is tenuous by a year. Collect (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• As WP:5 states in its introduction, the Five Pillars are based on the policies that existed at the time, but WP:5 itself is not policy. It is a summary, an essay, a quick reference page. It is by no means the final word. In fact, it shouldn't be used at all in this debate. WP:5 is not a sacred text. The way I see it, Wikipedia itself is not an almanac (Wikipedia is not an annual publication), but Wikipedia does contain almanacs within it. Portal:Contents/Portals, Portal:Contents/Lists of topics, Wikipedia:Days of the year, Wikipedia:Today's featured article, Portal:Current events and Portal:Baseball/Anniversaries are all good examples of almanacs and almanac styles. Kingturtle (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of almanacs only to the extent that those elements are notable topics. Almanacs traditionally contain elements that are considered "useful" (high tides, library opening times, rules of etiquette, bus timetables etc), but their inclusion criteria are less stringent than Wikipedia's. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What almanac has bus schedules? A National almanac with bus schedules is just a silly concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree In my experience, astronomical data is usually kept whenever such issues arise. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16 August 2008 lunar eclipse in which the consensus was to keep this article. Eclipse details are archetypal almanac material and so an absolute prohibition is not appropriate here. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree wikipedia is not an almanac and should not include almanac data, unless it is relevant to an article. But it is clear that wikipedia is not an almanac - there is no contradiction. Verbal chat 16:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Retain status quo: We aren't an almanac, and are not building an almanac. Nothing about not being an almanac says that there is zero overlap of material. And, as always, I point out that the BRD cycle does not apply to policy pages: people need to get consensus before a change, not hack and slash policy pages to satisfy their own goals and seek approval later.—Kww(talk) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think there should be a W:NOTALMANAC guideline write one, but as a redirect for Excessive listing of statistics it is a deception. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Indeed, they do and in this case the change was to unilaterally add this shortcut about not an almanac nonsense without receiving a consensus first; in fact any discussions that did find suggest no consensus supports such an addition. Thus, that must be removed and only re-added if a consensus supports its inclusion and it is pretty clear that no such consensus exists as Wikipedia is obviously and has been since 2005 an almanac as well as an encyclopedia. Guidelines and policy pages must have consensus for such additions FIRST, not afterwards. If someone proposed this shortcut and after thorough discussion it was added that would be one thing, but it is clearly not the case. Rather it was added and only now are we having a discussion on it. As such, the change of adding the shortcut never had any consensus to begin with. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as is - KWW is quite right - such a change is really cruftmongering in disguise. Eusebeus (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If anything adding such an addition without first seeking consensus is indeed bureaucracycruft and therefore unacceptable, which is why the consensus lacking section will be removed. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • We have a long history of rejecting articles that list such information at AfD, which is precisely the kind of consensus that this page reflects. Cruftmongering disgruntleds whining about it here cannot undo the accumulated consensus practice of the project as a whole. If you are really convinced that this idiosyncratic interpretation of the Five Pillars can be sustained, then go start up a centralised RfC on the question, linked from the main deletion page. As it stands now, the policy page is an accurate reflection of our current practices, every day reinforced by the praxis at AfD. Eusebeus (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • We have a much longer history or creating, working on, and coming here for such articles, regardless of the incredibly small minority of accounts who comment in AfDs, including the many who support such articles in AfDs as well. Adding "NOTALMANAC" back in May 2009 when the Five pillars have said otherwise since 2005 reflects an extreme minority opinion that the community at large in practice and as commented above clearly does not back in any sufficient way to justify inclusion here. And as such, the community at large is not okay with a minority viewpoint being forced or imposed upon us, especially with with no discussion supporting such an addition. Indeed the discussions I found that took place in three different years were brief and if anything indicated no consensus or in fact consensus against such an addition. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree We are first and foremost an encyclopedia. We are not a dictionary yet we include definitions of terms if they help build an encyclopedic article. In this same sense we are not an almanac yet we may include some material found in almanacs if and only if it contributes to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. ThemFromSpace 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• remove "not almanac". I've just searched back as far as Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_24 and there's exactly 1 public discussion of the subject, in archive 25 - it was brief and did not suggest a new WP:NOT item. "not almanac" is an attempt at a fait accompli, like many other restrictive policies and guidelines. --Philcha (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Looking back through WP:UPDATE and diffs to late November 2008, the earliest I can see #NOTALMANAC is "at 04:16, May 5, 2009. ". version, diff. The edit summary doesn't say specifically what the addition is, nor does it mention what prompted the addition. I'd suggest that with Philcas research, there was no consensus to add this, and that the status quo should be a version without that shortcut. diff to archived discussion We report - you decide. ;) — Ched :  ?  20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the diffs. As this is a recent addition which neither has consensus support nor reflects our other policies and practises, it should be removed immediately and only reinstated as and when it achieves some consensus and clarification as to what it means. The section to which it points does not use the word almanac and so currently the shortcut is pointless. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remove "not almanac" per Philcha and because we have lots of articles that could go just as well in an almanac or an encyclopedia. Maybe WP:RAW or something could be used instead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remmove per Ched Davis. Hobit (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove "not almanac" It says so in Wikipedia:Five pillars and the information can be extremely useful.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• WP should include the information in an almanac There is great overlap between that and an encyclopedia anyway, with relatively little additional in an almanac besides some tables of statistics and details on the current year's astronomical data. We might ass well formalize this, The pillars have it right, and had it right from the start, and the change in WP:NOT to say not almanac is simply against basic policy. and rationality. There is no project better placed to do this right than we are. Even paper encyclopedias would have had this information, if they could have kept it up to date. We can do so. The change was a recent change against policy. WP:BOLD specifically advises that such things are not a good idea. Trying to change basic policy by tinkering here is abusive. DGG (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• There should not be a link/redirect to "not almanac" because it's a contradiction, but long lists of statistics are very often inappropriate. We certainly shouldn't be including lists of all the results of a minor-league baseball team for the last fifty years (to take an extreme example, and not to say that this has happened). However, some users may do well to remember that this is a policy; WP:5P is not. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's right, WP:5P is beyond policy, it is an enunciation of the principles of Wikipedia. As DGG and our principles aver, we overlap with an almanac, and it is up to consensus where the overlap begins and ends, likely, as Stifle suggests, with an extreme example. Personally, I have no issue with people tinkering with policies, because doing so is how we learn what consensus will support, and also what our policies mean. But that freedom should be open to everyone. Hiding T 12:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I am very please to find that Stifle and I are in agreement here. That doesn't happen all that often, and I hope it will happen more. In this case, I think it shows that there really is no justification for this part of the policy. How to handle detailed data remains a problem--one possibility is another WMF project.DGG (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral I don't like the specific prohibition, but frankly "not an almanac" is an easy way of delimiting ourselves that happens to be accurate. We aren't a listing of statistics. Where those statistics are important to a subject (Box scores or climate) we should include them or exclude them as a matter of editorial judgment. But where they are standalone or unimportant, we should (and do) remove or delete them. Just stop all of this edit warring over policy. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove As statistics are sometimes relevant to articles. Having not an almanac would be a license to remove all statistics. -Djsasso (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per all of the above. Clearly implies something that WP:5P directly contradicts. Powers ^T 12:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've upgraded the tag on this section of the policy from "under discussion" to "disputed" since this discussion has so many "remove it" comments. --Philcha (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

About 6 editors have expressed a wish to remove something that has apparently been in policy by longstanding consensus, and this qualifies as "disputed"? I am pretty doubtful of that claim. Locke9k (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should do a big RfC, like the one for PLOT? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree w Locke9k's counting, but think that's because this discussion uses no standard way of identifying "remove" / "keep" / "modify" / neutral / "comment".

Whether we use my count or Locke9k's, I agree w Peregrine Fisher that an RfC seems the way to clear this up. But we should first format it so we can see what the result is: pretitled sections "remove" / "keep" / "modify" / neutral / "comment"; "votes" to be in numbered listed, whihc naturalyl doe snot apply to "commnets" --Philcha (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There was never a consensus. This year ONE editor unilaterally added it without discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Would Locke care to explain how the disputed wording "has apparently been in policy by longstanding consensus", because that doesn;t appear to reflect teh facts at hand, which seem to indicate it is a recent addition with no clear consensus. Hiding T 15:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remove We are already an almanac in providing Top-10-like lists and statistical tables that are entirely appropriate and useful. I think the concern is about raw, unformatted, unencyclopedic/unuseful data; but that's already excluded under the NOT_STATS clause, so NOT_Almanac is entirely unnecessary and wrong. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove it. I think almanac content is and should be acceptable and have always seen the five pillers wording accepted as the common accepted practice. Davewild (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:5P/recent addition w/o discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarify: we're talking about removing the span tag, not the paragraph, correct?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Shortcut removed

I received a request from SarekOfVulcan to remove the NOT#ALMANAC span tag, based on the above discussion. There was fairly clear consensus to remove this – the shortcut was introduced without any prior agreement, and its conflict with WP:5P's partial acceptance of being an "almanac" causes it to be misleading. Per WP:BRD, I believe A Nobody's initial action was quite proper in this situation.

At any rate, the shortcut has been removed, as well as the "disputed" tag, since the dispute was only relating to the shortcut, not the literal verbage of STATS. Jamie^☆S93 21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE

We need more than just a redirect. We need a section explaining why wikipedia is not to be used as a game guide. I am having trouble reverting new editors who think that it can be used as one, as citing this policy does not work.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove even the redirect as it is anti-Wikipedic, i.e. goes against what a large segment of our community come here in good faith for. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why's it anti-Wikipedic? People come here in good faith for it, and then they learn that that's not what Wikipedia is for. WP is not for game codes, walkthroughs, etc. That's what the whole point of WP:NOT is for: teaching people what Wikipedia is, if they came here for something else. Most of us come here looking for something that Wikipedia isn't, and pages like these are what turned us into good contributors. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic. For the most part, such information would be characterized as "trivial" by any encyclopedia, and we are an encyclopedia. We would also be inundated by such material for not only video games, but any number of other entertainment items as well, were we to change that policy. This is not saying that a videogame wiki wouldn't be a bad idea, and I don't think it would be. We could certainly offer some sort of link to its pages were it to exist, I think. But such depth of information on such subjects is not encyclopedic. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see this diff, in which a new editor who does not know policy re-instates material which violates WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that even A Nobody would recognize that as not appropriate for our encyclopedia, regardless of who looks for it here in good faith. Powers ^T 20:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I wasn't asking why gameguide material is "anti-Wikipedic"...I was asking A Nobody why the NOTGAMEGUIDE guideline/redirect is "anti-Wikipedic". I agree with the other statements above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What is and is not encyclopedic for a paperless encyclopedia of our nature is truthfully subjective. So long as this information is verifiable and written in a neutral manner and is relevant to some segments of our community, I would rather err on the side of helping that segment of our community than not having it and not helping anyone just because some don't like it. I am far more concerned with what Wikipedia is than trying to limit it by coming up with as many things of what it is is not instead. I am here to build human knowledge, not restrict it in a manner that only some of our community think it should be restricted. Yes, we should not have unverifiable information. Yes, we should not have libelous information. Yes, we should not have just made up information. But really beyond that, we then just get into what some like and what some do not like. Perhaps we should not be a game guide in the sense of a "how to", but when it comes to say lists of characters, locations, etc., those appear in magazines and other publications beyond published strategy guides and are not necessarily presented in a how to beat the game manner. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're ideas of what constitutes an encyclopedia contraict with the ideas of those who created this site and the rules they created. We aren't supposed to err on the side of including anything willy nilly, we're supposed to err on the side of following what our policies actually say. The kinds of things you seem to want to do are explicitly WP:NOT what this project was created for. As you are free to go to wikia or elsewhere and make the kinds of thing you want, there's no reason for you to try to take this site over with what you want to do. DreamGuy (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, the way that we settle the subjective question of what should and shouldn't be here is through consensus. And consensus is that Wikipedia is not for "how to" or "instructional" information, in general. Simply being neutral, verifiable, and helpful is not always enough, and is why we have other policies and guidelines to limit the scope of the encyclopedia. Gigs (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What should be included is subjective, and it's decided by us. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Inappropriate content. Perhaps we should change the redirect to go there instead? Nifboy (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with game guides is that that they do not serve the reader looking for coverage about a game that is not already contained in the instruction manual. Whether reproduced in full, or summarised in part, there is no encyclopedic rationale for creating game guide type articles in Wikipedia, any more that there is to reproduce, or summarise in part, the operating manual of, say, a photocopier, a toaster, or an electric toothbrush. The proposal to remove WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE makes no sense at all, except to those editors who have invested heavily in them, who will always argue that their views on the subjective importance of game guides transends those of Wikipedia's content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I should point out to A Nobody, and anyone not that interested in games, that NOTGAMEGUIDE is pretty much one of the most agreed-upon elements by the VG community, far more than, say, dealing with fictional subjects or the like. We are, by and large, not a specialized encyclopedia (though we retain aspects of them). And we aren't a collection of random facts (or aren't supposed to be). That translates to excising details like how much damage the Sword of 1000 Truth deals, especially since including such details often results in lessened accessibility to the great majority of readers. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not in practice and not by our readers. Only the handful or extreme small minority of accounts that focus on these pages, but not the bulk of article creators and readers. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said of all policy. Nifboy (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Not a bureaucracy"?

Anyone who claims that wikipedia is "not a bureaucracy" has not read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, Wikipedia:General sanctions Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, or Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal.

The claim that wikipedia is "not a bureaucracy" should be removed from the article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Good point, but the idea behind "not a bureaucracy" is rather that if someone reports edit warring at the village pump, people should actually just deal with the report rather than refuse to until it is reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I think your point has substance because the situation has become such that a report of vandalism will be refused now if all the i's and t's are not dotted or some template or icon hasn't been attached. The best way to navigate that is to avoid the process pages which attract process junkies and just go find a suitable admin. To a newbie, that's almost impossible, so maybe baby we need to rethink our process to take account of new users, casual users and people who don't actually see the need to jump a million hurdles to point out a bad situation. I've found the easiest path is to actually not care. Someone somewhere will sort it out, even if it takes the mainstream media to point it out. Eventualism is beautiful once you understand it. See you on the other side, Hiding T 13:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for responding. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not an anarchy"...not.

I seriously disagree with this statement as Wikipedia features all the characteristics of an anarchist organisation.It has no hierarchy of any sorts or is led by an authority, it can be edited directly by anyone and changes are done after discussion and consensus through an open governing system.It is completely free and rich with content, open to all matters trying to keep a neutral, encyclopedic POV as much as possible with everyone contributing as much as they can depending on their knowledge true to the spirit of anarchism.It even retains the "Ignore all rules if they are preventing you from improving Wikipedia", recognizing them as simple guidelines to be used along with common sense rather than dogmatic commands-the dogma against dogma's.It does not hold some preventing punitive system and seldom acts of vandalism are quickly fixed by the community in the same open way that pages are stored in the first place.For all these reasons Wikipedia IS a model of anarchism,not a total one of course since it still agrees and is bound to greater policies and laws concerning its use,(e.g copyrights) but still a pretty good one.To say that it is not denotes a lack of understandment in the principles of anarchism and one of the common propagandas used against it that its a theory which supports absence of organisation while it only denotes absence of AUTHORITY.This part of the article is written under a non-neutral anarchist-hostile POV and therefore I ask for its removal.

Proposed Policy

A new policy is being proposed called Wikipedia:Involuntary Health Consequences. Please come and discuss. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)