Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dudeaga (talk | contribs) at 02:49, 2 October 2009 (→Regarding wikipedia's "Not a Forum" policy: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Not a "how-to"

It seems the only times I ever hear that there is a guideline saying Wikipedia is not a how-to manual are in edit summaries like this one where the identification of the article as a how-to article is idiotic. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering two of the article's three titled sections begin with "How to", I think concerns about tone and style are warranted. Powers T 14:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find only two such sections. There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and those who can't. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question's main problem is having no sources, not the how-to part. Angryapathy (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One source is cited. I think more should be there. But it's certainly not a "how to" article. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and what about the article about the '60s comedy movie How to Murder Your Wife? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about it? Powers T 03:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merger

I wanted to start a discussion about possibly merging Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (back?) into this document. I'm not at all set on doing the merger (but I am willing to do the work), however I wanted to discuss the possibility of going forward with it. I recently changed that document to be a guideline (which may or may not stick, we'll see), and it's obviously a spinout from this document. The thing is, after really reading the whole thing I'm left wondering why WP:NAD needs to be a completely separate document. I don't see anyhting that is particularly compelling in current document that isn't already listed in the section on this page. The only real difference that I see is that WP:NAD is (extremely) verbose. The section on this page is nicely succinct, and is therefore more accessible and easier to interpret. If I've missed something important in WP:NAD however, I'm certainly willing to hear about it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a rotten idea because this policy is long and breaking out the details of the policy onto different policy pages is only sensible.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question that I'm raising though is this: why is it so long at WP:NAD? The section here documents the idea and the general details perfectly. When I read through the entirety of WP:NAD there are a couple of severe problems that I see. The first issue is that it's extremely verbose, to the point of rambling (it appears to be mostly "bloat", to me). More seriously though, WP:NAD as a separate document seems to be suffering from a form of coatracking. I should probably also state that if a merger were carried out, it would likely be a good idea to add a few points from the current WP:NAD document into the section here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coatrack? So, what is a policy that is part of wikipedia is not really talking about then?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The coatrack issue was specifically referring to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which ranges around the dictionary issue to talk about genealogy, WP:NOTGUIDE, and sprinkles in discussions about Wikipedia:Notability throughout. All of those issues are important, but they should be confined to the areas that they are intended to be covered in. Forking such guidance out into other policy or guideline documents leads to issues with maintainability, if nothing else.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The genealogical dictionary is just one paragraph, and that's the only mention of notability I can see. A coatrack is when the article is supposed to be about one thing, but really spends almost the whole article talking about something else. I ask again, what, exactly are you claiming the whole policy is 'really' about?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said "similar to" coatracking (the actual quote is obviously "a form of", but the meaning is intended to be the same). Can we stay on point, please? Here, I'll strike the comment since it's not central to the issue regardless.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK, but I thought this was a central issue because you you said it was a severe problem along with claims that it is 'rambling'. It seems to me that the policy is precise and divisive and to the point about the differences between dictionaries and encyclopedias. Which bits exactly in your opinion, other than the single paragraph that covers genealogical dictionaries are severely 'rambling' and not to the point in your view?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk)
I'm simply trying to stick to the core idea of possibly performing a merger, so I'd rather drop the coatracking erm... "dispute", in favor of focusing on content.
The most basic question that I'm presenting is simple: why use a whole page to restate what is already stated here in 3 bullet points? I assume that those bullet points would be fattened slightly by a merger, but all of the content would at least be here, in one central location. Accessability is an issue that I see, for some. Aside from those of us who really take the time to become invested in these documents, who really wants to sit down and try to absorb two "walls of text" instead of just one (WP:TL;DR springs immediately to mind here)? There would also be no need to restate the issues regarding WP:NOTGUIDE, for example.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So really, your call for merger is a cynical call for deletion of the entire policy page, deletion of the oldest and one of the most important policies in the entire wikipedia?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... no.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what a merger is, it's where you move stuff into another article, and then put a redirect. That's also a delete of the article in everything but name. If that's not what you want to do, then I will remove the merge flag, because that's not what it's for.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect != delete. How about we stay away from hyperbole and escalation and stick to discussing the issue itself, OK?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent/>

This seems to be a really bad idea, and impractical anyway. Among other show-stopping problems the only policy for what constitutes a definition suitable for an encyclopedia article is in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy article, and it does not seem that it would be suitable for merging across; it would not fit in the WP:NOT which is simply about what the wikipedia isn't, whereas WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is able to define what an encyclopedia is because it has more space. If the policy was merged then the policy article would be gone entirely, and there would be no definition of an encyclopedic definition anywhere.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also other issues about how nouns and adjectives and so forth are treated, but they're much less important than the criticality of encyclopedia articles actually being encyclopedia articles that define what they're about.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other show stopping issue is that WP:NOT is essentially too big already, and merging in other articles can only make it even bigger.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I do hear what you're saying, I just can't reconcile it with... well, reality (yes, that's hyperbole, but keep reading because I explain it). When I read both documents; and I have read both completely, at least twice now, just today; I just don't see much to distinguish WP:NAD from WP:NOT. They cover the same material, with a slightly skewed focus at WP:NAD. I'm entirely willing to be convinced that I'm missing something fundamental, but you should talk to me and attempt to do some actual convincing.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been proven to me that you're unlikely to be reasonable, and so I have no interest in persuading 'Ohm's law' of anything. It's a spectacularly ill-conceived idea of deleting the very oldest policy in the wikipedia and it is flawed at every level. The summary of the policy at WP:NOT is not the policy at WP:NAD.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, today, you unilaterally delisted it, raised me on WP:ANI on spurious grounds, now you've made a assinine call for deletion of an entire core policy. Really, this will not do. You seem to have, at best, only the most tenuous grasp on reality.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The oldest policy on Wikipedia is actually WP:IAR, not this or WP:NAD (although this seem to be a close second). Aside from that though, I don't see how age is directly relevant to anything relating to this discussion. A merger of WP:NAD actually accomplishes more to reinforce the core position espoused by both documents then having them exist separately.
Anyway, you can continue to claim that my starting an ANI discussion about you was spurious, but you're validating that decision (of which I was extremely uncertain of, initially) with each of these types of posts. I heartily welcome outside views myself, do you?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. Considering the ridiculous levels of confusion that exist over just how much a good dictionary entry might contain, the expanded page is necessary to provide clear examples of what is a dictionary entry and what is an encyclopedia entry. Powers T 13:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be flip or anything, but is this theoretical or based in experience?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's based on quite a lot of experience. Powers T 02:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is overlapping fairly severely with Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Change to guideline. Since I personally think that simply changing WP:NAD to a supporting guideline is the better move, I think that I'll limit my replies to there.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping WP:NAD separate (do not merge). We need clear policies/guidelines with examples and discussion so that we do not have to rehash tired arguments over settled matters (bearing in mind that consensus can change, so documentation can be updated when required). Merging would only make sense if a large amount of material is deleted, which would be most unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though the suggestion to merge WP:NAD into WP:NOT would do two things: remove significant portions of WP:NAD and elongate WP:NOT. If very little will be added to WP:NOT, than WP:NAD will be pretty much deleted. So it seems that the suggestion is to delete WP:NAD and leave all policy on dictionary entries up to the section in WP:NOT. If you have a problem with the verbose nature of WP:NAD, then work with editors there to cut it down. It seems like you are skipping a step by trying to merge it here. I say keep WP:NAD; a more detailed policy helps reduce arguments over dictionary articles. Angryapathy (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what I wrote in the other thread, I support re-categorizing WP:NAD as a guideline (because that is what it is in format and intent, just like all the other many guidelines that are linked/summarized at this page), and hence object to it being merged here. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the analysis of the situaton put forward by Angryapathy. The creation of the policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary must have been done for reason; simply destroying the consensus that developed in the past seems to me to be short sighted. Having been through long discussions regarding the status of WP:NOT#PLOT, and participated in the creation of Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works as a forum for discussing it as a policy, I would not like to have to go through the same thing with WP:NOT#DICT when we already have a perfectly good policy page to support it. The Rubicon has been crossed, so unless you have a proposal to ammend Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, then I second the proposal to leave it as policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was never really a policy, it was only marked as a policy because {{policy}} was the only categorization\tag available at the time. It's essentially been grandfathered in as a "policy", and ever since guidelines have been around there's been a slow burn dispute about marking it appropriately. Characterizing marking that document as a guideline as a "change" is a gross mischaracterization of the situation.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

WP:NOTDIC is one of the oldest pages on Wikipedia (2001), pre-dating policy and even the Wikipedia namespace. It's been marked as policy for a long time. IMO, it's a well-written and important page. OTOH, as discussed at WT:NOTDIC, not a lot of people are reading or watchlisting the page, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY points to a section here at WP:NOT, not WP:NOTDIC. WP:NOTDICTIONARY is generally the link given when people want to make the point. A policy page is supposed to be the page you go to when you have a question about the topic; if it's the second page you go to, that's not supposed to be a policy page. How would this work? Keep WP:NOTDIC as a policy page, move the text that's currently in the WP:NOTDICTIONARY section of WP:NOT over to WP:NOTDIC (leaving a link to that page), invite participation and tweaks at WP:NOTDIC, and then make a proposal on WP:VPP to upgrade the page to Category:Wikipedia content policy and see if it will fly. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, back up. What exactly is the problem you're trying to solve?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this is just summary style. We would prefer all of the policy to be in WP:NOT, but we just don't have the space for that. Is summary style wrong?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the pages in the 4 main policy subcats (see WP:Update/1#Category news) read like summary-style spinoffs. In WP:NOTDIC, we have a page marked as policy that people aren't generally watching, reading or linking to ... they generally link to the WP:NOTDICTIONARY section of WP:NOT instead. If the page is going to claim to be the authority on the subject, then it should be the authority on the subject; it should be the page that people read and edit and argue over and link to on that subject. We can probably succeed in making it the authority by redirecting the relevant shortcuts from WP:NOT to WP:NOTDIC, moving all the relevant text from WP:NOT to WP:NOTDIC, encouraging people to link to and to edit the page, and by putting it in the content policy subcat. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same problem occurs with NPOV as well. Perhaps we should not have any shortcuts into the middle of WP:NOT, where there is a policy that supercedes that summary, and point them instead to the actual policy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, do you have some text in mind that should be moved to a different policy page? - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing particularly, I previously tried hard to reconcile the two (as best you can with a summary).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I might, why not just change WP:NOTDICTIONARY to link to WP:NOTDIC, and have the section here link over to it? It's useful to summarise here, but there's no reason to have a shortcut to the summary beyond WP:NOT#DICTIONARY.
I'd also argue that WP:PLOT should go to WP:WAF, though WP:NOTPLOT should probably stay here for the moment.
(I will admit to some doubts about WP:NOTPLOT as a link: It's a misleading summary of the content, since, of course, we're never going to throw out all plot summaries. But it's probably good enoough for now. WP:NOTONLYPLOT would be better, though.) Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 18:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense. If we get a little more buy-in, then we'll action it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good idea, and something that I thought about myself. The only reason that I was against going in this direction is WP:CREEP, essentially. There's simply no need for WP:NAD to be elevated to policy when it functions perfectly well as a guideline supporting the policy that everyone already uses and is comfortable with. Simply changing the redirects is not going to get people to cite WP:NOTDIC rather then simply citing WP:NOT. It's better then doing nothing though.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Wiki

Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this Does anyone know of a democratic wiki community, with less totalitarianism? --Matthew Bauer (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is your unhappiness based on an individual incident, or are you having problems in multiple places?
See List of wikis for other endeavours. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiversity

Regarding this edit, are we recommending now "Original research should be transwikied" to Wikiversity? All original research or just some? It's a couple of hours before the end of the month, so I'll leave this edit out for purposes of the monthly diff at Update. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity isn't for publishing original research at all. It's for interactive learning. Abductive (reasoning) 22:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOT

Unlike everything else on this page, there is no justification given, and it's essentially a manual of style thing. May I suggest changing this to something more general, like:

Articles lacking independent sources: While reliable primary sources may sometimes be appropriate sources to describe a subject, Wikipedia requires proof of the subject's independent notability, which can only come through putting the subject in a wider perspective. This includes articles consisting solely of a plot summary, biographies sourced solely to the subject's own site, and so on.


Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a start of a reasonable balance. I know one issue (maybe not brought up in the previous RFC) was that some felt PLOT was specifically discriminating against fiction, but really the use of just primary sources is true for any published work or topic. I wonder if this can also work in how much info comes from the primary vs the secondary (eg the "concise" term we had before). Take a bio article that has 95% of the info from an autobiography and a few smatterings from secondary sources - would that be considered appropriate? --MASEM (t) 14:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to me. I've always argued that the bulk of an article needs to come from independent sources. A few tidbits from secondary sources doesn't justify large amounts of material from primary sources, whether those primary sources are autobiographies, plots of fictional works, official artist sites, censuses, or whatever. Articles should be about what secondary sources have found to be important to discuss, with only enough material from primary sources to make the statements from those secondary sources clear.—Kww(talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree (but, having seen how badly secondary sources can handle plot summaries, am a little hesitant to ever suggest they should be taken solely from secondary sources), but WP:NOT isn't the place for best practice considerations - it's for things which are never acceptable, even if the article was created 3 days ago. As such, I think we need to be more liberal here, but link to best practice advice such as yours. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 17:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this approach recognizes that a properly developed fiction article will have a plot summary (likely unsourced, at best sourced to the primary) but filled with sufficient secondary sources that it is not a problem. On the other hand, if you have an article that is 95% of plot (or in the autobiography) and one line that says "oh here's the notable aspect", it's questionable if this is sufficiently drawing from secondary sources. (And just as I write this I think we want to swap "independent" with "secondary", or at least "avoid a majority of primary sources") as it's still possible to compile a full article from independent sources but still be describing the work in a primary manner when we're looking for secondary coverage. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Independent is a key and crucial point. How much the author, publisher, network PR flack, and other paid sources discuss something is irrelevant.—Kww(talk) 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three points on the majority issue:

  1. Lists and the like might reasonably use primary sources. If you want a list of who won the Nobel Prize in each category every year, I don't think it unreasonable to use the Nobel Prize academy for most of your sourcing, with a paragraph at the top describing the Nobel Prizes.
  2. Sub-articles might reasonably contain a lot of primary material to put discussion of it in context. For instance, if I wanted to do an article on the sources for the Odyssey, I might need to summarise the Odyssey in some detail to cover all the aspects scholars discuss, and I might need to give summaries of the material used to help show the connection scholars tie between it and the Odyssey.
  3. If you can only have one thing in a new or poorly-developed article on a primary source, I'd probably say that a summary of the primary source is the most useful element.

WP:NOT is blanket prohibitions, we need to take a little bit of care to think through consequences. If we agree the three points above are valid, and that articles of the types I mention are wanted on Wikipedia, we need to make sure we don't prohibit them here.

THAT said, whatever we do, we should link to somewhere stating best practice, which generally is majority secondary sources. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 19:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a suggested change:

Articles lacking independent sources: While reliable primary sources may sometimes be appropriate sources to describe a subject, Wikipedia requires proof of the subject's independent notability, which can only come through putting the subject in a wider perspective. This includes articles consisting solely of a plot summary, biographies sourced solely to the subject's own site, and so on. A well-developed article should usually have a majority of its content developed from sources independent of its subject.

Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to argue with what you seem to take for granted: the last, and generally least important thing to add to an article is a plot summary. A plot summary is only required if it is necessary to understand comments and statements made by outside sources. With no outside sources, there is no need for a plot description, because there is no need for an article to exist at all.—Kww(talk) 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A plot summary is sometimes appropriate..."

Let's get an issue we can deal with quickly out of the way:


WP:PLOT currently has the statement "A concise plot summary is sometimes appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work."

Given that WP:PLOT has dubious consensus to exist at all, and that said discussions concentrated on it seeming to discriminate against plot summaries, there cannot be any consensus for a version containing a snide dismissal of plot summaries.

This should be changed to "usually appropriate", at the very least. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

This poll attempts to seek a temporary consensus to change "sometimes" to "usually". It is not intended to block further discussion of WP:PLOT in future, but this compromise does much to defuse the more heated points of the debate.

Regarding wikipedia's "Not a Forum" policy

I think wikipedia should have a forum part on the actual website, so people will not use "useless" pages for forum like talks. 

 Dudeaga (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=317405106"