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 Wolfkeeper (talk | contribs) at 18:31, 29 September 2008 (→‎Example of words beeing encyclopedic topics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness"

The "Not a dictionary" section says: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness." Is it just me, or are two of these not the best examples? Old school, while it does contain a brief discussion of the term's origin, is mostly about its varied uses and the genres it represents, not about the phrase itself. Truthiness is hard to classify; as a neologism for a novel concept, both the word and the concept spread simultaneously, so any discussion of concept of "truthiness" will be closely related to discussion of the term itself. To me, though, it seems the article is primarily about the concept of "truthiness", addressing the word only to the extent necessary to chronicle the concept. (Macedonia (terminology), on the other hand, looks like a shining example of what an article about a word should contain.) Should we perhaps choose some other examples? "Old school", in particular, seems to be causing some confusion about what kinds of articles are allowed under WP:NOTDICDEF. Powers T 01:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old school is just a shitty article right now; it has a lot of speculation/OR and is desperately in need of additional sourcing, though it is not irredeemable. I'm confident that it could be turned into an article just as good as the other two examples, focusing on the concept of "formative style" as well as the use of the term "old school" to refer to that style in a number of different genres, and which artists are felt to have "old school" style.
I think it's also worth keeping a less-than-great example in the policy so as to not imply that "only well-written articles on terminology should be permitted". If an article contains encyclopedic content, and is not just a dicdef, it not only tends to be "kept" at AfDs, but it reasonably should be kept -- as it contains encyclopedic content. Pure dicdefs should get deleted or transwikied -- few people contest that. For me -- and I believe for many other editors -- the rule of thumb is whether there is content in an article that would be removed when transwikiing it to Wiktionary (as its content scope is very narrow), but that should not be "thrown out" all the same. We see no value in discarding that content merely because an article is about a word -- nothing is gained by moving it from Wikipedia to Wiktionary if any substantial content is lost in the process. If, on the other hand, it's a total crap article -- pure OR or some other damning problem -- then it should be deleted on that basis. That includes articles that would be nothing more than a dicdef if all the policy-violating content were removed.
Separately, I believe the general perception of most Wikipedia editors is that documenting the historical usage of terms (as different from "usage guides"), including their origin(s) and evolution of their usage, is considered potentially encyclopedic. Technically, some dictionaries, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, do go extensively into usage, usage history, and etymology. However, I think articles incorporating such material, past a certain size, simply work better in an encyclopedic format (semi-conversational tone and article structure) than in the terse, rigidly structured dictionary format.
On the simplest level, it may come down to this: if it reads like an encyclopedia article (and is sourced like one), we are willing to think of it as an encyclopedia article, even if it's an article about a word. Maintaining a segregation between Wikipedia and Wiktionary in such cases does not seem all that important or constructive.--Father Goose (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, then, is there any word about which an encyclopedia article could not be written? That seems to be what people are saying, though I can't get anyone to admit it. Powers T 12:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't say that they can or can't -- just that if I see an encyclopedia article written about a word that goes beyond a "dicdef" (and is not OR), I generally feel it should be kept. I see nothing gained by deleting them, or deleting any substantial portion of them in the transwikiing process.
I understand and agree with the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- but this means, simply, "no dictionary entries", not "no articles about words".--Father Goose (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But how else to interpret the principle, clearly stated in WP:DICDEF, that the article octopus is properly about the eight-armed mollusk, not about the English word? Powers T 14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With your brain.--Father Goose (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not very helpful. Powers T 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant it exactly as I said it. We apply the rules according to what makes sense, not according to a rigid interpretation. Sure, octopus should be about the cephalopod -- there's nothing in that that precludes us from writing encyclopedia articles about words, when the word is the encyclopedic subject itself. An article being "about a word" isn't an automatic indicator that it's a dictionary entry.--Father Goose (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree on the point of historical usage. Most Wikipedia editors who comment in AfD discussions on word-articles tend to, in my opinion, vastly underestimate the capabilities and potential of a truly great unabridged dictionary. Even OED's coverage of usage is somewhat limited. Wiktionary, on the other hand, is not paper. Usage, history and etymology are all excellent content and can be included in Wiktionary at any level of detail that our editors decide is appropriate. (I use "our editors" inclusively because many editors work both projects and all of us can.) Some excellent Wiktionary pages have long prose-based discussions of usage and history. The existence of a section on history alone is not enough reason to keep a page on Wikipedia. A page here needs to have more than merely lexical content such as discussion of social impact, etc.
It's probably true that you could have an article on any noun. You would not, however, want a separate article on every noun. The policy and practice as Wikipedia has long been that synonyms should redirect to the Wikipedia page using the most common name for the subject. Other word types are less clear. To me, the threshold for an encyclopedia article about a word comes when someone has written extensively about the word as a word, not merely used the word. So by that threshold, there are many words for which an encyclopedia article can not now be written. The necessary academic sources do not exist. Rossami (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that; I bet a large proportion of English words have been written about academically. Powers T 18:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That question would seem fairly easy to test. Here are the first four english words, phrases or acronyms that turned up using Wiktionary's random page feature. Can anyone find academic texts specifically about these words as words? Rossami (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, two of those aren't English words. =) Admittedly, though, I should have said "common English words". Rare ones like "oxilorphan" are admittedly less likely. Powers T 01:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they may have been loan words but they're english now. But I understand your point. Back to Wiktionary random page for more common english words. The next ones that turned up were:
If, when transferring articles over to Wiktionary, those "long prose-based discussions of usage and history" were retained, I probably wouldn't have a problem with keeping such articles on Wiktionary. Unfortunately, such articles are almost always cut down to a nub in the transwikiing process, and not for any compelling reason. Let's take the example of dime (slang), an article you yourself transwikied, then overwrote with a "soft redirect" here. The Wiktionary page you created out of it (wikt:dime) is a shadow of the Wikipedia article. I'm not seeing how shifting it to a different site while stripping out most of its content improved the encyclopedia. Importing some of its material into the Wiktionary article improved Wiktionary, but I don't see how discarding the additional content improved Wikimedia's offerings overall.
You also talk of how such articles should have "discussion of social impact, etc." Nucular was just such an article, and the issues discussed during its recent AfD apparently prompted LtPowers to open this thread. It had citations from academic sources discussing several different aspects of the word, and I'm not sure if you (Rossami) would have opted to delete it, though clearly, LtPowers wanted to, and he seems to think that current policy ought to necessitate its deletion. (It was actually deleted, in what I consider a poor decision by the closing admin -- not just because I disagree with him; I believe any objective person would find the closing rationale wanting.)
So, I'd like to hear from you an actual rationale for why articles of this type should be deleted. Why delete dime (slang)? Why did that make for an improved encyclopedia?--Father Goose (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I moved Dime (slang) over, I kept the only parts that I thought were appropriate (much like the editorial decisions in any merge-and-redirect). The things I left out were, in my opinion, trivia that didn't belong in the encyclopedia in the first place. But if you think there was useful content that was missed, feel free to pull it out of the pagehistory and expand the Wiktionary page. (Bear in mind, though, that some of the content shoehorned into the old version of dime (slang) was already in Wiktionary but on different pages. All those related phrases, for example, have their own pages in the Wiktionary structure.) I hardly consider the Wiktionary version "a shadow" of the former Wikipedia page. If I thought it made the project worse, I wouldn't have done it. I think it made the project better because Wiktionarians are demonstrably better at verifying, sourcing, organizing and presenting lexical content than Wikipedians are. Their policies and tools are better optimized for it. But again, if you think you can make the Wiktionary page better, be bold and do it. Editing is not supposed to stop just because a page has been transwiki'd and one of the major reasons for a soft redirect using {{wi}} is to encourage editors to cross-over and help write the Wiktionary article. Rossami (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a casual passer-by happening upon this discussion, I had a read of the already linked Dime Wikipedia article and was underwhelmed. I far prefer the Wiktionary article. Surely the whole point is that in the appropriate wiki there is consistency of aproach to give an informative and enjoyable article! Keep doing what you're doing because it works for me. Scolaire (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there is no sharp dividing line. It is impossible to discuss a word in a meaningful way if one completely ignores explaining the concept for which it stands. It is impossible to explain a concept, without discussing the terminology. Any article with significant discussion of the concept--academic or popular-- belongs here. Any article about a word as a word where there is significant controversy or academic or popular discussion of the meaning belongs here also. I'm not at all sure that NOT DICTIONARY is a useful distinction except at the extremes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
I have seen plenty of AfDs concerning articles about words and the problem seems to be basically the same in every instance. On the one hand you have a small minority that try to point out that articles consisting only of etymology, usage information, list of compounds and semantic meanings are the basic definition of a dictionary entry, and on the other you have a majority that wish to save virtually all word-article simply by claiming that they all "go beyond a dicdef" without ever specifying how this is possible with articles like yes, no, we, you, etc. And like Rossami pointed out already, most editors who keep voting to save word articles by sheer vote counting seem to share the belief that all information removed from Wikipedia, even when it's transferred to projects that specialize in that kind of information, is always a net loss. Even if it is not intentional, this makes for a rather patronizing attitude towards our sister projects.
Something needs to be done about this situation, because with the current outcome of AfDs, WP:NOTDICDEF could just as well be summarized with the following words: Wikipedia is not a dictionary except when dictionary definitions are worded and formatted like encyclopedic articles. Referring to WP:IAR is not a tenable argument if it renders an major piece of core policy practically defunct. The examples given in the the policy (old school, Macedonia (terminology) and truthiness) are in my opinion reasonable exceptions, since they have significant relevance outside of their mere usage in language, but we need to figure out a way to separate those articles from mere wiktionary duplicates, like football (word).
Peter Isotalo 13:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed these examples as they are not in the main policy article, and they haven't been through the AFD process, and thus their inclusion appears to me to have been OR by the adding editor.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought old school was actually a rather valid example myself... If surviving an AfD is enough to alter central policy, then take a look at no and yes. These are flat-out contradictions not just of the policy, but of the definition of dictionary definition itself. And to top it off yes (word), which is basically identical to yes, was deleted, and then resurrected without any discernable change in arguments or policy. All that really happened was that there were more "keep"-votes and that the "beyond dicdef"-argument became wordier.
Peter Isotalo 11:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that old school isn't valid. First it's about a term, secondly it's about the multiple, independent uses of the term, i.e. multiple topics. That makes it at best a disambiguation. Yes and no are at least on a single subject each, I think that yes and no are valid encyclopedia articles as they stand for this reason.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Terms are very much a part of dictionaries, just like compounds are. As for "old school" it can very easily be boiled down to the general meaning "a venerated tradition within a cultural sphere that has wide-ranging precedence over more recent developments" (or something along those lines). The difference between old school hip-hop and rock is a matter of details relevant to the music genres. The basic meaning, though, has not changed. I'm not saying this is the best example of a term for policy documents, but it's infinitely better than fart or homie, both of which have been AfD:ed and kept.
As for the explanation of yes/no, the argumentation strikes me as being entirely subjective. We're talking about a common interjection pair. You can hardly find more clear cut examples of dictionary definitions, and they are most definetely not about a "single subject". No has a section called "Syntax", which is describing the different semantic and grammatical categorizations of "no", again pure dicdef material. That's just another way of saying that the article covers a combination of letters, rather than a term or specific topic. And just look at the "Advocacy"-section. It doesn't even deal with the word "no" as such, but topics which happen to be partially expressed with the word "no", a wordy "See also"-section at best. Yes has the exact same problem. It's limited to usage info (dictionary information) and doesn't even manage to stick to just "yes", but goes into the synonyms of "yea" and "yeah". As far as I'm concerned, both of these pages are doing readers a disservice. Anyone looking for encyclopedic articles called "yes" (Yes (band) or "no" (Nô (film)) or happen to include these words are served a poor excuse of a Wiktionary duplicate instead of winding up at a disambiguation page.
Peter Isotalo 16:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old school and in the light of that I'm less inclined to defend old school, but as an article concept, I still think it's no worse than articles like fart.
Peter Isotalo 16:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that fart shares the same problems. However it might be possible to save farts, but IMO it's flatulence. ;-)--- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is censored

I find it very disturbing reading claims that "wikipedia is not censored" while it is in fact censored! Let's just take a simple example: child pornography,

  • is it allowed on wikipedia? NO!
  • Is this censorship? YES!
  • Is not allowing child porn on wikipedia a bad thing? I leave that to you...

Wikipedia says that "it must comply with USA law", and if something can't be included in wikipedia because of that, isn't that censorship? sure it is. EVERY country in the world is probably censored (just think about child porn). I really think this must be changed...

PS: I'm in no way here defending the inclusion of child porn on wikipedia, (and that's not what I personally want!) I just wanted wikipedia to tell what really happens.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.122.88 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a principle Wikipedia is not censored, there are necessary practical exceptions to this "rule" such as ones you mentioned and they are made clear in the policy page, nobody's hiding anything. Guest9999 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not censored" simply means Wikipedia doesn't add a layer of censorship to the law where Wikipedia is hosted. As in, content would be legal and on topic but we still decide not to host it, for whatever reason. At least that's my understanding of the rule. --Rividian (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out, as well, that Wikipedia does in fact have an article on child pornography. Wikipedia is not intended to be a repository of images of any sort, and so collections of images (child pornography or no) would be excluded because WP doesn't do collections of images. you shouldn't confuse a restriction of content due to project scope with censorship, any more than you should complain that airplanes don't have soccer fields. --Ludwigs2 01:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a language reform institute

This is inspired by some of the sillier notions that float around the Manual of Style. Usually they die off, but it would be quicker and easier if we had policy against such notions as: all dates should be entered in ISO 8601: that is: as 2008-9-12 or 9-12 if the year need not be mentioned. I'm not making this up; I wish I were. Should we add Wikipedia is not a language reform institute to this page? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you're kidding, right? let's not make rules about changes that may or may not find consensus at some future date. it would in fact be very useful (from the perspective of a template coder) to have all dates be in a ISO 8601 format - why should that possibility be excluded?
put another way, if wikipedia had been around in Shakespeare's day, and the rule you have in mind were put in effect, then all thy wikipedia pages wouldst be pain and pestilence to read. Gogs Wouns man, ask thee not for what might ail thee.
Having noted all that, I have seen occasions where an attempt is being made to reform certain language uses. For example, MOS and general journalism style currently calls for the word "actor" to refer to both male and female performers, but there has been dispute over this usage at Angelina Jolie. I've also seen debates over whether American or British spelling is "correct" and which should dominate (beyond the "UK spelling for UK topics/US spelling for US topics" dictim). I don't know ISO 8601 from WD-40, but in some of the less technical aspects, having something spelled out under WP:NOT might be handy for those trying to defuse revert wars. 23skidoo (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is to write the world's encyclopedia, not to right the world's problems. Folks who come here to push a novel scheme should not be given any support. However, Wikipedia is an innovative project. How many other encyclopedias have been edited by people on every continent? We've created our own citation practices, we've decided on our own punctuation rules, use formatting unlike any previous encyclopedia, and have created countless unique stylistic norms. If there is a problem to be resolved, such as with dates, then we should be open to whatever solution makes the best sense. ISO standards are not fringe schemes. Adopting international standards is logical for an international encyclopedia. So I wouldn't support a provision which precludes the use of legitimate standards. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a doctor or a medical diagnostic tool

This may seem over the top and ludicrous to many, but it would only take one attempted lawsuit by a reader to make everyone second-guess this as a bad idea. Basically, the Internet contains a vast number of websites with information on all kinds of illnesses, and these days many people will research all over the web when they feel a symptom or two trying to find the answer themselves without consulting a physician in order to save money, time, or trouble. The difference between other sites with this type of information and Wikipedia is that the other sites are either 1] specialized medical websites maintained or checked by people qualified to give accurate medical information along with disclaimers explicitly stating to immediately contact a doctor if you are actually experiencing any symptoms of the conditions that you are researching or 2] forums full of medical questions but random "It might be this" answers that no rational person would freely test against without first consulting a doctor to be sure.

But Wikipedia is in between. It contains information on a large number of illnesses, their symptoms, their causes, and sometimes the treatment (which is ok). Unlike a random forum, though, the information seems more trustworthy by many people (proof: 1] WP's popularity and how many people come here first for answers instead of doing general search engine searches, but even if they did a search, WP can often appear at the top of those searches, and to many people "higher up result = more accurate result". 2] The anger buzz by young students each year who are mad at WP because "they failed a report after getting their information from WP", where more than likely they failed because they plagiarized, but they wouldn't have copied from here if they did not at least think that the information was accurate and it saved having to do any research themselves. 3] Articles contain direct links to the specialized medial sites mentioned above (but bypasses those before-mentioned website disclaimers) which can give the impression of WP being a one-stop-shop resulting in no need to visit the other sites despite even WP's recommendation never to use only one source. 4] WP:ENC, and yet, your typical Encyclopedia does not have entries about conditions such as Ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency... Ok, so that last one isn't proof as much as a point being made.). On the other side of the issue, unlike the specialized medial websites, the information can be edited by anyone and all that it takes is one cheapskate idiot to read the medical information on this site, diagnose himself with possibly inaccurate information from the site, try to treat himself with possibly inaccurate information from the site, and end up in worse shape than he would have been if he had just gone to see a doctor instead. WP needs to reflect that (and this seems like the best place) since, unlike the random gossipish information about our favorite celebrities, inaccuracy of medical information on this website can actually matter and have a real effect on someone. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 04:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the typical paper encyclopedia doesn't have articles on OTCase, but that's because they are paper--even so, if they don't have information on it somewhere, they would be deficient even by their standards--and this is a problem where nobody is remotely likely to rely on WP for a diagnosis. But as to the general question, considering the quality of 99% of the medical information on the web--and considering that misinformation from paid commercial advertisements of some very dubious places shows up prominently on the search page with most search engines--we are doing fairly well. Once we start putting in disclaimers, it won't stop. Next will come the legal articles, then the ones on foods, and so forth. As for medical questions on the reference desk, people answering them do usually give strong disclaimers. Considering the quality of some of the answers, that's pretty wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 11:11, September 13, 2008 {UTC) (UTC)
There's nothing much to say on this subject beyond Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. It is important to realize that this isn't really a matter of quality - I don't believe there is an encyclopedia in the world that would accept legal responsibility for its medical content, regardless of how accurate or reliable it is or advertises to be. GregorB (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but that doesn't mean some idiot out there won't hurt himself in the mistaken belief what we post here is 100% accurate. The Disclaimer, I believe, serves to absolve Wikipedia of any legal issues (the fact a person may not have read it doesn't mean anything - it's sort of like being found guilty of breaking a law you never knew about; ignorance is not a defence. I think there might be a warning template of some sort that can be added to medical-related articles - if there isn't there should be. But WP:NOT is supposed to be a guideline for what articles are acceptable, as well as providing backup for AFD discussion of same. Someone coming to create an article on a medical matter isn't likely to be the one blindly following it, and if someone posts some unproven medical theory or, say, step by step instructions on how to remove a gall bladder, then one would assume other wiki-policies would kick in like NOR, and such an article probably would get speedied before causing any "harm". I don't know if WP:NOT needs a section talking about this. 23skidoo (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading the discussion correctly, the concern is that some idiot will read something here, hurt him/herself and try to sue the project for it. In today's litigious society, I can't say that's an unrealistic risk. But it's a risk that the Foundation gets paid to worry about. So far, they haven't told us to add disclaimers on every page or to avoid certain topics. Until the Foundation pushes something down, I'm reluctant to clog up the pages and make them even more cluttered for the 99.x% of readers who know how to use an encyclopedia wisely. Rossami (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a review site

It seems that a fair number of articles are kept because they are reviewed by reliable sources. If you exclude these reviews, however, there are no reliable sources. Examples include Peek email device and Logitech G5.

The problem with articles like these is that, unless WP:NOR is violated, the pages can only ever hope to be reviews, themselves. That Joe Bob, at nytimes.com, thought the battery life was more than sufficient, and that John Doe, at reviews.cnet.com, thought the screen wasn't big enough, is hardly encyclopedic. To be encyclopedic, real world notability needs to be established, and Joe Bob's opinions on the battery life of a particular product simply doesn't do that. Misterdiscreet (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor idea for addition, as it contradicts quite a few of our notability guidelines. The bar for notability is that published secondary sources have done significant analysis of the subject of the article. That's what a review is, analysis. --erachima talk 04:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nytimes.com is at its best not when it's analyzing something, but rather, when it's objectively reporting on something. A review is not objective. A news article discussing troopergate, however, is objective. Your assertion seems to be that sites like nytimes.com have the Midas touch - that a single mention on their website and it immediately becomes notable. I disagree.
If Logitech G5 were notable, there'd be facts to include, above and beyond the hardware specifications. Like maybe "the Logitech G5 mouse is the best selling mouse in history, having sold over 25 billion units" or something. Misterdiscreet (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading into my statements a bit presumptively. I never said that a single review makes a subject notable, nor mentioned the new york times at all. A single review would rarely if ever qualify as "significant secondary coverage" by itself. Reviews published by third party professionals are, however, a valid type of source to cite, and a body of them can be used to demonstrate the notability of a subject.
Your complaint here appears to be based on experience with articles on the subject of consumer electronics. I do not edit within that area of Wikipedia myself, though based on what I've seen at AfD we do appear to have overly splintered coverage of individual products that are non-notable or just barely notable and would be better off with their information merged to articles on broader subjects (e.g. product lines, or "List of Casio keyboards", or whatever). So I sympathize with your wish to get rid of those sorts of very marginal articles. However, your stance that reviews cannot constitute significant secondary coverage heavily contradicts our notability guidelines, and also clashes with common sense when it comes to other areas of the 'pedia. Articles on literature that don't discuss the reception of the book by reviewers are missing a key element of the subject, for instance, and when it comes to entertainment in general the three universally agreed-on factors that establish notability are awards, reviews, and exceptional sales.
So in conclusion, when it comes to the general case, you're going against years of consensus as to what "notability" is. Therefore this cannot be added to WP:NOT. If there are subject-specific cases that require an exception to this rule, you should be discussing them with the other editors of those subjects (I suggest trying the relevant wikiproject) and reaching consensus there. --erachima talk 05:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there's no one wikiproject under which all this stuff falls. Software can receive reviews as can products and books.
According to WP:BK, "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." I suppose Joe Bob's opinions on the screen of some device may qualify as "critical commentary", but even assuming it did, Joe Bob's opinions are never incorporated into the article for which his opinion is allegedly serving as a reliable source.
If all an article does is enumerate upon the technical specifications of a product, it's essentially a "simple plot summary". That's not okay for books, so why is it okay for products?
Anyway, I think having an entry in WP:NOT would be prudent because this is a fairly common occurrence and having to copy / paste the same argument, over and over again, when instead, a WP:NOT link would suffice, would be worthwhile. Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews of a product/book/whatever are a form (and outside of academically covered subjects, generally the form) of critical commentary which we value placing in articles. If a review is being cited but no content from it included, that's solved by including the relevant information from the review.
Another point which you may not be aware of is how the information taken from reviews is supposed to be used: ideally, a number of such reviews are gathered, and we then write a section which describes how the subject was received based upon those sources, along with other related information on sales, any awards it got, etc. This does not make the article into a review, because we are describing and writing about the reviews rather than simply quoting them verbatim. When used in this way, reviews are a valuable source of critical commentary on a subject.
At any rate, since WP:NOT is for describing things we as an encyclopedia do not do, an entry excluding the citation of reliable reviews cannot be placed here. The use of published reviews as sources for critical commentary is a well-entrenched practice, and you should not find a single good or featured article on literature or entertainment which does not use them. Sorry for the time you've lost here, and have a good day. --erachima talk 19:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a bad idea... reviews/criticism are encyclopedic, look at any good article on a book or film. An encyclopedia article can be useful to readers by summarizing notable criticism (positive or negative). Excluding articles on products is a disservice to our readers... if the product is notable (in terms of non-trivial coverage) we can write a decent, encyclopedic article. --Rividian (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we need an explicit admonition about reviews on this page. On the other hand, it might be useful to have an essay somewhere about the reliability and/or sufficiency of reviews as a source of information. The facts presented in the review can probably be relied upon but the review itself is too often unhelpful to addressing whether a particular product meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for products. For one thing, the reviews often fail the independence test. There was a scandal not that long ago about paid book reviews which undermines their reliability. Product reviews are often written based upon company-produced press releases, not on independent testing. The motivation and compensation of the reviewer must be seriously considered when evaluating the review. A review by an independent (and independently funded) organization like Consumer Reports ought to get higher weight than a review by an unknown editor or a dedicated trade publication. So I don't think an absolute rule either way ought to apply but I do agree that reviews should be read with some skepticism. Rossami (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International rankings

Hi there. I noticed you created the page for International rankings of Costa Rica, and I did not know there exist a whole category for many countries. Just in case you are interested in creating more of such pages, I want to let you know I did created similar tables for Panama, Uruguay, and a more comprehensive table with indicators for Latin America. I pick up the idea of these tables from the article about Chile. Just check those articles. --Mariordo (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy - but it has Bureaucrats?

How is it possible for official policy to state "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" when there are administrators who are called "Bureaucrats" WP:BUR. Not trolling, honestly curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnelwayrules (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly the title of the "bureaucrats" is determined by the software and beyond our control, so it's just a name. Also note that Wikimedia is not a stewardship either, but we have Stewards. --erachima talk 21:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate

WP:CFBSEASON seems to state that since articles on college football seasons does not fall under on of the categories listed at WP:INDISCRIMINATE the policy does not apply. Is this a reasonable interpretation?

Also the policy currently states As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.. But the policy introduction does not currently state this. Taemyr (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their statement is essentially accurate. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" has two purposes: first, it explains that we as a community reserve the right to rule that certain types of verifiable information are not encyclopedic, and second, it lists the few types of page on which the issue is settled.
The inclusion of how-to/FAQ content, coverage of fictional universes outside of giving context to notable real-world subjects, lyrics, raw data tables, and news reports have all been discussed to the point of exhaustion, and a strong line taken against them. There are other classes of article which have ongoing debate surrounding their suitability for inclusion, but we have not taken a policy stance against them because we have not reached consensus on the matter, and thus they are not included in this policy page. So citing WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE as an argument against articles which do not fall into those specific categories is invalid, because the policy does not cover them except in the general "if consensus says this doesn't belong, it doesn't belong" sense. --erachima talk 00:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-site hangouts for Wikipedians?

Since Wikipedia is not a forum for casual discussions, I am wondering if there are any other venues (besides the #wikipedia channel) where Wikipedians can hold casual discussions. The only other website I know of is The Wikipedia Review, but that site frequently has technical problems (I always get a 404 error unless I use a proxy) and many Wikipedians don't seem to have a positive image of that site.

If there are any such sites, it may be a good idea to list them under WP:FORUM. I know this isn't necessary, but it would be quite useful for editors who want to take a break from editing to chat with other editors. Wikipedia isn't about editing 24/7/365.25, you know? :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people don't have a high opinion of WP:IRC either, actually, though I'm personally fine with it. (Something to do with people being nasty behind others' backs if I recall correctly.) As for how to talk to people offwiki, I'd suggest IMing them. Also, any sort of Wikipedia fansite/forum is unlikely to be listed on this policy page because it would create the impression of official endorsement. --erachima talk 07:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

This paragraph doesn't align well with the main article. It currently reads:

  1. Dictionary definitions. Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as Yes or truthiness. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable.
    For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary. Dictionary definitions should be transwikied there.

I would like to rewrite it as something like:

  1. Dictionary definitions. Dictionary entries list multiple definitions for the same term, whereas individual encyclopedia articles give only one. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as Yes or truthiness, particularly where there is only essentially one meaning. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable.
    For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary. Dictionary definitions should be transwikied there.
  • Uh, I think the current wording better explains what a dictionary definition article is. It seems like your revised version omits that... which would seem to be a step backwards, as confusion over what a dicdef articles is is why we have so many divided AFDs. --Rividian (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the definition of a dictionary article is not what we're trying to convey here at all (and I can't see which bit of the current text attempts to do that). What we're trying to convey is the difference between a dictionary entry and an encyclopedia article, and if you actually read WP:NOTADICT you find it's more like the above.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that the AFD problem is a symptom of the current paragraph. It completely fails to describe what the difference is, and everyone keeps saying stuff like 'I think this article is comprehensive enough to be an encyclopedia article.' when on the contrary, if it covers multiple distinct definitions, it's too comprehensive and needs to be divided into individual articles.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, read WP:NOTADICT, does it or does it not align with my paragraph above better than the old one?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why must you continually imply I haven't read that page? I find that very off-putting, I said nothing to indicate I hadn't read it. We're talking about WP:NOT here. --Rividian (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not really talking about WP:NOT, we're talking about WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary- I think this is a paragraph that is supposed to be a summary of that. And I certainly don't mean to imply that you've never read it, I'm just saying- maybe you should read it again; I know I had to read it many times to get the full gist.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we can get this policy page square with that one, AFDs should be a lot more pleasant and less controversial. Hopefully(!) At the moment, they seem to miss each other.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example of words beeing encyclopedic topics

Template:RFCpolicy While it's good to have an example where there is consensus, I can see little encyclopedic content on yes. So I think Macedonia (terminology) is a better example. Taemyr (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily agree. Neither yes nor its counterpart no are encyclopedic in the least. They are nothing but very common words, and that by itself does not make them relevant enough for a separate Wikipedia article. In my view, the guideline should actively proscribe the creation and upholding of articles about everyday words unless they have actually been written about as a topic in of themselves.
Peter Isotalo 12:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only look at the evidence and the policies. 3 AFDs say that yes it is encyclopedic. The question about whether it's a 'dicdef' is not the question. The question is whether it is encyclopedic. The answer yes. The reason the answer is yes from an AFD viewpoint is that it survived. The reason the answer is yes from a policy standpoint is that it's a single definition. The dictionary argument only really flies when you have multiple distinct definitions in one article. Or at least that what WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonia is a very poor example, it's never been tested in AFD and there's multiple definitions of what it means. We need to stick to community consensus examples; and Macedonia has never been tested.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes has only survived two AfDs, one of which was a speedy keep. The first AfD of yes (word), now a redirect to yes, resulted in deletion. I don't know what the exact contents of that first article was, but I can't imagine that it could be less encyclopedic than the current word-article. The major problem with the one proper AfD that resulted in a keep, however, is that keep-voters presented non sequitur motivations, just like in so many other similar AfDs. The discussion of what dictionary information actually consists of is on the a "oh, yes it is!"-level, and I believe what I'm saying here pretty much echoes your own rightful complaint over at the AfD of old school.[1] The problem is that I think you're judging dicdefs by how cohesive their definition is, and that's not really the issue here.
As for Macedonia, I agree that it could at first glance seem like too disparate, but it has lots of things going for it. For one thing, it deals with a reasonably cohesive topic; the controversial terminology and classification of a geographic region, the boundaries of which have varied throughout history. This is equally true for other regions, like Flanders, or better yet, Kurdistan. For a scholarly parallel, just look at feudalism, a term that is today hotly disputed with many different interpretations from historians (albeit around a core of ideas about a kind of client-patron relationship). Most importantly, however, Macedonia (terminology) is not limited to dictionary information. I have a lot of trouble seeing it ever being deleted in an AfD, whether its still an FA or not.
Peter Isotalo 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're prepared to stick Macedonia up for AFD, your edit is purely speculation. It's never been tested, and I for one do not consider it to be a good example encyclopedic article. It was added with no prior discussion here or anywhere else. Therefore your edit restoring it does not reach consensus. It is not policy that Macedonia is encyclopedic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking this line of argument a bit too far. You can't change major policy documents based on individual AfDs, especially not ones that so obviously go against the wording of guidelines. Yes is a pure dicdef and has been so for the past two years. Macedonia (terminology) may not have been up for AfD, but that doesn't mean you have the right to remove it. The FA status does more than you think to outweigh the fact that it's not been put up for deletion. You're pretty close to starting a revert war in the policy page, and I think it would be best if you waited for consensus instead of making unilateral changes.
Peter Isotalo 05:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you can change it by AFDs and so forth. That's what Jimmy Wales says; ultimately it's down to consensus.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is the other way around, Macedonia should never have been added. It's not a consensus, and neither was old school that was added at the same time (that is currently on the ropes in an AFD).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications or Changes needed for WP:NOTHOWTO

I was looking at the article on Nodal analysis, a technique used to analyze electrical circuits. It's tagged as being a How-To, but why shouldn't it be a How-To? The article's subject matter itself is the How-To! How can you describe a systematic set of instructions for completing a task in any way other than How-To format? I'd like to suggest that the What Wikipedia Is Not policy be updated with an exception for articles with subjects which are themselves How-Tos.Ziiv (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a manual does not need to repeat the exact procedure of that manual, especially not in a point-by-point basis. The method should be summarized, not described in exact detail. To give an parallel: if you write an article about a book, you don't cite the entire book, but attempt to summarize it as concisely as possible.
Peter Isotalo 12:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=241825931"