Misplaced Pages

talk:What Misplaced Pages is not: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:36, 12 March 2008 editRossami (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,096 edits →Plot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:17, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive 59) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes|WT:NOT}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Policy talk}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive index |target=Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive index
Line 5: Line 7:
|leading_zeros=0 |leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes |indexhere=yes
}}<!-- }}
{{press |org='']'' |date=November 5, 2015 |author=Dewey, Caitlin |title=The most fascinating Misplaced Pages articles you haven’t read |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/11/05/the-most-fascinating-wikipedia-articles-you-havent-read/}}<!--


-->{{User:MiszaBot/config -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}} |archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 600K
|counter = 17 |counter = 59
|minthreadsleft = 10 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(14d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive %(counter)d
}}<!-- }}<!--


--><!--{{archives
-->{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=14|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot II}}<!--

-->{{archives
|small=yes |small=yes
|index=/Archive index |index=/Archive index
|auto=long |auto=long
}}<!-- }}--><!--


--><!-- Topic archive box begins --> --><!-- Topic archive box begins -->
{| class="messagebox plainlinks small-talk" style="width: {{{box-width|238px}}}" {| class="messagebox plainlinks small-talk" style="width: {{{box-width|238px}}}"
| |
*Topic: ] (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006) *Topic: ] (November 2005–January 2006)
*Topic: ] (May - July 2007) *Topic: ] (May–July 2007)
*Topic: ] (2003) *Topic: ] (2003)
*Topic: ] (July 2007 - ongoing; partially archived) *Topic: ] (July–October 2007)
|}<!-- Topic archive box ends --> |}<!-- Topic archive box ends -->


== "]" listed at ] ==
== Misplaced Pages is not... ==
]

The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span>&#32;to this page has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#WP:NOTFANDOM}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
...a knot to be tied up in arguments ;o)--] (]) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:You're wrong! You're wrong! Get the rope, boys.--] (]) 04:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

== Lists ==

===Policy amendment request - addition to what Misplaced Pages is not ===

A list has no place in an ecyclopaedia unless it actually conveys information other then its entries. Without the standard encyclopaedic entry, '''a list is called a catalogue'''.

I am going to suggest that all lists in Misplaced Pages must have, like all other articles:
*an introduction
*a definition
*a statement of scope
*a statement of notability
*the encyclopaedic purpose (what does it inform the reader)

'''Misplaced Pages is not a catalogue'''--] (]) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:What type of "lists" are you talking about? There's a lot of different interpretations. Also, consider that many lists are completely appropriate breakouts per ] that many not necessarily alone have all these parts (relying on the parent article to do that). Also check ] which already mentions some no-nos in list formation. --] 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

*This change is neither desirable nor needed. The lists we have created under current rules are just fine, but there is always room for improvement (the same as with all WP articles). Having this new rule would just prompt a new round of mass deletion of information from WP. Information includes the relationship of one article to another in whatever order the list maker has placed the articles. ] (]) 19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

{{policylist}}
*No need for this. Lists are just another info presentation format. Just like images, tables, charts, diagrams, bullet points, tables of contents, "see also" sections, paragraphs, sentences, etc.. List policies and guidelines are already covered in detail in various guideline and policy pages. Much of the deletionist frenzy concerning lists comes from groups of rude (see ]) tendentious spam fighters and their closely-associated admins. A simpler solution to spam is to make a policy forbidding unregistered users from adding external links to the external link sections of articles, or to lists. Then all registered users could enforce the policy, and control of articles would go back to the registered editors of the articles. Misplaced Pages as a whole, and especially admins outside spam central, need to step in and rein in this spam-fighting group of tendentious tag-team disrupters on wikipedia. They parachute into many articles and disrupt carefully worked-out consensus agreements, and/or delete large sections of articles that took years to create. There needs to be some sort of equivalent to ]. Something like ]. ] and ] seem to get frequently deleted from articles by spam fighters in their evident support of ] and other "notable" monopolies or commercial software. All info in articles has to meet wikipedia guidelines. See the table to the right. Lists shouldn't have to meet a higher standard arbitrarily set up and enforced by outlaw spam admins and their followers. It took multiple ] rulings, and ], to finally control several outlaw admins, and those who followed their example, in that topic area. --] (]) 22:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:I would have though that with improvement in mind, the articles that contain only a list would need to be expanded by adding these sections. Lists are not ] expansions pear definition there. As an example, ] seems to be a catalogue that conveys no other information then how to reach articles of these particular individuals. What is the purpose of this list? I appreciate that the individuals are notable for some other achievement, but is their location of birth in some way relevant to their notability? Can this list teach humanity something? Does being born at sea contribute to any field of knowledge? None of these issues were considered when it was discussed as an article for deletion ].

:The ] is similar. Everyone had to be born somewhere! The cut off dates reflect Danzig being a part of Germany (1308, it was overrun by the Teutonic Order - 1945, end of the Third Reich). Is the scope restricted to German births? Clearly not, so why stop with 1945. Has it been determined that no one notable is going to be born in the city now that it reverted to Polish sovereignty and changed names? This article was a compromise based in a very contentious conflict which took a year to resolve. So much for consensus! No notable person born in the city after 1945 can be listed even if they were born in the same building as someone notable born in it in 1944! The only thing the list teaches humanity is overt discrimination!

:"Bare bones" lists are not like "Just like images, tables, charts, diagrams, bullet points, tables of contents, sections, paragraphs, sentences" because all these are elements of a standard article, and support article content. Lists have no content to speak of other then the single sentence incorporating its title.

:Are you suggesting (assuming) I am a "deletionist frenzy concerning lists comes from groups of rude (see ]) tendentious spam fighters"? That seems fairly uncivil from where I stand! I have nowhere made a delete suggestion! I advocate expansion of existing lists, if they are indeed encyclopaedia material. Please remember that an encyclopaedia is not a dump for any and all data, but is a reference work for conveying information contextualized in terms of human knowledge. If a list has this context, why can't it be presented in the article? Are there "carefully worked-out consensus agreements" in lists? Have a look here ]! What on Earth is the purpose of the ]?! It seems to discriminate against notable people who had atheist parents, or maybe a parent who was an accountant, or notable people who were orphaned! This entire Category:Playboy Lists is only useful as a catalogue for Playboy collectors! The only notability of ] (aside from publication of her photographs) is that she did not become aware of her own notability for over two decades! Maybe a starter for ]?
:In any case, it is very clear that views expressed by Timeshifter are based on personal experiences, and are not very objective in terms of approach to my proposal.
:Consider mentioning that there needs to be some sort of equivalent to ], twice! However, this represents a political view if I'm not mistaken.

:Here is an example of what I mean by my proposal.
:Thake the list ].
:Current contents are
:*"This is a list of explorers, trappers, guides, and other frontiersman of the American frontier known as "Mountain Men" from 1807-1848."
:*The list.

:The rest of the information on the ] is elsewhere in an article that is by no means long, and contains:
* 1 History
* 2 Mode of living
* 3 Notable figures
* 4 Further reading
* 5 See also
* 6 External links

:Why can't the list be included in the Notable figures section? After all, if they deserve to be in the list, they must be notable!

:Another example is ]. Surely the subject of exploration is closely related to the area being explored?! So why have an alphabetic list when numerous articles already exist here ]? Do you think anyone will want to know how many explorers who had a name which started with K ever lived? This occurred because no scope for the article was ever shown! Subsequently the article is owned by the
:'''Portugal Portal'''
:List of explorers is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.!!!
:This is because the Geography Portal found this list useless! Clearly someone in Portugal though it was a great way to promote Portuguese explorers, but is this encyclopaedic for an English language encyclopaedia? I would make a wager that every Portuguese ship captain that sailed outside of the Mediterranean during the 15th - 17th centuries is listed in this article. Since during this period all commercial ventures to find new trade markets and commercial goods were sponsored expeditions, virtually every such sailing venture qualifies!

:Speaking of the sea, here is a "goodie" ]. It says "The era of European sea explorations began in the late 15th century and lasted for a little more than three full centuries." Not surprisingly it is also "List of maritime explorers is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles."! And guess what, the talk page says that "Just to state that this list is part of the paralel (sic.) goal of the WikiAward for Greatest Sea Explorer of the period of the discoveries." submitted by the author who commented "Have fun, see the results, watch Misplaced Pages grow..."--Gameiro Pais 04:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) This ] is unsurprisingly a Portuguese editor! The statement above is COMPLETELY erroneous and CLEARLY bias towards Portugal! The era of European sea exploration begun with ] who were the first to sail in the Mediterranean, having established colonies on the European coast. European sea and ocean exploration is still ongoing! There are numerous articles that relate to the many commercial and scientific vessels that explore the coastal areas of the planet, and the seas and oceans themselves.
:Had the article included
*an introduction
*a definition
*a statement of scope
*a statement of notability
*the encyclopaedic purpose (what does it inform the reader)
:the list would have never existed in this shape and form.

:This state of affairs with a clear intent to misinform, and a national bias (not even a POV) would not have been possible. As it stands now, the authoring of lists is clearly subject to exploitation. :The lists guidelines are obviously inadequate.

:I look forward to further comments.--] (]) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

::Your questions are mainly about the notability of various articles that contain lists, or consist solely of lists. I suggest you bring up those various articles at ], or ]. --] (]) 02:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

::More generally, most of what you're advocating here seems to be style recommendations, and should go in ]. Furthermore, we already have WP:NOT#DIR, which I believe covers the "catalog" phenomenon you're complaining about.--] (]) 02:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:::My point is not that the list articles are lacking notability. They are obviously dealing with notable subjects. My point is that their existence is not justified in terms of encyclopaedic content. Without this justification it is impossible to judge the article notability.
:::There are not very many lists in history before 20th century. A notable list is one found in the Genesis showing line of descent. It had a purpose, a context, and a scope. Lists of Roman emperors existed. That served the purpose of the Roman calendar. Lists of commissioned officers existed...do determine rank seniority. When people make lists, they serve a purpose. In Misplaced Pages, currently, anyone can create a list that serves their own purpose. Its a POV by other means! --] (]) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

::::Notability applies to the topic, not to the article. If the list is introducing a new "topic" then arguably yes, you need to provide why that new topic is notable. However, if a list is an article that supports a topic that is already notable, there is no reason to require all the excess weight that is already outlined in a parent article. --] 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::Yes, well. The above mentioned list of births is at least linked to the notable subject of the international law on ]. However, that discussion is only about the post-1961 implications in the adoption of international law on reduction of statelessness. All the subjects of the list on births at sea were born before 1961, and mostly in the 19th century! Indeed, since 1961 the concern of being born on an aircraft has become more dominant, so properly the list ought to be called ]! So, the list has no relationship to the parent article aside from the word ]. It would be more appropriately linked to ] & ] (history of?) if there was any greater significance to being born at sea prior to 1961. This is largely because the guideline on the introductory section to the article is not followed. In this case the topic is notable, but the article, bearing to relationship to the topic, is irrelevant to it. Its only notability is to list people who were born at sea. Because travel by sea was the only way to get around before air travel, and because it took substantially longer, the chances of being born at sea were very good for many notable persons. In fact, it was not a rare event. It was not notable.--] (]) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

::::Explain how ] is non-neutral.--] (]) 05:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::This list is just not relevant to the parent article. Other lists have different "issues" which is why my proposal has several points to it.--] (]) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A list is not simply a catalogue. A list can serve many purposes beyond the purposes of a catalogue.

In wikipedia, lists can serve as a useful means for navigation, especially browsing. At the moment, navigation is one of wikipedia’s weak points. Search functions, and google searches of wikipedia are fine if you know what you are looking for. It’s when you don’t that things like lists, tables and categories become particularly useful. We need more of these things, not less.

Such lists, tables and categories that exist for content navigation should be reserved for existing content, or content that needs to be added. In this respect, notability is not an issue, because everything in the list relates to other content. The feared catalogue phenomenon, and related fears of spam attacks, occurs where the lists contain external links. Such lists are a different matter.

Most of mrg3105’s comments, where he has a point, relates to the need to improve lists. Often stuff in a list belongs in an article. However, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t also belong in the list. There is going to have to be redundancy. The explorers name will need to occur on multiple pages. Zero redundancy is very user unfriendly. Too much redundancy is also bad. The encyclopaedic content about the explorer should belong in one place, with summaries located elsewhere being relatively brief. --] (]) 05:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:I never said that lists are catalogues, but only that some become catalogues. "Lists, which usually have linked terms in them, naturally serve as tables of contents and indexes of Misplaced Pages." A table of content is an introduction to a topic; and index is a way to find something in a large body of content. In both cases the "lists" are defined by the content. Generating a list because it "sounds like" it belongs to a topic or another structured article is not really the intent behind the lists as I understand it. If the proposal is not useful, then maybe I should just go around tagging for deletion any list that can't be linked to anything in Misplaced Pages? In any case, it seems to me the Wikilistomania is a bit out of control. I have looked at several lists now, and I'd say that I could spend 24/7 on commenting on what's wrong with them in terms of encyclopedic suitability, never mind content of which there is usually none aside from the bare links.--] (]) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 06:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

::“Lists that can’t be linked to anything in wikipedia”? These are not the lists I have in mind. Do you have some examples? I haven’t encountered wikilistomonia. --] (]) 06:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:::No, I am not getting into a list-by-list discussion here. Please comment the proposal. Again, if the proposal is opposed, then I will take the earlier advice and tag ] as I come across them--] (]) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 06:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

::::I was actually just about to ask for a list-by-list discussion. If you want to press for a rule that disallows a certain type of list, we will need to discuss several examples of "that type of list" to make our own assessments. Unless you can demonstrate a large-scale problem, we will consider a large-scale solution to be unnecessary (and destructive).--] (]) 07:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::Ok, how many lists do you need? It will have to be a reasonable sample, but I have no idea how many list there are. You can pick portals or categories; I don't care. By reasonable, I mean something I can handle without spending several days on it, ok?
:::::Meanwhile, can you comment on the examples above?--] (]) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::I looked at the list examples you already provided. I can see your point, but think you are overreacting. There is a lot of room for improvement, but I think that neither AfD nor a WP:NOT draconian rule that facilitates deletions at AfD is the way to go. I suggest that, rather than writing top-down rules, you fix some lists, and if you succeed, write a guideline on how to fix bad lists. You mentioned lists “that can’t be linked to anything in wikipedia”. I would like to see one or two of these, or were you exaggerating? --] (]) 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

== Commenting on list examples (arbitrary break) ==

(commenting on the examples) Here's how I'd assess each:
* ] - The general subject of being born at sea has some historical importance; a quick turns up 770 references to it. Looking at several of the individuals on the list turns up the interesting phenomenon that many of them were born to immigrant parents (in the act of immigration). In the long term, the list should explain why being born at sea is some kind of notable phenomenon. I won't presume that it isn't, and won't delete it on the basis of that presumption. ].
* ] - There's an ongoing debate on Misplaced Pages on when something should be handled by a category and when by a list. Misplaced Pages's implementation of categories is still very rudimentary -- there's no way to browse entries from all the subcategories of a parent category, there's no way to provide any contextual information along with the link to the article, and few if any options for sorting and searching. You can't even choose to view more than 200 entries at a time. So even though there is a ], it's a worse navigation tool at this time than a list can be. Same for ]. The existence of a category doesn't invalidate having a list crafted by a human editor, and vice-versa.
* ] - That's a list that needs sorting, expanding, prettifying. To accomplish that, you need to do the work, not write some legislation somewhere. And if you do mandate that people write better lists, how will you enforce it? By deleting lists that need fixing? Wrong approach. ] is a good example of what the maritime list ''could'' look like.<br />The edits you made to ] didn't fix it up at all; it's now five sections worth of ], ] ("the use of force is not considered a reason for exclusion"), unsourced assertions ("A maritime explorer is the noted leader of the expedition"), followed by a list that still needs someone to wade in and ''improve the thing''.
:(Oh, wait, you did start sorting the list as well -- that's a definite improvement.)--] (]) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
* ] - These are each completely appropriate for something that would appear in, say, an ''Encyclopedia of Playboy''. Misplaced Pages ''is'' an encyclopedia of ''Playboy''. And an encyclopedia of physics. And of the state of Alabama. And steam railroads. And video games. And that's a good thing. If the ''Playboy'' articles bother you so much, you don't have to read them. <small>And let's face it, nobody reads Playboy for the articles.</small>
* ] - The opening sentence does provide a reasonable declaration of scope, but the individual entries could do more to explain how the connection influenced the lives of the listed individuals. There's work to be done on that list. Legislation is not some magic bullet. People have to roll up their sleeves and do that work.--] (]) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, well, I can only repeat that I did not initially advocate deletion as a solution. The entries I made in the list of maritime explorers are not self-referenced. Since individuals and not expeditions are name in the list, by definition the individuals are the leaders of the expeditions, which is their source of notability. I would agree that list can be improved in the same way other articles are, but how? There are no guidelines for improving lists!--] (]) ♠♣♥♦ 03:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:::] or ]. As I've said before, you might get a better response if you were proposing these changes for those list-specific guidelines, not for WP:NOT. You are probably getting a lot of "deletion is not the answer" responses here because NOT's purpose is to specify types of content that should always be deleted, regardless of how it is formatted.--] (]) 03:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

::::Ok, thank you for comments. I will take the proposal to those two and see what reaction I get. I would rather see the articles evolved into something more reference-like then left as is or deleted.--] (]) ♠♣♥♦ 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

===Use them as a Table of Contents===
Why not just change the title. Instead of "List," call it "Misplaced Pages References"? And don't allow Red Links, which by their very nature are Not Notable. Sincerely, ] (]) 01:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:That is only one specialized type of list. Take a look at Misplaced Pages's ] and see how few of them fit that role. Further, redlinks are not "by their nature" non-notable; see ].--] (]) 02:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

== FORUM-only accounts? ==

I don't want to name names, but I have occasionally come upon user accounts that could rightly be called "forum-only" in that the only edits they make are forum-style comments on Talk pages. A warning and pointer to ] occasionally crops up, but nothing is really done. This is not the kind of thing people get blocked for. But it kinda annoys the crap out of me ;) --] (]) 22:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:: Or write whole articles of OR on their talk pages, possibly as a place to store and then publicise them.--] (]) 12:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

== Length of a plot summary ==

Is there a Misplaced Pages policy on how long a plot summary should be? Recently I had a discussion about the length of the plot summary in ], see ]. I maintained that the rules for the length of a plot summary are the same as those for any other section; and ] maintained instead that plot summaries must be very short. Strangely we both claimed that ] supported our position. Can somebody clarify this point? And could the policy be amended to make it clear? ] (]) 13:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
*Looking at that, I think the plot section is clearly too long. ''Misplaced Pages articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain <u>real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.</u> This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A <b>brief plot summary</b> may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.'' So ] is largely correct. The plot should only be as long as required to provide a reader with the necessary context for the real-world significance that should be the focus of the article. Currently, the plot description exceeds that purpose. ] (]) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:There's no bright-line rule. For films, you're looking at 10 words per minute, for TV, the rule is around 500 for up to 45 minutes, and 10 for each minute after. For books, 20-25 words a chapter should suffice, I think. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

:As average Misplaced Pages articles go, the ratio of commentary to plot in ] is pretty high, actually. My feeling is that anything beyond a very general description of plot (one or two paragraphs) should be accompanied by commentary specifically relating to the additional details provided. That's clearly not the approach we're taking now, but I do hope we adopt something like it eventually.--] (]) 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
::Blood Meridian looks about two paragraphs too long to me. &mdash; ''']]''' 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
<br />
'''suggested wording tweak'''
change ''brief'' to ''concise'' There can be reasonable argument about how brief a summary should be, but I think everyone would agree that it ought to be "concise". As a policy page, this should not be over-specific. I'm trying to find a minimal change that would be generally acceptable and would meet at least some of the problems raised.''']''' (]) 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
* I agree. "Brief" is one of those words with many different interpretations (just ask a lawyer), but concise covers the point. ] (]) 16:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
**I'm going to be bold and make the change. &mdash; ''']]''' 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
**Good Heavens! I actually agree with ]. There must be a rift in the ]. ] (]) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

===On closer inspection, these are loafers===
"''A concise plot summary may be appropriate as part of a larger topic.''"

What exactly does that mean? Surely we could phrase that better.--] (]) 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
*''A concise plot summary is appropriate in coverage of a work of fiction and elements within that work.''? --] 23:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
**Definitely. I think the section needs a complete rewrite; it just reads funny IMO. Ideally, I'd like it to read something like "In articles on works of fiction, a plot summary should be concise and balanced with real-world details, such as the work's development and impact. This applies to both stand-alone works and series." &mdash; ''']]''' 23:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I prefer Masem's shorter wording. Once you get into details it becomes more for the guidelines. His wording, in particular, allows for the existence of subarticles which contain the plot primarily. I'll vote for his over mine, as I usually do. I think its certainly an improvement over the present. Policies should be concise. :).''']''' (]) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Actually, my version would be the ''entire'' rewritten bullet. Masem's wording just covers that sentence. &mdash; ''']]''' 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
<br>''It is appropriate to provide a concise plot summary as part of the larger coverage of fictional works.''

Thank you everybody for your clarifications. However, I find the formulation still unclear: saying that an article should be "not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot" doesn't exclude that it could be a detailed summary with lots of real world content as well (the adverb "solely" allows a weak interpretation of the statement. Similarly, "may" in the next sentence doesn't enforce that the summary must be concise. Apart from that, how does one judge when something is concise? Setting a fixed chapter/words limit seems too procrustean: different books have chapters of different size and some don't have chapters at all. We should stress that the summary must also give a good outline of the plot: there may be articles with long summaries, because they contain irrelevant details, but still missing some key plot elements. I think this is the case with ] and this is my main issue with that article: some parts of the summary give minimal details while others, chiefly about the last part of the book, completely skip entire chapters. Shouldn't we stress the quality of the summary rather than simply its shortness? And if it is deemed too long, shouldn't a more selective policy be in place, rather than deleting any new addition because the article is already too long? ] (]) 17:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
*No, you are missing the point. The main focus of Misplaced Pages's content should be on the <u>real-world impact and significance of the work in question</u> and that applies to Hamlet, Don Quixote or For Whom the Bell Tolls as much as more obscure works. That a single narrow formulation cannot cover all potentialities is obvious. But general language advising concision is clear enough. The real place for this in specific application then is at the talk page of the work or works in question where a consensus can be derived that satisfies the best practices advised by the guideline. Per our standards, the Blood Meridian plot outline is currently too long and detracts from the encyclopedic nature of the article. ] (]) 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to call your attention to the fact that there are featured articles with plot summaries longer than the one in ]. Especially articles about video games tend to have detailed descriptions of the storyline. Take for example ]. It has a plot summary that is longer than Blood Meridian (and it is made even longer by using the ''References'' section to quote verbatim several dialog fragments. Am I wrong in saying that either both Blood Meridian and Final Fantasy VIII violate policy or they both respect it? ] (]) 18:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
*]. Deal. You asked a question and every editor who has weighed in on the question has suggested the plot summary of Blood Meridian is too long. It seems like rather than accept this response, you are fishing around until you get an answer that is more amenable to your personal preference, which is unlikely to happen. I don't think continuing the discussion here is fruitful. It needs to be worked out on the article talk page. If it helps, I'll weigh in there in favour of reducing the plot summary based on your query here. ] (]) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
**] is about articles for deletion. We are not talking about that here. And my "what about article x" argument cited an FA, not a just created article: so I am justified in assuming that it respects policy. OK, my query about Blood Meridian has been answered clearly. Now I am asking a new question: is the plot summary of ] too long? The discussion above clearly suggest yes. ] (]) 19:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
***''Final Fantasy VIII'' is a 40+ hour RPG with over a dozen hours of cutscenes and hundreds of thousands of words of dialogue, as well as a complex story involving time travel and whatnot; it has a 800-word plot summary as a result. I wrote most of the FF8 plot summary as an ''example'' of an appropriate plot summary. It's a case by case basis, hence my wording above. &mdash; ''']]''' 04:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

**** I wasn't criticizing FF8, on the contrary, I was citing it as an example of a good article with a long plot summary. By the way, I find your formulation of the policy clearer than the present one, it should be adopted. I accept the fact that these things have to be decided case by case and that the policy can give only a vague indication, so I will not bother you anymore with my questions. ] (]) 08:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
*I'd suggest that the proposed ''It is appropriate to provide a concise plot summary as part of the larger coverage of fictional works.'' is a solid replacement. Does anyone object? ] (]) 05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
** No, obviously ;) ] (]) 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
**Ah, okay. Sorry if I came across as hostile; I wrote a couple responses here after a 12-hour Sunday work shift. 150+ dollars is nice, but not when you have to blow it the next day on a new brake system :) &mdash; ''']]''' 17:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I'd gladly accept that wording of Hobit's also. ''']''' (]) 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== Question about concert tour pages ==

I noticed that Misplaced Pages does not have any pages for past concert tour information. It seems that a page like this wouldn't break any of the guidelines, if it included an explanation of the tour, events that occurred on tour, a list of tour stops, setlists, additional touring band members, etc. Can anyone think of a reason why a page like this would go against the wikipedia guidelines?] (]) 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
: What you describe sounds like directory information to me. Depending on the tone and timing, it could also come across as advertising rather than proper encyclopedic content. <br> Since you're not talking about the music or the artist but are talking about the narrow economic activity of delivering the product to a particular audience, I think any article about the tour would best be governed by ]. The kinds of detail you describe would definitely not meet those guidelines. Only the most exceptional tour would normally survive as a stand-alone article. The rest should be discussed in the article about the artist who is touring. ] <small>]</small> 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


== QUESTION:How not to be deleted pls see my talk page] (]) 03:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC) ==

== Keep it short ==

I agree with Rosami's latest edit. ''What do you read, my lord? Words, words, words.'' In gratitude to the wisdom of William Shakespeare, your friend and fellow editor, ] (]) 06:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding , Rossami, I think my edit did explain why these policies are there. --] (]) 06:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
: As I tried to say in the edit summary (and probably did not say well enough), I don't disagree with anything that you added. The content is all true. But I also didn't think that it added any explanation or meaning to the page that wasn't already there. This page is already longer than ideal. When we get too wordy, our new editors simply stop reading the page. Not only do they fail to get the benefit of the subtle nuances of the discussion, they miss out on the core content that is central to the page. We need to keep this and all our policy pages as short and concise as possible. ] is a real and continuing problem for us. <br> If you really think that your changes were a material improvement to the page and would help reader understanding more than the added bulk would inhibit them, please explain it here so the rest of us can also understand. Thanks. ] <small>]</small> 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

== Request for comments: removing information for medical reasons ==

(this is a discussion started at ], but moved here for lack of replies)

I am wondering if some editors who are interested in the topic of ] could comment on a discussion which has happenend several times already, without apparent consensus. I don't think this has been mentioned here before, sorry if I missed it.

Suppose that a medical procedure requires that a patient does not know some particular detail (in this case, an image) for the procedure to work. Should we take steps to hide the image on Misplaced Pages (or remove the information altogether), so as not to spoil the procedure for a patient who may see this information without wanting to know about it ?

If you want the details of the discussion, they are ]. Policy and guidelines have been cited countless times in the discussion, so I thought posting here could potentially bring either some new contributors to the discussion, or some clarifications to the guidelines, helping to solve the problem in one way or another. Cheers, ] (]) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:What header would that be under ].? Puzzled, ] (]) 08:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would be tempted to say "the whole page", since this is a discussion that has dragged for a long time and involved many headings, but ] is the one that seems most involved with discussion on policy. ] may also be of interest; both sections are quite long though. ] (]) 09:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC
:None of those links helped. So many words. There seems to be a "hidden image" somewhere, perhaps an ink blot on a page dealing with the Rorschach test, but how can an image be "hidden"? What's the gist of the argument? Why can't we have a link to this "hidden image"? Sorry I can't help; maybe somebody else wants to take it on. Sincerely, ] (]) 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:: Having read through most of the discussion dealing with this one particular example, I think it would actually be a very bad idea to try to make a policy decision just because of this one case. As several lawyers have told me at different times, cases at the margins invariably make bad precedent. Laws passed because of a single incident, no matter how notorious, are almost always bad laws (though we pass a lot of them because it's so easy to play to the notoriety of the one case). I think you have a very similar situation here. <br> There are too many issues which are very specific to this one inkblot example to try to make a general rule about all spoilers. Only once there are several different cases all attempting to address the same issue will the community have a decent chance of identifying the core issue(s) and finding the right long-term policy answer. In the meantime, I think this is a good forum to advertise the Talk page discussion and to gain more comments and opinions which can focus on the very specific issues of the one case. ] <small>]</small> 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== Plot ==

In response to Pixelface's removal of the plot section with edit summary "this contradicts ]": Allowing primary sources doesn't contradict disallowance of certain material from them or with specifying some rules for how they should be presented. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''12:07, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)''</small>
:Yes, that was my thought when I reverted. There's no logical connection between allowing primary sources (now and then), and permitting articles to be wholly plot summaries with no real-world context! ] (]) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::Primary sources like books and films are acceptable sources per ]. Articles sourced from those works often will be nothing but a detailed summary of that work's plot early after the article is created &mdash; and even much later after the article is created. However, such articles do not make Wikipdia an indiscriminate collection of information. Any recommendations on what else the article needs can be explained in ]. Articles like are not against Misplaced Pages policy. --] (]) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
:::IIRC, it's been held that <s>large</s> plot summaries are derivative works. {{red|We have short, if not no plot summary at all, to comply with fair use restrictions (talking about it scholarly, e.g. {{la|Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)}} (which is B-class), and continues to talk about how that episode was made and what people thought about it.)}} ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC), modified 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::::] "Copyright law only governs creative expressions that are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," not the ideas or information behind the works. It is legal to reformulate ideas based on written texts, or create images or recordings inspired by others, as long as there is no copying (see plagiarism for how much reformulation is necessary)." And ] doesn't mention derivative works at all so I doubt that's why it's included under ]. --] (]) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::::And last month ] contacted ] who said "plot summaries, in general, are not taken to be copyright infringement so long as they do not include any great degree of the original creative expression." --] (]) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::So the issue can't be argued on a legal basis (at least, at this time). Nonetheless, giving a lengthy plot summary without any form of additional commentary doesn't make for a particularly good encyclopedia article.--] (]) 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well I think there's a difference between an article that's not good and an article that violates policy. --] (]) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::: A bad article is (or at least, ought to be) against some policy or another. The whole point of our policy is to help us write better encyclopedia articles. Like an article that is mere plot summary, a page that is nothing more than a mere dictionary definition is also an example of "an article that's not good" but might be repairable and ]. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Being a policy violation just means we have to fix it. ] <small>]</small> 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Misplaced Pages has over 2.2 million articles and many of them are bad. An article being bad isn't against policy, because Misplaced Pages ]. Being a policy violation is more often than not used as an excuse for deletion. Bad articles just need to be cleaned up. How do articles like , that are simply plot summaries, make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information? --] (]) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::That is fair; Pixelface raises a valid question as to whether or not WP:PLOT belongs in ] or if it should be a subsection of ]. This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy. I wouldn't be surprised if WAF didn't exist back when WP:PLOT was added to this page, so maybe it's time to rethink where we should be offering this guidance.
:::::::Alternatively, I would welcome a guideline dealing with issues of plot only. Our approach to (excessively long) plot summaries in general is in bad need of reevaluation, and WP:PLOT isn't doing the trick.--] (]) 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::As for plots, all we ever needed was common sense in doing good ones, but we got caught between those who didnt like them at all, and those who couldnt think of anything to do but write down everything they saw. (The Pierre B. article even as it is is a little more than plot & much less than a full plot summary of a very complicated novel--it needs major enlargement using the immense critical literature). More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there. Even more generally, I think that page needs to be split up between the things describing content , and the ones describing nature of WP, and the details moved elsewhere. It's absurd to have ourt most used policies expressed in a negative way. ''']''' (]) 06:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


== Mention of summary style in nutshell ==
WP:PLOT is the result of community consensus. It is not here because of copyright reasons or sourcing reasons (which may or may not play a part, depending on the situation), but because that's what was decided. If anyone wants to remove or change the section then they need to show a change in consensus. -- ] 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


The nutshell summary says "{{tqi|Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a ] reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject.}}" ] is about splitting out subtopics into separate articles and the relation between these child articles and their parent article. I don't see its relevance here. The nutshell summary seems to have in mind something more like ], in it's guidance on summarizing existing sources and its claim that Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. I'm inclined to remove the wikilink and possibly rewrite this statement entirely. Thoughts? ] (]) 11:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Surely the point is the word "summary" in the heading. It should give the rough gist of the narrative, not more than that. Also editors who can think of nothing to contribute other than Plot should think carefully before contributing. This is an "Encyclopedia" for goodness sake. Real world material should predominate. Having said that I do agree with "summaries" being included, but in balance with the rest of the article. The ] issue should mean that the summarization is just that, summary: no comment, no analysis, no review, nothing negative, nothing positive - just précis. Anything else can go in other sourced sections. :: ] : ]/] 11:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


:I wouldn't agree that that particular part of the nutshell is intending to refer to OR - it's more that not every fact warrants inclusion. ] (]) 05:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content. There are works that fully justify a chapter-by-chapter synopsis and there are works that can be covered in a short paragraph. But having it under WP:NOT gives editors license to violate ] and make their own judgement call as to what is appropriate. MoS would be able to be a bit more specific. ] (]) 13:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


== Can we remove the "And finally" section? ==
:One of the (many) reasons for this guidance is that it is difficult to do an in-depth plot summary without it becoming analysis or synthetic&mdash;ascribing reasons to character actions or author decisions, for example, that are not "patently obvious" from the original text; this would then be OR unless it's sourced, in which case you should be talking about the coverage, not just referencing it (more or less). Detailed plot summaries are a minefield so caution against them is a very good idea. It doesn't belong in MoS because it isn't a matter of style&mdashit's a matter of content. ](]) 13:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


it has no place in wikipedia and it shouldn't even exist in the first place ] (]) 12:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
There are four aspects of what WP:PLOT states presently:
* An article that is solely a plot summary (of whatever length) is not appropriate for WP
* An article that is a plot summary (of a certain length) with real-world aspects is appropriate for WP
* The "certain length" of the plot summary in case two is defined elsewhere.
* "Real world aspects" include several possible sources.
The first two points fit with the rest of WP:NOT - they describe what is and is not appropriate for a page's content with WP. The third and fourth point is a MOS (]) issue and should not be spelled out in NOT in depth, just like we don't spell out what ] are in ], though giving a hint of what both proper length and appropriate real-world aspects helps to "preview" the underlying MOS for this. I think implying that more details can be found in the MOS on length and real-world aspects is fine, but the language pertaining to the first two statements needs to remain given that it reflects consensus and matches with other statement on WP:NOT.


:makes no sense to remove. It's a catchall that NOT cannot enumerate everything WP is not. ] (]) 13:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
To the case in point, in that does PLOT contradict WP:PSTS, again, breaking it apart like this shows that there's still no contradiction. Primary and some secondary sources can be used to source a plot summary, but even if secondary sources are used, if it still remains just a plot summary, it's not acceptable. Real-world content is going to come from secondary, and at times, primary sources. There's no apparent conflict in these. --] 13:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
::its just unfunny jokes if you checked it out, humorous essays shouldn't be part of main policies ] (]) 16:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Not sure about removing the whole "And finally" section, since it has been on this page for at least a decade now (though I don't think anything of value will be lost if the section does get removed). But I agree that policy pages shouldn't link to "humorous" essays or essays that haven't been thoroughly vetted by the community, so I've removed the links from that section. ] (]) 00:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


== Notice of a requested redirect from ] to here ==
:I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP. The first two points raised by Masem say that: ''An article should not consist exclusively of information of type A, but should have also information of type B''. Why is there a restrictive policy only when A is ''plot details''? For example, articles about planets should not consists solely of physical characteristics, like mass or distance from the sun, but should also have information about human discovery and exploration. An article about an historical figure should not consist uniquely of a chronology of her life, but give also a description of her work and its influence. Nevertheless nobody ever deleted the mass of a planet or the date of birth of an historical figure on the ground that there were not enough information of a different kind. This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest. ] (]) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
::Regarding the treatment of plot information in this way, it's simply the case that the community has reached a consensus that this is the case. Consensus can change, but a small number of people raising an objection does not mean that it has.
::Regarding the "fix it rather than delete it" concern, that is a general point on wikipedia; it's always better to fix something rather than delete it, and this page does not suggest that any offending material should be deleted. All it says is that articles (or sections thereof) that have certain characteristics shouldn't be on wikipedia; this can be rememedied equally be removing the article, or by adding and/or removing material from the article, depending on the precise case. This page does not give an preference to any of those methods, as far as I can see. ](]) 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


The redirect request can be found on ]. ] (]) 03:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:: WP:PLOT is not being treated any differently than WP:NOT#DICT, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:NOT#STATS or WP:NOT#NEWS. All of those clauses say that ''An article should not consist exclusively of information of type A, but should have also information of type B''. Topics make the list here not because they are unique circumstances but because they are demonstrated problems - areas where lots of new users have confusion and need clarification. Nothing on this page has ever said that pages which violate WP:NOT must be deleted rather than fixed. ] <small>]</small> 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:17, 26 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Misplaced Pages is not page.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Media mentionThis page has been mentioned by a media organization:

"WP:NOTFANDOM" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WP:NOTFANDOM to this page has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22 § WP:NOTFANDOM until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.85 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Mention of summary style in nutshell

The nutshell summary says "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a summary-style reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject." Misplaced Pages:Summary style is about splitting out subtopics into separate articles and the relation between these child articles and their parent article. I don't see its relevance here. The nutshell summary seems to have in mind something more like WP:OR, in it's guidance on summarizing existing sources and its claim that Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. I'm inclined to remove the wikilink and possibly rewrite this statement entirely. Thoughts? Daask (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that that particular part of the nutshell is intending to refer to OR - it's more that not every fact warrants inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we remove the "And finally" section?

it has no place in wikipedia and it shouldn't even exist in the first place 37.210.71.142 (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

makes no sense to remove. It's a catchall that NOT cannot enumerate everything WP is not. Masem (t) 13:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
its just unfunny jokes if you checked it out, humorous essays shouldn't be part of main policies 37.210.71.142 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Not sure about removing the whole "And finally" section, since it has been on this page for at least a decade now (though I don't think anything of value will be lost if the section does get removed). But I agree that policy pages shouldn't link to "humorous" essays or essays that haven't been thoroughly vetted by the community, so I've removed the links from that section. Some1 (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Notice of a requested redirect from Misplaced Pages:Misuse of Misplaced Pages to here

The redirect request can be found on Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Redirects#Redirect request: Misplaced Pages:Misuse of Misplaced Pages. 67.209.128.136 (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Category: