| Revision as of 07:53, 22 October 2008 editBrewhaha@edmc.net (talk | contribs)1,265 edits →"not a publisher of original thought" - Logical conclusions?: I don't think that's a problem.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:17, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,704 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 = 21 |
|
|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 |
|
}}<!-- |
|
}}<!-- |
|
|
|
|
-->{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=14|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot II}}<!-- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
--><!--{{archives |
|
--><!--{{archives |
| Line 27: |
Line 28: |
|
{| 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 ] == |
|
== Clarifications or Changes needed for WP:NOTHOWTO == |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> 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) |
|
I was looking at the article on ], 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 ] policy be updated with an exception for articles with subjects which are themselves How-Tos.] (]) 10:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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. |
|
|
:] <sup>]</sup> 12:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::looking at it, although the style it is written in seems like a set of directions, there are many technical topics which are almost impossible to present clearly any other way. It could be improved by changing the style: e.g. ,instead of "Label all the nodes" write "First, all the nodes are assigned labels" its clumsier, but it sounds more like an encyclopedia. ''']''' (]) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Synonyms == |
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't the primary difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia synonyms?- (]) '''Wolfkeeper''' (]) 04:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In a dictionary, synonyms go in completely different parts of the dictionary, for example, baby and infant; whereas in an encyclopedia, they're the same article.- (]) '''Wolfkeeper''' (]) 04:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: That's ''a'' difference and a very useful way to explain the general principle but I would not necessarily call it a definitive difference. A word can have no synonyms but still have a dictionary definition. ] <small>]</small> 15:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, are you claiming that words with no synonyms are not encyclopedic? Can you give an example? Plenty of words have both a dictionary definition as well as an encyclopedic article, without any problems at all. There is clearly a large overlap between a dictionary term and an encyclopedic term.- (]) '''Wolfkeeper''' (]) 16:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::: No, I'm saying the opposite - that a dictionary definition might have zero synonyms but still merely be a dictionary definition. The existence or non-existence of synonyms is not a good 'bright-line' rule for sorting between dictionary definitions and encyclopedia articles. <br> Encyclopedia articles are about topics (primarily nouns) and discuss the topic, its social implications, historical impact, etc. in some depth. And yes where there are multiple names for the same topic, they should redirect to the same page. Lexical content, on the other hand, is about the word itself and focuses on meaning, usage examples, etymology, etc. ] <small>]</small> 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I mostly agree, but not on one point. If there are multiple distinct definitions of the article name in the article, then that's a dictionary entry, ''not'' an encyclopedia entry. That's a ''sufficient'' condition. I'm not right now claiming that it's a ''necessary'' condition that all articles that do not have multiple definitions are encyclopedic (but having said that, I don't know of any generally agreed counterexample right now either, but I agree that there may be some).- (]) '''Wolfkeeper''' (]) 19:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: We are agreeing after all. Now how can we explain that in real-people language instead of ]? <br> Something along the lines of '']'' <br> ] <small>]</small> 19:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::A single definition is not encyclopedic or dictionary-like; most definitions slot just fine into either. It's more like ''You are almost certainly writing a dictionary entry if you have two or more non-synonymous definitions of the title''.- (]) '''Wolfkeeper''' (]) 21:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I have trouble with the separation of "dictionary defintion" and "dictionary entry" that was introduced to the policy just a few days ago. A definition is an integral part of an entry and should be not be separated. There are plenty of wiktionary entries which are basically nothing but a definition. |
|
|
:::::::] <sup>]</sup> 06:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Peter, in principle you can take a dictionary and reformat it, putting all the synonyms together and separating out the different definitions into different articles, and you'd really end up with an encyclopedia (although not necessarily a good one!) They're not necessarily different in content, mostly where you put things, some of the articles/entries can be word-for-word the same.- (]) '''Wolfkeeper''' (]) 15:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Dictionary information formatted to ''look'' encyclopedic is still just dictionary information. It's not much different from organizing ] into a giant bullet list and calling it a dictionary entry. |
|
|
:::::::::] <sup>]</sup> 16:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Nah, that doesn't work. You're probably only familiar with the normal, short dictionaries that mostly contain usage information of English terms. A ''full'' dictionary has pictures and all manner of things, proper nouns, biographies etc. etc. They look quite encyclopedic, but they're still dictionaries because of the way the information is laid out. The wiktionary isn't a full dictionary for example, it's hanging on the coat tails of the wikipedia too much and is scoped accordingly.- (]) '''Wolfkeeper''' (]) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::That last statement is pretty arrogant. Dictionaries may be less voluminous than encyclopedias, but that's natural, since they deal with information that is usually more compact. The scope is somewhat narrower, but that doesn't make them less worthy as reference material. What you're claiming has nothing to do with how Wiktionary is intended to work. Its potential is vastly understated by almost all Wikipedians, and I'm not the first to point it out. Virtually none of the people who protest loudly about deletion of word articles lift a finger to improve the corresponding Wiktionary entries, even when it requires no more but minor changes in prose and some reformatting. Most of them time, they don't even understand that the information is already present simply because they haven't bothered to read the entries properly. I don't know where the idea of a "full dictionary" comes from, but to me it simply sounds like an encyclopedia, as though this format was the only relevant format for presenting information. |
|
|
:::::::::::] <sup>]</sup> 11:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::So, you're arguing that dictionaries are less voluminous, because they are more compact? ;-)- (]) '''Wolfkeeper''' (]) 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Wiktionary doesn't have many proper nouns in it. It only has proper nouns used as adjectives.- (]) '''Wolfkeeper''' (]) 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::More comprehensive dictionaries are rarer because they are harder to extract information from- you have to jump around a lot from word to word, whereas encyclopedias collect the information by topics. As the policy says, dictionaries and encyclopedias do not differ simply in length.- (]) '''Wolfkeeper''' (]) 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:The way the work is laid out is only one criterion--traditionally a dictionary is arranged in a more schematic fashion. If an etymology is presented in a dictionary, it gives the information, with a minimum of discussion; an article in an encyclopedia gives a treatment of the same material in sentences, with an explanation, in prose, not outline. But this is to some extent an obsolete and incomplete distinction. We could organize our Misplaced Pages so the information would be presented in outline, given the proper xml; we could organize wikitionary, to combine the material into sentence and paragraphs. We could have a combination, with the wikitionary information being the first paragraph. And in print even, there were all possible versions and combinations that the media permitted--the only thing they could not do, was an arrangement giving the reader the opportunity to alter the arrangement or to choose one of a multiple of arrangements. xml can do exactly this, though we have not yet made use of the opportunity. We could even with html let the reader hide or show infoboxes, or have a switch that would choose a paragraph or outline presentation, or--very easily--display only lede paragraphs of articles. The reason we follow the conventional arrangement is because we're a web 1.0 production, and at this early stage we want the work to ''look''' like a conventional encyclopedia (or dictionary), as the readers have been accustomed to seeing. And almost all web reference works from commercial or non commercial sources have made a similar choice--to look conventional. That's because we are judged and internally judge by those standards. I think it time we grew up, and grew out of it. |
|
|
:There is the other basic reason, of trying to have a consistent depth of information. This is more plausible in a top-down edited work, where there is editorial control. In a work like ours, where nobody can force an article to have depth, we have the unfortunate choice for any particular subject of permitting an incomplete account that is less than desired, or none at all. we try to say that if there can never be a complete article, then it doesn't belong here, but that is artificial also. There's almost nothing, that if someone wanted to expand upon, that could not be made encyclopedic--that could not, even be used as a theme for a book-length discussion. We can & do limit this by requiring that it be expandable on the basis of existing secondary sources, but we have no way of comprehensively searching for such, and a suitably diligent person could find a great deal more to say that we do say on almost any subject represented here, and many that are rejected because nobody will work on them. And there's an assurance that more will be forthcoming--in the course of just our 7 year history to date Google Books has greatly expanded the easily available material on a great many subjects; G News Archive promises to digitize free any newspaper the publisher will let it, and a similar expansion there will probable force a revaluation of our practice on local topics. |
|
|
:Most words if discussed fully even ''as a word'' could probably be made the basis of an full article. All one need do is follow the ramifications of the etymology and the uses. All words have a history that can be discussed in more depth than a tradition etymology. ''']''' (]) 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree that that is possible. However, I think as wiktionary improves, the desire to do that will lessen, and articles dealing with a single term, rather than a topic will probably eventually all be moved over to wiktionary, without any loss of material occurring.- (]) '''Wolfkeeper''' (]) 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== WP:NOTDIR w.r.t. newspapers == |
|
|
|
|
|
WP:NOTDIR ] at ] as a reason for not citing the ] price of newspapers. To be more specific, the policy statement supposedly being violated is the following: |
|
|
:Misplaced Pages articles are not: 4. ], therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention........treet prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Misplaced Pages is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions. |
|
|
I contend that no one "shops" for newspapers in a ] like they shop for books or DVDs at amazon.com and other websites. People either subscribe, or they pick them up at newstands or self-serve vending machines; in either case, the price paid is non-negotiable. Although newspapers are sold on the street, they have no "street price" as is mentioned in the policy (look up the meaning of "street price" if you're not familiar with the term). The newstand price just another attribute found on the newspaper's ], like its nameplate, slogan, or its ]. The price is fixed, it is not a ] like those for automobiles or the ]s of hotel rooms. Therefore "Misplaced Pages articles are not sales catalogs" is not applicable. |
|
|
|
|
|
So can anyone make a case for why "Misplaced Pages articles are not sales catalogs" applies to newspapers? ] (]) 01:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC). |
|
|
: I disagree with your premises. Newspaper prices ''do'' vary and are negotiable in certain cultures or points in history. The "fixed price" on the front page is no more fixed that the suggested retail price that comes printed on the packaging of the bag of candy in the grocery story. Prices also change over time and become rather rapidly stale. But most importantly, the price of a newspaper, like the price of any other product, is trivia - irrelevant to the encyclopedia reader's understanding of the topic. ] <small>]</small> 14:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Responding to your points in reverse order: |
|
|
::#Your latter and "most important" point is a separate issue that needs to be discussed at ], not here. |
|
|
::#If "Becoming rather rapidly stale" might be relevant here if that were some other part of ] besides the sales catalog aspect, but that's not part of that policy (think of the pop culture detail that gets covered here, for example). |
|
|
::#"Prices also change over time" is explicitly part of the section of the policy I quoted above but it only applies if a catalog item has a "street price" which newspapers do not (at least in some cases--see below). |
|
|
::#I agree that a "bag of candy in the grocery store" and a newspaper both have prices, but that's the limit of the analogy. Newspapers don't have suggested retail prices, stores that discount products similar to newspapers such as magazines don't discount newspapers. As I said before, the price is non-negotiable. In the U.S. for example, there's a history of court cases about the legitimacy of this pricing approach (e.g. United States v. Colgate & Co.) |
|
|
::#"negotiable in certain cultures or points in history": I think "not a sales catalog" targets the present-day, not points in history. Your "certain cultures" argument could be tested online at ]'s website but at first glance I found plenty of cases where the nameplate is accompanied by a price. So even if you could cite a decent-sized culture where the price of a particular day's newspaper from a particular publisher varies, I would claim there are enough places, particularly cities and town's with only one daily newspaper, to make WP:NOTDIR inapplicable to newspapers. Furthermore, we're talking about an optional field, so WP:NOTDIR would have to apply to all uses of the newspaper infobox to warrant its removal on the basis of WP:NOTDIR. |
|
|
::In summary, while you didn't cite a reason for WP:NOTDIR to apply, you did bring up some points that could be discussed at ] after price is re-established as an optional field. Thanks. ] (]) 21:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
Applying the policy to a single number in an article seems legitimate and, at the same time, a useless exercise in wikilawyering. Lots of buzz, little sense to end reader. What I would be concernes with: is it possible to provide a comprehensive roundup on the pricing issue ''and'' keep it up to date? Obviously, listing prices of, say, ] in, say, thirty countries is unrealistic; updating them as they change is beyond imagination. It makes sense only for regional editions that are sold within the same price zone. How much sense? beats me, but it definitely won't hurt anyone. ] (]) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Welcoming comments == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've put together a short essay at ] as a response to the arguments at ]. I would appreaciate any comment and/or feedback on that essay's ] page.--] (]) 02:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Misplaced Pages is not a local guide == |
|
|
|
|
|
Parallel to the paragraph on Misplaced Pages not being a travel guide, I'd like to see something that says it isn't a guide to local services, facilities, etc. It bugs me to see an article on a neighborhood in some city that devotes space to saying, "On Park Drive there's an Uno's Pizza and a Chevy's Mexican Cafe. On Simpson Street is the Simpson Commons Mall, with a Macy's and a Barnes and Noble." And then there are the extension articles, like one on the Simpson Commons Mall that says, "Simpson Commons Mall is on Simpson Street in Banakitchee, Pyorrhea. It has a Macy's and a Barnes and Noble, and it has the first Snips and Snaps west of the Mississippi." These are the kinds of mundane things common to every urban and suburban area in the developed world. Not every one of them is worthy of an article. ] (]) 23:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* Why? Isn't it '']''? Which city would you prefer to delete first? ] (]) 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Misplaced Pages is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide == |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose that the section ] be amended such that it is explicitly stated that Misplaced Pages is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide. There is already a prohibition on articles & lists comprised only of guides ] and plot summary in ], so now is the time to make it explicit that media listings that do not contain analysis, context or criticism are unencyclopedic, and fall outside the scope of Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
The amendment would read as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote><div style="font-size:100%;max-width:100%;float:left;margin:2px 2px 2px 2px;border:1px solid #ffcc00;padding:.1em;text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFF0;"> '''Movie, Book or TV Guide'''. Articles and lists of movies, books or television titles should be treated in an encyclopedic manner, not simply as a record of everything that has ever been distributed or broadcast in the media. Such articles and lists should provide analysis, context or criticism, regarding the reception, impact and development of notable works (see also ]).</blockquote></div> |
|
|
{{clear}} |
|
|
|
|
|
The reasons for this proposed ammendment are two fold: |
|
|
:* Firstly Misplaced Pages is not a record of everything under the sun; a topic or group of topics need to broadly demonstrate some sort of ] for inclusion within Misplaced Pages mainspace as an article or list; |
|
|
:* Secondly there should be some precaution taken against ] to explicitly prevent the listing non-notable movies, books or TV series/episodes by film distributers, book publishers and broadcasters, who have a strong incentive to list all of their products on Misplaced Pages together with flap or DVD cover type summaries of their content. |
|
|
|
|
|
To some extent there is already a large but random body of movies, books and TV series/episodes being listed on Misplaced Pages which do not demonstrate notability or contain any encyclopedic content. For instance there are extensive lists of ] that duplicate TV guides and listings published in the press and internet sites such as ]. There are also many publishers whose works are listed, relisted and listed again under different covers, such as ], ], ], which are little more that a duplication of the their back catalogue. |
|
|
|
|
|
The justification for such articles and lists being created is that although they do not offer any encyclopedic content, there is no explicit prohibition. I cannot see the value of such lists even if is no limit to the quantity of random stuff that can be added to Misplaced Pages. I think we should make it explicit that such listings on their own are not encyclopedic, since they offer no real-world context. --] (]) 09:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is indeed encyclopedic content. The issue is that there are editors who seem to have an opinion on what they consider to be "trivia". Consider that '''''everything in an encyclopedia is trivia'''''. |
|
|
:So it all seems to come down to subjective preference for inclusion. |
|
|
:'''Strong oppose'''. - ] 09:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Strong Oppose''': Per ]. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">] • ] • October 14, 2008 @ 10:29</small> |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' Good lists of episodes are encyclopedic. They are sourced, offer real world context (viewing figures, airdates). They do not simply duplicate TV listings. Of course, the younger, less developed ones might, but you could say the same about non-popular culture articles. The Misplaced Pages philosophy is supposed to be openness, accessibility. Narrowing the goal posts is going to piss people off, which will harm the project. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: '''Strong oppose''' per Jc37 and the JPS. I've personally learned a lot from articles like the ones you're trying to ban and I know others have too. ] (]) 10:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: '''Strong support with one exception'''. I get the feeling that the opposers read the title, but not the content. Requiring all articles about fiction to contain some analysis is eminently reasonable. Requiring it of '''lists''' is probably unrealistic. I can see the argument, but you might as well tie a cannonball to the legs of this pigeon.—](]) 11:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' not only for the reasons above, but also for the fact that claiming that articles that lack analysis or critical commentary should not be on WP. There are articles that are just '''facts''' (most of our geography ones), and to apply a higher standard to these media articles to any other type of article is inappropriate (we already ahve WP:NOT#PLOT to provide some guidance on how these go) Furthermore, since ''some'' individual episodes, books, etc are notable, there is no reason why we cannot at least mention briefly (but not giving them their own article) all the other ones. --] 11:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Comment'''. ] seems to be concerned with written fiction. But there is already a guideline, ], that fully addresses this.] (]) 12:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose'''. It's useful to have such lists as indexes to shows and episodes. Even paper encyclopedias have indexes. ] (]) 12:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Strong support with Kww's exception''' - This is the kind of chaff that makes us a laughingstock (along with American sports ''über''-trivia); although book catalogs are the least of the problem. Why should we host multi-paragraph guides to the details of every episode of '']'' or '']'' ever broadcast? --] | ] 14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Why not? Why should we pander to a particular cultural judgment? Indeed, isn't that subjectivity dissuaded on Misplaced Pages. The truth is that, for many, Misplaced Pages itself and its editors are laughingstocks. The same people who would criticise the articles you mention would also laugh at us for wasting our lives having this type of discussion. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::How is "the use of a separate article for each and every episode of each and every program that has ever been on television is a waste of space" a ''cultural'' judgment? As is made abundantly clear in the policies and guidelines, the community's efforts to keep Misplaced Pages a useful and practical resource and not an archive that is unaffordable and unmaintainable and/or a duplicate minute details that are already available elsewhere are not "the subjectivity dissuaded on Misplaced Pages". (Why would people who would criticize the kinds of articles we're talking about laugh at people having a discussion to keep out these kinds of articles?) ] (]) 18:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sorry, I was referring to people outside of the project. This whole thing stinks of a right-wing elitist agenda and I'm disgusted that a democratic project is being contaminated by this cultural prejudice. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Right-wing? My various ], ] and ] would be stunned to hear it! --] | ] 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Hehe. Well, yeah, from a socio-cultural perspective.... ]<sup>]</sup> 20:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Likewise. (Well, with respect to the "friends being surprised" part, ignoring the articles you chose to hyperlink to.) Can we please skip the tactic of branding everything we disagree with as relating to the side of the political spectrum opposite to the one with which we identify?] (]) 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose'''. Yes, I read the title, and I vote against the title '''and''' the content '''and''' the new round of burning the books that will follow. There's more than enough censorship already. ] (]) 18:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::A couple of you seem to be confusing censorship (restriction of contributions according to opinion expressed) with keeping order. Not allowing people to stand up in a movie theater and deliver a speech during the main feature isn't censorship.] (]) 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' Seeing how often I use episode lists for legitimate non-fan research reasons, I strongly oppose this. Even de.wikipedia, which has a very strong anti-cruft stand against fiction, allows Lists of episodes, so disallowing them on en.wikipedia is simply overkill. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::<span style="color:green;">'''Is everyone overlooking where I pointed out that the guidelines whose supposed creation is being discussed ''already exist'' at ], so this discussion is moot?'''</span>] (]) 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This would be policy if it got consensus, not guideline, so it would have sharper teeth.—](]) 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::AFAIK all the Notability articles are guidelines, so ] is as strong as any of them.] (]) 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes, but KWW is saying that the issue here is that ] is a policy, so this discussion is policy-level, not guideline level (as with the notability guidelines) and thus will have more impact than ] could. Indeed, it could override ], should it have stronger outcomes. This is unlikely, though. - ] (]) 23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Strong Opposie''' as well. Misplaced Pages has become the best and most well known resource to read about movies and books in places others than the ] here in Brasil. Please dont pull the plug on this. Thank you, ] (]) 23:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 23:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''', ] never had consensus to be added to this policy. So basing another addition to this policy on that is crazy. See, the funny thing about the word "guide" is that you can add it onto anything. Is Misplaced Pages a poker guide? Why of course not! But then why are all these poker articles here? Is Misplaced Pages a zoo guide? Why of course not! But then why are all these animal articles here? Is Misplaced Pages a guide to the galaxy? Why of course not! But then what's this ] article doing here? And the proposal assumes that "movie guides" ''do not'' provide "analysis, context or criticism, regarding the reception, impact, and development" of movies. Huh? Gavin, how about "Misplaced Pages is not a guide to cricket clubs"? This is a list of things Misplaced Pages is not. So the attempts to insert text that says "every article needs this and this" should stop, unless someone wants to make ] and add it there. --] (]) 05:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:*I think a clear intellectual point is being missed here. Of course you can have articles and lists on films, books and movies, provided the topics are ], and this proposal make this clear. However, articles and lists that are drawn soley from the primary sources (like plot summaries) don't meet the other ], and I think this is a key point that is being missed or ignored by opponents to this proposal, and maybe I need to make this clearer. What has not been explained by opponents of this proposal is why a list of non-notable episodes should be listed on Misplaced Pages, anymore than say a list on non-notable street numbers. There is clearly a difference between an encyclopedia and a telephone directory, and I am not sure this difference is understood. --] (]) 08:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::*A list of telephone numbers or street addresses has little scholarly value as part of an encyclopedia. A list of episodes, on the other hand, does have some. The other point to consider is that there ''are'' a good proportion of notable episodes and other such elements out there - not a majority, certainly, but not a trivial number either. This doesn't mean that every episode is immediately notable or needs its own article, but it does suggest that brief coverage of all episodes/elements in some fashion is appropriate. --] 11:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::*A list of episodes will only have scholarly value if it cites reliable secondary sources. If a list is of scholarly interest, then scholars will have studied it, and written about it, which is why the inclusion criteria in ] says that a topic is presumend notable if a it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There are notable television episodes, but not all are, and that is the cutoff point for inclusion. --] (]) 13:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::* Information can be scholarly without having secondary sources: we have tables of facts and figures that are scholarly that meet two policy requirements: they are indiscriminate and they are verifyable. In the case of episode lists, they are also scholarly for those that study modern culture and social sciences; just because they aren't for you doesn't mean they aren't for someone else. We of course can't go into significant detail about topics that don't have secondary work (that is, having its own dedicated article) but we can provide shorthand information that is consistent with all other WP coverage. --] 13:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*Information can be scholarly without having secondary sources, but not encyclopedic, as it lacks analysis, criticism and context. For instance, many magazines, newspapers and TV guides provide such infomation about movies everyday, but do not necessarily provide the analysis that readers of an encyclopedia seek. Information, such as TV guides, may be studied by scholars, but Misplaced Pages would not be their primary source; to do so would be to obtain such information third hand. There is no need for Misplaced Pages to list non-notable infomation, as it can be obtained first hand elsewhere, such as . The point I am making is that WP is not a first-call primary source for information about movies, books and TV titles; how could it be? --] (]) 14:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::* But we're more than just an encyclopedia; we include elements of specialized encyclopedias and almanacs and certainly in terms of the last part, almanacs rarely contain secondary source coverage. We don't want to be the end-all informational works (from the free content mission, we really can't be) but there is absolutely no harm in being the first-call source using redirects to lists or larger articles when people are searching for these things; we should be allowing people to search on episode titles, minor character names, or fictional locations and find out the notable work they are associated with easily. --] 15:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::*On the contrary, Misplaced Pages is not a ] or ], as the inclusion criteria for these publications is not based on ]. Traditionally such publications would be where you might look to find out when high tide is at your local port, and a TV guide is a similar type of publication; their subject matter falls outside the scope of Misplaced Pages. Establishing a cut-off between what is to be included in Misplaced Pages can be established from the ], not whether or not it would cause "absolutely no harm". --] (]) 15:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::*According to WP's mission, we have elements of almanacs. Sure, listing the time of tides is highly indiscriminate, but there are other aspects that aren't. Listing a TV show's episodes is not - it a bounded list with a very specific inclusion criteria. They have been shown to be acceptable by numerous AFDs, and would fall into the acceptable type of lists based on the RFC. At this point, you seem to be fighting against the clear demonstration that certain types of lists are allowable, this proposal for NOT being one way to counter it, but the consensus is clearly not for this approach. Non-notable article, yes - I think we agree that's an issue, but non-notable lists under certain constraints is a reasonable compromise between two extremes. --] 15:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::*What are the "very specific inclusion criteria" you are refering to? I don't see any clause in ] that allows the inclusion of topics that are not notable? I see no exemption given to television episodes of unproven notability. I see no evidence of consensus at policy or guideline level for this approach at all. --] (]) 10:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::*There are no specific inclusion criteria nor any specific directive towards lists because we haven't had any opportunity yet to define them - only that the RFC is clear that such need to be set first before stating that such lists are ok. At the same time, there is no existing policy or guideline that explicitly forbids them either. Given that the RFC is in favor of allowing lists under specific criteria, it's a matter of figuring out that framework first, making sure that we're well aware of what's already stated in NOT and other policies. --] 12:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::*If there no specific inclusion criteria that exempt lists from any Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, then you can be sure that Movie, Book or TV Guides based on primary sources are not exempt either. I can see why you might want to have episode lists as a special case because TV guides are a familiar subject matter to all of us, but as their inclusion conflicts with exisiting policies and guidelines, I don't see how you can justify them on any other grounds other than ]:'' If your favourite song/computer game/webcomic/whatever is as great as you believe, someone will likely write about it eventually, so please just be patient''. --] (]) 13:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::*The reason they don't exist is that we have yet to create them based on the input from the RFC; the fact that there is nothing against such lists in policies or guidelines is that we've never gotten to a point where this is a recognized solution to compromise on topics. Just because a policy or guideline doesn't exist for something doesn't mean its not allowable or disallowable - just that nothing formal has been written down about it, and the best advice is to see what has been there through consensus and discussion, which both AFD results and the RFC point to as allowing this practice. We just have to codify what consensus points to. --] 13:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::*It's really beyond that in this case, Gavin, and you know my stance on this kind of thing. The de-facto exclusion for "list of episodes" and "list of characters" may not be codified anywhere (which annoys me to no end, because people won't even write down the things that there '''is''' widespread agreement on), but it's real. It's one of the few compromises that has come out of the whole episodes and characters debates. I agree with you that they don't meet policies and guidelines, and that they really shouldn't exist. However, I recognize that while you think that and I think that, we are in a very, very, very small group. Continuing to hammer on lists will prevent anyone from making progress anywhere on this front.—](]) 13:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::*Lists of fictional characters are definetly prohibited by ], so no such exclusion exists for them at policy level. Whether you call such articles lists or not, they amount to the very much the same thing: ]. These type of articles come up for deletion all the time, e.g. ].<br /> As regards lists of episodes, I see no evidence of an exemption for them or other types of list in any subject area; I think this is an example of an editorial "walled garden" in the making. You might be mistaking special pleading for "consensus", as there there is no specific justification in any of the episode debates I have read. Whilst ] contains the ''presumption'' that it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, no exemption is claimed per se. --] (]) 12:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::*How does a list of fictional characters or a list of episodes fail the first part of ] (the only one that applies): |
|
|
::::::::::::*''Lists or repositories of '''loosely associated topics''' such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Misplaced Pages also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. '''Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted.''' (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)'' (emphasis mine) |
|
|
:::::::::::*I can agree that "Fictional characters with hats" is a loosely associated list, and thus indiscriminate and unneeded, but '"List of characters in TV show X" is not. And even then, the last sentence pretty much says that lists of characters and episodes are completely appropriate. Yes, there '''are''' bad lists of characters that are created, but not every list is deleted, meaning there is some unstated acceptable level for these. --] 13:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::*I think you are being a little to kind in your description of lists that are compiled from primary sources to form a ] that this propsal is directed at prohibiting. Describing "List of characters in TV show X" as discriminate is ignoring the fact that such lists are neither complete nor accurately categorised, and they are generally better described as "List of ''some'' of the characters in TV show X that ''may'' have appeared in ''some'' of the episodes". To be defensible against accusations of original research (as well as lack of completeness or incorrect categorization), such lists should cite a reliable secondary sources; those that don't are just random stuff. Misplaced Pages has stronger inclusion criteria than, say, Wookipeida. You may recall that I gave an example relating to synthesis of Star Wars characters that appeared in a sequence of books described as ] (which is itself a synthesis); you can see what happens to such list by going to ]. Your suggestion that ] can be applied loosely is your own interpretation; I think you missing the fact that lists of fictional characters are random if they are not sourced reliable secondary source. --] (]) 14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::*] and ] require reliable sources, but do '''not''' require reliable secondary sources. Lists of characters and episodes can be legitimately sourced to primary works; care has to be taken to avoid OR, but it is quite doable, particularly when lists generally limit characters to one to two paragraphcs at most. And we know that the list of New Order Jedi is a bad example, you keep bringing it up. There are plenty of other lists of characters that are not indiscriminate and are sourced; the list itself does not need notable to be kept based on general AFD results and the notability RFC. Again, what in WP:NOT#DIR explicitly disallows lists of characters or lists of episodes? --] 14:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::*In answer to Masem, the problem is I don't think that you will be able to find an example of Lists of characters and episodes that is not either original research or synthesis, which is why the prohibition above is so important. <br />In fairness to me, ] was an example I was using before it was merged, which is what I see happening to these types of lists eventually. Another classic example of listcruft is ] itself, which is clearly a synthesis of so many different sources that it is almost meaningless. To fans of Star Wars, this may ''appear'' to be a discriminate list, but this assumption is based on an in universe perspective that views all fictional characters as if they were defined by a fictional setting; in reality these are fictional characters, which have been drawn together from different sources, authors, films, grpahic novels and cartoons have no real world commonality, other than George Lucas may have earned a penny or two from their francise at some time in the past. I think where I have to say I have a radically different viewpoint from Masem is that I am not looking through these lists of characters and episodes from an in universe perspective. If you can free yourself from this mindset, you will recognise that the only an encyclopedic methodology that should be applied to these characters, and that involves disgarding non-notable topics and restore the focus of Misplaced Pages to content which can be used to write (and even lists) that are based on reliable secondary sources, rather than on the objective of turning Misplaced Pages into a Star Wars Guide. I have no objection to Star Wars per se (it is one of my favorite film series as a teenager), but what I do object to is random lists of stuff being dumped in Misplaced Pages, which is what you seem to be proposing.--] (]) 16:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::* I'm sorry Gavin, but I've been meaning to ask you the same question Masem has been asking. I accept that you see these lists as synthesis or OR. I don't agree with you, but that's not the concern at the moment. The concern here is that I can't see anything in ] that relates to these lists of characters and episodes. Indeed, I had assumed that you started this thread because you felt that WP:Not should be modifed so that it ''does'' encompass them, which suggests to me that it doesn't do so as things stand. - ] (]) 16:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::*If you don't agree with me, then what are they? The word brought from the Mount by Moses, per chance? I respect your right to disagree, but on what basis? If these lists are not original research or synthesis, then what are they? --] (]) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not a TV guide, redux == |
|
|
|
|
|
While I sympathize strongly with Gavin's goal, I think it went further than would ever be able to achieve consensus on Misplaced Pages. Hell, I couldn't even make myself agree with it, and represent about as far as you can go towards the exclusionist side and stay sane around here. How about this as an attempt to codify the base concept into something we might be able to build a consensus policy around: |
|
|
::''Misplaced Pages is not a TV guide, nor a movie guide, nor a comic handbook. Articles which describe fictional works cannot be dominated by the plot or by description of elements contained within the work. Articles which describe fictional work must emphasize analysis and critique of the fictional element they are describing.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
—](]) 00:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Are you saying movie guides ''don't'' "emphasize analysis and critique of the fictional element they are describing"? --] (]) 06:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:*In answer to ], I see little difference between his proposal and mine, other than the omission of books and the addition of comics within the scope of the prohibition. <br />In answer to ], the point is you can't write a movie guide on Wikipeidia, as this contravenes ] and the only way to get around this is to cite reliable secondary sources, such as the guides you have listed. I think I make it clear in my proposal that articles that are ''not'' encyclopedic are those that do not cite reliable secondary sources: e.g. ] or ] are clear examples of ] which would be useful source if it had been drawn from one of the film guides, but composing these lists in Wikipeida is not appropriate. It is clear that the horse is being put beofore the cart in these examples: these lists must be cited from film guides, not written as if film guides cite the lists. --] (]) 08:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Mine does not include lists, which is the source of 98% of the opposition to your proposal.—](]) 11:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:This reads as a restatement of ] so I don't think this would change anything; maybe its needed to strength PLOT to including undue weight of the primary sourced material vs secondary sourced. --] 11:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::It really is subtly different, but I agree that it could be covered by expansion of ]. I carefully chose the phrase ''descriptions of elements within the work'', because many people have tried to claim that highly detailed descriptions of a character, location, weapon, or monster was not a retelling of the plot.—](]) 11:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That, I agree, is a needed clarification of PLOT and probably can be worked into that. --] 12:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Like Masem, I see Kww's proposal just as a rephrasing of NOT#PLOT. While I am always open for new suggestions re:PLOT, introducing redundancy is not the solution. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 12:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:*The problem is not limited to articles that comprise of just a description of elements contained within the work, as often there is production, broadcasting and distribution information included in the mix. In the same way that Misplaced Pages is not a train spotting guide, recording every train, model and number, I don't think there is a need for Misplaced Pages to duplicate . I think the point is that no matter what primary content is included in article about a movie, book, television title, it has to more than just bare bones for it to be included in Misplaced Pages, no matter how extensive the primary coverage is. Just because a film has a plot, some characters, a director and a film distribution company, it cannot be presumed to worthy of inclusion unless it ]. I think the catch all wording of my proposal takes this into account, by stating that Misplaced Pages is simply as not a record of everything that has ever been distributed or broadcast in the media. --] (]) 13:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Is this an inclusion critereon or a content critereon? As a content criterion, I support. As an inclusion critereon, I oppose. We shouldn't be deleting otherwise notable articles because the content needs work as long as they have the potential to evolve into an article that does meet the criteron. That's the way a wiki is supposed to work. -] (]) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:PLOT is a content guideline: Articles on fiction or elements thereof should not be heavily weighted on plot. '''As a consequence''', this can be read as a notability guideline: a plot-only article (non-notable) is unacceptable -- however, this is not the intent of its meaning, it is just a happenstance that lines up with notability. Mind you, we do need to consider DEADLINE and that articles can be improved, but articles that ultimately are only plot and cannot be improved fail both PLOT and WP:N, and thus should be merged to a larger topic. --] 18:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== WP:Update == |
|
|
|
|
|
See ] for the September changes to all the ] pages (including this one) and also the most generally-used style guidelines (called, unsurprisingly, ]). If anyone wants to take on the job of updating monthly content policy at WP:Update, please reply at ]. Obviously, since this page is in WP-space, anyone can make any edit at any time, but it would be nice to get a core of "regular" updaters. - Dan ] (]) 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not a directory taken to excess == |
|
|
|
|
|
While WP is not a directory, I feel that are taking the matter too far. Comments? ] (User:Pigsonthewing); ]; ] 10:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's a completely reasonable deletion of directory-type information. A list of locations of a nationwide chain (''particularly'' when one can find the list from the company's official website) is not necessary; what is acceptable is the general geographic area the story serves ("Hudson's serves primarily the Midwest and New England regions..."). --] 12:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: I concur. That looks like an entirely reasonable edit to me. ] <small>]</small> 13:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::In case it makes a difference, the list in question is of defunct stores, not current ones, does include non-directory information (when they were opened and, where relevant, when they were demolished or who took them over), and in this case (as I assume Masem would have been speaking generally) there is no company site, as the company is defunct. So while it is probably an ok edit, I can see a good argument for keeping it, too. :) - ] (]) 13:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::However, these lists, besides not being a directory, also contain unverifiable original research, and are therefore also being removed under ] and ]. ] (]) 14:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You don't believe that any newspaper ever mentions that, in this case, an anchor store has opened/closed or exists in a given mall or shopping center? I'm not understanding how this stuff would be unverifiable... newspapers often report on this sort of stuff. --] (]) 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The funny thing is, actual, print encyclopedias often will dump a "directory" list into an otherwise prose article, if it's information that would be interesting to people reading that article. In this case, a defunct store, people are reading the article are generally wanting to learn its history, and part of that was its locations. I'm not sure how removing the directory actually improved the article for readers... it seems more about just following the letter of policy. So I ask this: how does a reader, interested in the history of this chain, get more out of reading the article now that the former locations list is gone? --] (]) 21:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's not easy where to draw the line. The information is not "unverifiable" for reasons already mentioned above. Part of the issue is sometimes these lists get a bit "splindly" and become larger than the article itself. ] (]) 01:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I understand that directory-style information can sometimes become problematic... but in this specific case, it seems like applying the letter of the law left us with a poorer article. I'm not really seeing how the reader would think the new version of the article is better or more informative... it just arguably follows policy more closely now. --] (]) 02:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that the big fundamental question here is, what makes a list of locations for a defunct chain any more notable than a list of locations for an operating chain? We could get sources for the opening and closings of most locations of chains still operating, just like we could for defunct ones. For example, usually, when Wal-Mart comes to a town, it more often than not gets newspaper coverage. Would we list all 3000-some Wal-Mart locations in the ] article? No. That's what we need to work through - does the fact that the parent company went out of business make the individual locations any more notable than stores of an operating company? I say no. ] (]) 05:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
← |
|
|
I don't get it. Can ''anyone'' draw the line between unacceptable directory and a featured list? What (other than the fans' energy) makes a directory like ] impervious to deletionists? What makes it different from the deleted entry discussed immediately above? ] (]) 19:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The difference between the list of Chicago landmarks and the list of Hudson's stores are twofold (to me): |
|
|
:* The former is a well defined, well references list - there is a specific criteria for the landmark to be listed as the article explains. A list of defunct Hudson stories would have qualify if locations had moved, closed down earlier, etc - there's no strong reasoning for why one would include one store over another, and unless it can be referenced, it's pretty much out in the open in terms of sourcing. |
|
|
:* The encyclopedic value of the information: specifically the scholarship of the lists, is very different. The list of Chicago landmarks has several scholarly applications: the Hudson's list not so much. --] 03:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::''The former'' has ''no'' references beyond links to the official landmark registers. No indication of any scholarly research (and no prospects of such research appearing in the foreseeable future. Some survivors of the great fire are covered in history books, some in engineering sources, but which branch of science dared to study ]? The point is, scholarly value of at least half of listed properties in Chicago (or elsewhere) is just as great as that of the deleted store directory. They are ''points of local interest'', nothing more. ] (]) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:In the case of the example you cited, ], the information is highly verifiable. Everything is highly sourced. These location lists are less so. ] (]) 15:B01, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is it some kind of joke? Most of the links from Chicago list are to the official registers of ... yes, Chicago landmarks. No ''independent'' references. A list quoting another list. Not that the source is irrelevant, but isn't it circular reference? ] (]) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
These edits are ravaging the articles that attempt to provide the history of businesses that in many cases were the central feature of a small-town business district for decades, then abruptly disappeared due to a merger. Histories of these businesses are not readily available on the Internet, but they are important. I would hope that stubby articles, including lists of locations, will be the seed for more thorough articles based on sources such as local newspaper archives.<br /> Based on the edit you made to ], I concluded that your objection was not to unsourced content but rather to ]s. In that article, you left unsourced historical content in paragraph form, but removed sourced (as well as unsourced) content in list form. (I rewrote it in paragraph form, but I don't have time to do that for every store where you removed lists.) Please don't trash content from good-faith contributors who aren't comfortable with writing paragraphs. --] (]) 15:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The reworking of ] is , to me, a better way (though not perfect) to describe locations of a chain business: the first and likely second stores are going to have some history, but when it starts expanding beyond that, it can run into a list of locations. Knowing where exactly (e.g. malls) branch locations are is not really helpful, though saying that a store had branch locations in several cities, including "x, y, and z" helps. --] 15:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I would agree - flagship stores for a company are likely notable in the context of the company. However, numerous smaller mall anchor locations are not. ] (]) 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Misplaced Pages is not a collection of inappropriate clean-up tags== |
|
|
|
|
|
See ]: There is a tag there stating that Misplaced Pages is not a collection of images. Of course it could well be said that Misplaced Pages is not a ''random'' collection of ''superfluous'' visual information any more than any other kind of info, but what is more inappropriate in this case? The tag or the picture it urges to 'clean up'? These pictures are more pertinent to the story of ''Solar Energy Generating Systems'' than the rather large diagrams that seem to have taken precedence over them... |
|
|
|
|
|
I think there is really a need for cleaning up tags more than there is a need to deprive the reader of relevant visual information just because there is not enough text to embed it in. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Oh, just to be clear: I was a ''reader'' of this article and had nothing to do with its creation |
|
|
|
|
|
:I removed the tag and the image gallery. There's a link to a much larger image gallery at Misplaced Pages Commons, containing all of the images in this article. --] (]) 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Why did you remove the perfectly good images? Are readers to be 'protected' from getting too much useful information? Is that encyclopedic? This is really insane. ] (]) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::As I see it, no images were "removed", but rather, they were relocated to more appropriate places. Too many images in an article makes it appear cluttered, and galleries really have no place in Misplaced Pages. That's what Commons is for. The link to Commons serves the purpose of displaying large quantities of images quite admirably. ] (]) 23:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==NotMemorial== |
|
|
] |
|
|
My Recent edit was reverted partly on the grounds ''you should use the talk page first''. First may I remind everyone that this is NOT correct - the Wiki Policy is as illustrated. Ironically this leads to the second reason for the revert ''we need it here, becasue notability is a guideline, not policy'' I have gathered the threads (which I think) cover NotMemorial: ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]. I think this is evidence that (1) Whan applied as intended it achieves no more than ] (which, despite being a guidline, is treated as a policy) (2) It has been inconsistently applied/misapplied beyond the initial intention of the author thus leading to reams of fruitless argument. I propose NOTMemorial is removed and that we continue to remove articles about unnotable subjects. ] (]) 16:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: First, I would recommend that you read ] and the drill-down page ] a bit more closely because they clearly state that a higher standard of demonstrated consensus is necessary for highly-edited, long-standing policy pages. While ] is the ideal for most article pages, Misplaced Pages precedent on this page is that all but the most minor edits should be discussed here first. <br> On the specific question of whether the NOTMEMORIAL clause is redundant with the Notability clauses, I will note that NOTMEMORIAL predated the entire concept of notability by quite a bit. I'll also note that while the concept of notability remains controversial in some circles, the NOTMEMORIAL clause is no longer at all controversial. And our history at the project shows that it is and remains heavily used. The clause lets us politely remove Uncle Mike's obituary entry without the need to open ourselves up to the endless fights and distractions of what "notability" really means. <br> Furthermore, Notability is a straight inclusion criterion - if you're notable, you might get an encyclopedia article - if you're not notable, you don't. NOTMEMORIAL covers that but also goes beyond it to style directive. You might be notable but we still won't include your obituary. We write ] and balanced biographies, not memorial articles. <br> Like all sections of this page, the clause is occasionally misused. On the whole, however, I think it is more helpful than not. Even if parts of it are a bit redundant, NOTMEMORIAL neatly encapsulates both aspects in a way that is very easy for new users to understand. ] <small>]</small> 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] should be applied to '']'' and indeed any other precedent which requires an editor to be sent off on a virtual paper trail to understand that a simple policy is infact not so simple. Again ] adequately deals with unencyclopedic obituary type elements. How can NOTMEMORIAL neatly encapuslate anything if parts of it are a bit redundant? ] (]) 21:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I would say that, as an inclusion policy, ] is probably more comprehensive and less confusing on the same topic. That said, NOTMEMORIAL directly addresses a recurring issue and on occassions where it is applied improperly, it's fairly easy to address. So, I guess I don't care if it stays or goes. -] (]) 17:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree ] is more comprehensive and less confusing but whether NOTMEMORIAL was applied improperly or not it was not addressed fairly easily. It is still being used (rightly or wrongly?) ]. ] (]) 22:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "not a publisher of original thought" - Logical conclusions? == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a "common sense" and "logic" issue and I am not sure where it really fits in. Here is a scenario: |
|
|
* A verifiable citation states a date of birth. |
|
|
* A verifiable citation states an age |
|
|
* A verifiable citation states an amount of years |
|
|
|
|
|
So now an Editor wants to combine those into an article. So they might put down: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Mention of summary style in nutshell == |
|
*The subject was born on mmddyyyy and in yyyy, when the subject was xx years old, they started doing something that continued until yyyy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
In this case the "uncited" statements would be the years, other than the year of birth. However to me it is logic that can be verified by simply reading the citations. "Doing the math" seems logical however it seems like doing this is a violation of policy - namely that by "doing the math" it is a violation of "Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published". The ] policy also states: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
My question is about common sense and logic. Should either ever enter into an article or should all articles only include wording to reflect the verifiable facts as they were worded? (Policy states: "Best practice is to write Misplaced Pages articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim") ] (]) 18:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Can we remove the "And finally" section? == |
|
:I don't think this applies to a lot of mathematical synthesis. It does apply in biochemistry, where many variables are to impede logical deduction and induction. It also applies to Physical sciences. By the same token, math is an art, and an art is in communicating it, so if someone challenges a conclusion, then you should be able to deliver a proof. ] (]) 07:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it has no place in wikipedia and it shouldn't even exist in the first place ] (]) 12:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Not censored versus not anarchy == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:makes no sense to remove. It's a catchall that NOT cannot enumerate everything WP is not. ] (]) 13:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
I am about to make a ] edit to the anarchy section to emphasize that our primary mission of building an encyclopedia and promoting free content may prevail over free expression of ideas where there is a conflict. My concern is that many people whose edits are reverted or discussions closed or redacted as OR, FRINGE, RS, NOTFORUM, POV, perrenial proposals, against consensus, etc., cry censorship. It would be useful to have something more solid we can point to when explaining that no, we are not censoring your idea because it is unpopular, we are simply providing for the orderly construction of an encyclopedia. Please feel free to comment, trim, etc., or point me to a better place or a past discussion if this is all old hat. I am fairly new to this page. Thanks, ] (]) 19:06, 21 October 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) |
|
:Actually, after reading the section again I sees it already covers this quite well. I just need to point people to it when they complain. I did create a new policy shortcut, NOTFREESPEECH, in hopes of making it clearer. ] (]) 19:11, 21 October 2008 (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) |
|
:{{Stop}} '''Any edit to this page should reflect consensus'''. Please do not make any edits to the policy until there has been time to discuss. ] (]) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::No - that's not how consensus works on policy pages. However, I'm an old hand and recognize that boldness has a much lower threshold on policy pages, and for the most part policy pages are descriptive rather than prescriptive.] (]) 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Soundvisions1 is correct - any change to this page that is not purely maintenance-related needs to be brought to a consensus on this talk page first. Back in 2002 one could just jump right in here and be bold (I sure did) but those days are over. --] (]) 02:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'll edit how I please. Sorry if I raised anyone's hackles but everyone is eligible to edit meta-pages. I assume you all are on a hair trigger for disruptive edits like we all are across the project. But that's no reason for mindless ]-y templating of the regulars - on a talk page for goodness sakes. In the past year or so I've made plenty of useful edits to WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:EL, WP:NFCC, WP:CFD, among others. If you want to be helpful it's often better simply to do it. Here I did just what a careful editor should. I justified my edits before making them, took a good look around, tried to encapsulate the overwhelming consensus of Misplaced Pages on a policy matter, and in this case concluded that the policy page already describes consensus well so no edit was needed. If the page were out of step with consensus I would have edited accordingly, and if I find so in the future I will not hesitate to edit it before, while, or after discussing the matter on the talk page. You don't like it, revert me or take me to AN/I or arbitration. ] (]) 06:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Notice of a requested redirect from ] to here == |
|
== Plot == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The redirect request can be found on ]. ] (]) 03:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Leaving this message here for all those care. Please stop removing the information on Misplaced Pages not being just a plot summary. If you challenge this statement, then please start a discussion. This section has been part of the policy since , when it was added following . You mean believe the discussion to be short, lasting about a week, but at the time they had clear consensus, with the people that initially opposed settling on a description that all could agree (minus Williamborg, who appears to be promoting that was create original research articles....odd). The last oppose didn't even appear until almost two months after the section was added, and is confusing because they are opposing and yet agreeing with people that went on to agree with the section's inclusion (Initial opposition was over the fact that it was believe that the section would remove plot summaries in general, which many did not want, but agreed that a page solely on a plot summary is not appropriate). The fact that this has been apart of the policy for over 2 years says that it was an accepted addition by the majority of the community. If someone disagrees, then start a new discussion, but please stop removing it without proper consensus to do so. ] ] 05:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, there was no consensus to add it to this policy at that time. I've read the discussion. PLOT has been removed ''multiple'' times by multiple editors over 2 years. PLOT has been challenged ''multiple'' times by multiple editors over 2 years. I'm tired of repeating myself so I suggest you read this thread from June. That PLOT remains in here only indicates that 5 or so editors are keeping it here by force. In addition to never having consensus to be policy, ] creates a huge conflict of interest with ], because PLOT is used to ship articles related to fiction off Misplaced Pages to Wikia in order to generate a profit. Policies do not exist to enrich Jimbo Wales. --] (]) 07:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
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)