Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:04, 9 February 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Misplaced Pages is not page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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: 14 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Misplaced Pages is not page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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: 14 days

Misplaced Pages is not "Journalism" vs. "First-hand accounts"

As User:Fuzheado has pointed out, "journalism" covers a very wide range of material, and much of Misplaced Pages certainly is journalism of a sort. While the associated description of what what Misplaced Pages is not (first-hand reporting and the like) is appropriate, the bullet point that Misplaced Pages is not journalism is misleading. Furthermore, it was added without discussion by a relatively new user, and simply never reverted until Fuzheado attempted to do so on January 7. That line should be changed back to "First-hand accounts" or the like, as saying Misplaced Pages is not journalism (period) is pretty indefensible and not in line with the spirit of the project.--ragesoss (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what kind of work we do here that is journalism? As a tertiary source it seems more like we filter and collate the work of journalists rather than doing that work ourselves. Fletcher (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fletcher. Any sort of journalism conducted on the Misplaced Pages level would be a violation of WP:NOR, and precedent has been overwhelmingly set that "first-hand accounts" without source are not allowed per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I am very vocal in my opinion that WP:RS needs to be updated to be more blog-friendly, especially with regards to news-related issues, but I don't suggest for one minute that Misplaced Pages itself become a news source. If an attempt at semantics is being made here -- it could be argued that all research is journalism, and research is part of what Wikipedians do -- I think that's just splitting straws. Misplaced Pages's article on journalism clearly connects it to the reporting of news. 23skidoo (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What is an article like US Airways Flight 1549 if not journalism? Journalism is not limited to first-hand accounts and original reporting of news (which, of course, violate the basic policies of the project). Books and articles that bring together published work to create an overview of a topic are also considered. See The Foundations of Participatory Journalism and the Misplaced Pages Project. Misplaced Pages is pretty clearly engaged in a type of journalism. The Misplaced Pages article definition makes this clear; from the lede of journalism: "the craft of conveying news, descriptive material and comment". It says nothing about primary/secondary/tertiary sources in the definition, and Misplaced Pages is a project that is based on conveying news (originally reported by others), descriptive material and comment (by others). Similarly, the first Merriam-Webster definition is "the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media", something that is an important element of what goes on here. Other definitions don't even specify "news", since journalists often present stories that are not about current events but past ones, or explain complex topics that aren't news per se.--ragesoss (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia article, relaying what others have said about the topic. If there is anything in that article that is a) a first-hand account added by a Misplaced Pages contributor or b) anything that involves a Misplaced Pages contributor interviewing someone and putting that information into the story, then it must be removed per WP:NOR. Now that you've brought it to my attention I'll be checking the article and removing such information if it exists. On a cursory glance I don't see any. Recycling information collected and reported by others is not journalism. 23skidoo (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm unconvinced by an argument whose principal claim is that editing an encyclopedia is an act of journalism where the sole justification comes from the lede to Journalism. I'm not convinced that NOTNEWS applies any more or accurately describes the majority of content creation on this site (more likely it describes the content creation we would like to see...humorously contradicting WP:POLICY). But I'd need something meatier than "journalism isn't just first hand reporting of news". Protonk (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Then please point me to a reliable source defining journalism in a way that excludes, say, our articles on US Airways Flight 1549 or Virginia Tech massacre. I've pointed to academic work by a journalism professor citing Misplaced Pages explicitly as a type of journalism, and shown that some of what Misplaced Pages does is consistent with a dictionary definition and our our article's definition. I'm not suggesting any change to the policy of what Misplaced Pages is not, since it does a good job of explaining why Misplaced Pages is not the place for certain types of journalism. I'm just suggesting that we roll back an undiscussed change that is contradictory to both the spirit and practice of WP:NOT.--ragesoss (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Until WP:NOR is repealed, I will continue to argue against this. 23skidoo (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Why? It is painfully obvious that collaborative effort to distill information (gleaned from secondary sources, even) into a coherent narrative of a subject represents some kind of authorial work, even though wikipedia denies this (The mantra, plagued by cognitive dissonance, is that we simply and neutrally recapitulate available information). It is likewise obvious that "journalism" is not simply first hand reportage of facts. I could go one step further and admit that editing of content on wikipedia is novel and creative yet directed by constraints on tone and sources in a manner very similar to what we would describe as journalism. What is missing for me is the takeaway. What does that knowledge empower us to change about NOT? Because editing on wikiepdia is de facto journalism does not immediately lead us to the conclusion that rules on wikipedia must allow or priviledge certain types of content. Should we change the word "journalism" to "first hand reportage of facts"? Should we attempt to make less explicit the other half of NOT#NEWS, that wikipedia is not the forum for muckracking, even if the subject is covered by sources peripherally? I don't think so. So what should we say? Protonk (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • • I have to agree with Protonk's point, wikipdia is in denial. There are vast numbers of articles on wikpedia the authorship of which are solely the product of collaborative OR; irrespective of the number of sources they might cite. Measles (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Seems fine how it is. Fletcher (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree. Unless some new wording crops up that produces more clarity, I can't imagine changing it. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• One can take advantage of semantic ambiguities to state WP falls under the definition of journalism, as indeed we do convey "news, descriptive material and comment." But this glosses over an important difference in that we are putting together the work others have done; we're not reporting, describing, or commenting in our own words. There may be some overlap but I think we can still distinguish WP from journalism at a conceptual level. Fletcher (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't walk too far down that path. Insofar as editors avoid plagarism, they use their own words. The implications of that in practice (assuming that the spirit of NOR is followed) are minimal, but the distinction is more than purely semantic. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That's true enough, we do create something here, I just think what we create is different from what journalists create. Fletcher (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is thath "journalism" is an extremely broad term that includes on-the-spot reports, investigative journalism, editorials, interviews, etc. - none of which are WP's business. In addition the journalist's Holy Grail is a scoop, getting there first, and that is also not WP's aim. Conclusion: labelling WP as "journalism" would cause confusion among editors and readers, and is a bad idea. --Philcha (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that no one is proposing labeling Misplaced Pages as journalism, just replacing "Misplaced Pages is not journalism" with something more precise and accurate.--ragesoss (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Replace it with what? What, exactly, is the language you want to replace NOT#NEWS with. As I said above, I could be swayed to agree if the policy did not lose clarity. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Replace the bolded word "Journalism" with "First-hand accounts" in #5 section of "Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought", since that's exactly what the following text describes. I'm not talking about NOT#NEWS (Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information #5), which only mentions "tabloid journalism" rather than journalism-full-stop.--ragesoss (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But limiting it to "First-hand accounts" actually seems less precise, because as you have noted yourself, journalism encompasses a broader range than first hand reporting. If we rule out "journalism", using common definitions of the word, we rule out not just first-hand reporting, but also other things Wikipedians should not be doing, such as interviewing witnesses (second hand reporting) or doing one's own research to explain the facts. In that sense ruling out "journalism" has a little more punch to it than just proscribing first hand accounts. Fletcher (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines journalism as the following:

The aggregating, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles for widespread distribution, typically in periodical print publications and broadcast news media, for the purpose of informing the audience.

I think this is summaries what we do pretty well, so saying that Misplaced Pages is not journalism is very silly IMHO. I recommend we change it to something along the lines of "Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of first-hand news reports". If we have to also tell people not to do things like interviews, we should give that its own bullet on the list. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The distinction you are missing is that we don't create news reports; we create summaries of what actual journalists have created. In essence the job of a journalist is to explain the facts; our job is to explain what is widely believed to be the facts. There's some overlap, but we are still performing different roles. It would be interesting to survey some professional journalists on the question. If you told one that you sit at your home computer with one browser tab opened to edit Misplaced Pages, and a few more tabs opened to CNN, Google News, etc., and by updating Misplaced Pages after clicking through these news reports you can fashion yourself a journalist, despite having never hit the street to report on an event as it happens, or tracked down witnesses to ask them questions, I would not be very surprised if he laughed in your face. Fletcher (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we are not journalists in the same way as a CNN reporter. However, we do "write, edit, and present news media", which by Wiktionary's definition makes us journalists. It is because of the ambiguity of the word that I think saying "Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of first-hand news" would be more accurate. By the current wording, which seems to forbid any definition of journalism, we should not have an article about anything, any event, or anyone until it or they are completely out of the news. Since this is clearly unreasonable, I think we should change the wording. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't write, edit, and present news media. We write, edit, and present encyclopedia articles. It is only because we are not a paper encyclopedia that we can write encyclopedia articles about current events as they happen. But one should not mistake us for a news outlet (cf. WP:NOTNEWS). Even though, admittedly, a major event will rapidly spawn a Misplaced Pages article as editors rush to update it, the article is gradually sculpted into something more well rounded and comprehensive than you would see in most news stories, and at the same time lacking in some of the minor details the news media will keep you updated on. You seem to have adopted an extremely broad definition of journalism such that anything written about something in the news is ipso facto journalism. A student writing a school report about Obama is a journalist under this definition. No, in relying on a simple dictionary definition I think you're missing the difference between WP and journalism. And please note the current wording of the policy specifically allows encyclopedia articles about current events, so there is no danger whatsoever of such articles being deleted under this policy. Fletcher (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, Fletcher gives an accurate and useful synopsis of the issues under discussion here. (I set aside a couple of statements like "You seem to have adopted... " and mentally substituted something like "One should be cautious about adopting ..." , leaving intact the rest of the summary Fletcher just gave.) In this light, WP writing can quite reasonably be said to resemble journalistic writing in some respects, e.g., objectivity (WP:NPOV) and dependence on reliable sources (WP:V). But in other respects WP articles deviate very substantially from models for journalism. For one thing, any kind of content must not be introduced here first (WP:NOR). For another thing, articles should meet WP:NOTABILITY. In that respect, WP is rather the opposite of most journalism, in that rather than seeking to be the one with the "scoop", WP articles must be derived from already published reliable sources. In general the best practice, I think it's fair to say within the three core content policies and other relevant WP policies, is to summarize topics based on the second or third generation of reliable summary sources regarding the topic being written about (WP:PSTS). Of course there are exceptions where WP users quite appropriately pick up the story from the first generation of reliable sources, particularly w.r.t. current events. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am using a broad definition of journalism, yes, but the word can be interpreted that way. As per the Misplaced Pages Weekly episode, I think that some people are using the overly broad definition as a justification for deletion when the policy was never intended to be read that way. We here each agree with what the policy is meant to say, so why not eliminate the possibility for ambiguity and change the wording to specifically say that? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific in your example? Fletcher (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an advertising nor is it a torrent link site

• It should list that that wikipedia is not an advertising outlet. "Do not try to advertise products or websites on wikipedia."Smallman12q (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• It should say that listing "certain" torrents is not allowed. "Misplaced Pages is a torrent tracking service."Smallman12q (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  The first one is addressed by Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. The second one is better placed at WP:EL. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a daily tally sheet

I have created (and used) {{Historical election article}} to be placed on the Talk pages of election articles. Looks like this:

This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet. If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having run and lost, dropped out, etc.

Can/shoud we create a "What Misplaced Pages is not" rule to say something like, "Misplaced Pages is not a daily tally sheet"?

Sounds like instruction creep. I don't really see the need for it. Fletcher (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We are already not an indiscriminate collection if information. Chillum 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We can be a daily tally sheet. It's a good thing if Misplaced Pages is updated day to day as new information about an event is learnt. The goal in your example regards keeping historical information as opposed to deleting it favour of current information. This goal would be better served in a discussion of what Misplaced Pages is (a historical record) than in a discussion of what it is not. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's a good point. Thank you.—Markles 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about a sentence under the crystal ball section

The policy states that, in regards to a future event, "speculation about it must be well documented." That seems sort of vague, and I was just wondering if anyone could clarify or expand on exactly what's meant by well documented speculation. Timmeh! 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• If news organizations or other reliable sources are discussing the speculation, then CRYSTAL doesn't really apply. Take the Watchmen movie. There was news coverage of it well before it was a feature film or even entered principal photography (the WP:FILM standard cutoff). In that case, it wasn't speculation to have an article on the future event. Protonk (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  If so, then what is the point of having the phrase "speculation must be well documented"? Also, would the reliable sources need to have articles devoted to the subject to be considered well documented speculation, or would they just have to mention vaguely and/or in a single sentence in an article with a different topic that they think "this might happen in (insert year or multiple years) years"? Timmeh! 13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  Because we get lots of articles with user speculation or fan speculation about some album or movie (usually an album). The album, when it comes out, will obviously be notable (it's from some A-list star and some big studio, or something), but the only people saying it is going to be an album are kellyclarksonisthebestever.blogger.com and some editors on wikipedia. We want to say that is not wanted (explicitly, even though it is kind of redundant to NOR), but allow articles on future events. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete content to prove a point (1)

Please add your comments to the section below, not this one. This section is now obsolete/moot.

I added a new guideline in the Misplaced Pages is not a Battleground section which says "... do not delete content or articles just to prove a point....". I added this without prior discussion because I think consensus on it is pretty obvious. I included a line that says "Examples include ...". If you can think of better examples, by all means add and/or replace. RoyLeban (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I object to it. It doesn't belong on NOT. If anything, it sounds like it belongs on POINT. but frankly it is redundant to WP:BEFORE, alludes that editors who delete content or pages are inherently doing something wrong, and doesn't really assert a position on editing that I could see a large percentage of the community getting behind. Also, please note that Misplaced Pages:POLICY#Changes_to_guideline_and_policy_pages suggests that discussion precede editing on policy pages. Protonk (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You (protonk) said in your reversion that this was a "substantive change to a policy". That was not my intent and I don't think that's the case. Rather, I was clarifying existing policy and adding some examples. I guess I was a little too bold. But I wish you had not reverted. So, I've made a much smaller change, just adding "or delete content or articles". Assuming you do not object to the text that was already there, I hope you will agree that this is just a useful clarification.

But, I do think some examples would be helpful. I thought this was a good place for them, but I could see your point about putting them in WP:POINT instead. But WP:POINT already has numerous examples. Maybe a better thing to do would be to add "when not to apply" sections to many policies. I would appreciate it if others would weigh in.

For the record, here are the two versions of the earlier change:

RoyLeban (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I still disagree with this. If a user thinks that content on a page is not appropriate, then they plainly aren't removing that content to prove a point. Likewise, I think that it is impossible to say here that "long plot summaries should not be shortened" or that "reducing examples" is bad. We should not revert additions of content, even if it is malformed (so if someone add an example but doesn't spell it properly or doesn't reference it, we should fix the spelling and add the reference). That suggestion doesn't belong in NOT. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I also am uncomfortable with it because people could be acting in perfectly good faith by removing inappropriate content in those cases. The examples given are more about somebody's editing style and decisions which can be discussed on the talk page of the article to decide what is appropriate. It doesn't fit in BATTLE. --Bill  21:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think adding this is the epitome of assuming bad faith. People who engage in clean-up are not trying to "prove a point", let along "create a battleground". I'm sure that a few people at some point or another have pushed to remove content just because they hate another editor, but we shouldn't tie everyone's hands for the actions of a few bad editors. Randomran (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about editors engaging in cleanup, though I can see how my comments could be interpreted that way. I'm talking about people damaging articles in the guise of following Misplaced Pages guidelines. Using the example of a plot summary, imagine a long plot summary of Star Wars that begins "The credits roll in" and an editor shortens it to just that. This is a slight exaggeration, but not by much. And a plot summary is not wildly inappropriate. If a plot summary has been in an article for years, edited by many editors, and one person comes across it and summarily deletes it, without discussion, then, unless that edit is noticed relatively quickly, all that work may be lost forever. You can argue that a plot summary should be shorter, but just deleting the long-term work of multiple editors is not a way to improve Misplaced Pages. Here is a recent example: Near Dark history where the plot summary has largely existed for two years, through 75 edits (note: none of them mine) and was just truncated to a nonsensical opening by someone who had never previously edited the article. And he claims it's justified by WP:NOT.

I have searched for and could not find a specific Misplaced Pages policy to point to in cases like this. Put another way, I'd like to see something like this somewhere: "The intent of policies is to improve Misplaced Pages. Do not follow policies just to follow them, especially if following them does not improve Misplaced Pages. If you find content which is appropriate but does not meet guidelines, you should improve it or tag it rather than delete it. For example, do not simply delete content and expect others to come in afterwards and complete the work." (I can see consenus that it doesn't belong in WP:NOT -- but does it exist already and, if not, where should it be?)

Note this deliberately sidesteps the whole issue of whether Misplaced Pages should have plot summaries or not. I know that there's contention there, but it's not my point here.

RoyLeban (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That isn't an issue of NOT, that sounds more like vandalism or editors being beyond ridiculously zealous (as appears to be the issue at Near Dark. Not plot doesn't mean no plot summary at all, certainly for a film article. Looking at that article, DreamGuy appears to being pointy rather than acting in good faith. The article should, at most, be tagged for overly long plot though it really isn't that long (only 150 words or so over the max allowed by the MoS) and someone work to cull it down to the appropriate length, but that does not mean ripping the entire thing out in this case. I've left him a 3RR warning and a discussion has started at the talk page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete content to prove a point (2)

Sigh. I tried to make a clarification to the Misplaced Pages is not a Battleground section. That got reverted and other editors thought it was more than just a clarification (see above section). I then made a significantly smaller change which was pretty clearly just a clarification, but now another editor has changed it to something that is even less emphatic than the original, whereas I was trying to make it clearer and a bit more emphatic. I would like others to weigh in.

Original version: Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point.

Version by RoyLeban: Do not create or modify articles or delete content or articles just to prove a point.

Version written by Fletcher: Resist the temptation to change Misplaced Pages just to prove a point.

The differences are: "Do not" vs. "Resist the temptation"; "change Misplaced Pages" vs. "create or modify articles or delete content or articles".

What do others think? RoyLeban (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First, blech over the Near Dark mess. I realize now that said editor is doing this to dozens of film, book, and play articles claiming that WP:NOT forbids plot summaries. *sigh* That said...hmmm...right now either version seems fine to me, though I learn more towards "Do not" rather than just "try not to, eh?" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Right on blech. I was looking for something to point said editor (and others) to. It's not just plot summaries, but that is the most obvious and egregious example. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Viridae#Regarding_your_unblock_of_DreamGuy RoyLeban (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Roy, if you disagree with me, the answer is not to stalk me and attack me. In fact, multiple editors have told you the things you were doing were wrong, so showing up here just because someone is comlaining about me just to say "me too" is not at all helpful. Give it a rest, and take the time to learn how to work within Misplaced Pages rules instead of trying to team up with disgruntled people. DreamGuy (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need nine words when two will do? You might scroll up the project page to WP:BURO which reminds us to avoid instruction creep -- we do not need rules to govern every possible action a user might take. Saying "create or modify articles or delete content or articles" is bad prose and sounds like something you'd see on the back of an insurance policy. We can convey the same essential meaning in far fewer words. I added the verbiage about "resist the temptation" because we already have two "Do not" imperatives in that section, and it seems preachy and repetitive to keep saying "do not do this, do not do that", etc., like we're lecturing a bunch of five-year-olds. Fletcher (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Because at least one editor, DreamGuy, is running around using WP:NOT as a justification for ripping entire plot sections from dozens of fictional arguments under the claim because NOT is a policy and it says "concise" summary, his view of concise (2 sentences) is the only valid one so he is justified in vandalizing articles and making personal attacks against multiple other editors trying to correct him (and then claiming that because he was unblcoked for his edit warring, that his view has been validated). Which brings up issue two, does WP:PLOT need tweaking to clarify that "concise" does not mean 1-2 sentences and that there are actual guidelines spelling out what is concise, including WP:MOSFILMS and WP:MOSTV. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always felt that plot could use some tweaking so it's not used to simply erase plot summaries, or turn them into two sentence teasers. But any discussion about clarifying PLOT is always jacked by a handfull of editors who want to remove it entirely. Randomran (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not true Randomran. Please don't make false claims like that. For example, there was this thread that you commented in — just two weeks ago. And people want to remove WP:NOT#PLOT from this policy because WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy. It never did have consensus to be policy. Yet Hiding added it anyway. So the talkpage archives are full of threads with people saying WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed. And when the editor who proposed WP:NOT#PLOT and first added it to this policy removed it in May, Collectonian re-added it. --Pixelface (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

... jacked by a handfull of editors who want to remove it entirely. Randomran (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Randomram. --Pixelface (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a strange claim, after you open your mouth and prove me right. Randomran (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No Randomran, I proved you wrong, by linking to that thread from two weeks ago that you commented in. Can you reply to anything I said? --Pixelface (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest you both back off a bit instead of rehashing the past. The future is more important. I would be happy to assist in working on WP:PLOT / WP:NOT#PLOT which, for those who aren't familiar, are two names for the same thing. Is it possible to come up with a list of alternatives for PLOT that could be discussed for consensus as opposed to a super wide-ranging discussion as I've seen? Personally, I think PLOT is vague enough that it is ripe for distortion (and we've seen examples here). Does there need to be an entire policy on just PLOT? In the short time, I have made a minor change that points to additional detail: The definition of "concise" varies depending on the context: movies and films, television shows, novels, and general fiction. I hope this is a non-controversial change as it makes no change to policy. RoyLeban (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. Let's see if anyone else says anything. Randomran (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, talk about someone freaking out and misrepresenting what other people do and say to try to make a point. I never said two sentences was my definition of concise, but point by point plot details certainly are not. The Plot tag template spells it out, NOT spells it out, but some people just insist upon doing the OPPOSITE of what the policy says. We need a clarification to specifically say plot by plot summaries are not allowed. Unfortunately WP:MOSFILMS and WP:MOSTV, like a lot of specific subpages concerning policies, often are written by people who do not have consensus for what they put and violate the main policy... we also have the same problem with, for example, the naming policy and the people coming up with flora article naming rules. It has always been WP:NOT's stance that we are NOT Cliff Notes, etc., and if some subpages suggest otherwise, those are in error, not this page.

Also, when something is in violation, deleting is preferred to leaving it the bad way. It's not a question of POINT it's a question of being more in line with policy. Closer to good is always better than bad, even if it's not perfect. And assuming that it was done as some sort of WP:POINT violation is a violation of WP:AGF. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of trimming bloated summaries down to size, but when you remove large blocks of text, some attention is needed to ensure the resulting language still makes sense and is informative. So if you have five paragraphs of plot and want to trim it down to one, you don't just delete the last four paragraphs, but rather you cut out the minor detail and bring up the ending into the first paragraph, leaving just enough information to preserve the story arc. I'm not sure how you are doing it, but if you're truncating the story arc I can see why people would find that disruptive. Fletcher (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Story arcs in and of themselves are violations of WP:NOT. We do not do detailed blow by blow descriptions of fiction. Does the phrase "Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot." mean anything to you? That's our template for the plot section not following policy. That's what we need to do. Any attempt to do something else is not what Misplaced Pages is here for. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF usually goes out the window when you keep edit-waring without completing or engaging in the WP:BRD cycle. After the first revert, you should have made your case on the talk page. There are, after all, other ways to deal with the issue other the wholes removal of the plot. But instead making your case and discussing the matter, you reverted, reverted again, and again while at the same time spreading the conflict to other articles.

Besides, this isn't the first time someone attempted to make a WP:POINT by removing plot summaries from articles. There was a similar incident a couple of years ago during the spoiler debate, one of the spoiler warning proponents started deleting plot summaries declaring them unverifiable and original research. --Farix (Talk) 19:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a WP:POINT violation, it's following policy. And, frankly, plot summaries should follow our normal standards for reliable sources. Characterizing it as a WP:POINT violation is itself a violation of WP:AGF. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's disruptive when you repeatedly edit war over it on multiple articles without engaging in any discussions. I was just pointing out why others would not WP:AGF over such behavior since that is contrary evidence of good faith. But it is also not following policy as policy does not call for the arbitrary removal of plot summary or replacing them with just a teaser. What it does call for is that the plot summary to be condensed down while still remaining as complete as possible. --Farix (Talk) 11:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, either you have good faith or bad faith. Right now, I'm going to assume that you are well intentioned. You need to slow down and not insist that you are right. When multiple people disagree with you, maybe they're right. The intent of all Misplaced Pages policies is to improve the encyclopedia. When you make an edit that deletes content form multiple editors, content that has been in an article for years, content that contains substantial information, etc., etc., it hurts Misplaced Pages. Deleting a plot summary, even an overly long one that has been slaved on by others, removes content that is valuable. Isn't there a chance that you're wrong? You refuse to accept this and instead seem to believe that you're the only editor who truly understands Misplaced Pages policies. Until you really understand what consensus is, you'll continue to butt heads with other editors. RoyLeban (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but deleting things that do not fit Misplaced Pages standards is a well established part of editing Misplaced Pages. Deleting content that violates policy is not only NOT removing valuable content, it's removing BAD content. I am certainly not the only editor who understands policies, but it's clear we have some here who don't. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy what RoyLeban said. I'm not going to read up on this specific conflict. Maybe you're well intentioned, but you have to be respectful of others too. There is wide room for disagreement for what's a concise plot summary, and what's excessive. The best place to answer those questions are at the article talk page. Don't edit war or personally attack other editors. If it gets heated, take the discussion to a higher form of dispute resolution (see link). Randomran (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You should look up on the specific conflict. I have all the respect in the world for editors who edit responsibly: who make an effort to read up on policies and follow them. Someone who wikistalks a user because he's pissed off that his edits to an article were removed and complains on multiple talk pages and even goes so far as to edit a policy page to try to provide ammunition for his own personal conflict is engaging in behavior that simply cannot be condoned. I look forward to the time when Roy gets some perspective and realizes that he doesn't WP:OWN articles by virtue of him editing them. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not news source

I would like to see a heading something like: "Misplaced Pages is not a news source." This is touched on in the section on original research --> journalism...but I think it extends beyond this, since material exists that is not original research, and that is notable as news (not in the wikipedia sense of notability), but not notable for an encyclopedia.

I think the use of wikipedia for current events is very problematic, primarily because it leads to the inclusion of material that is not notable in the long-run, and because the quality of material entered hastily as news unfolds is usually questionable. So I propose adding "Misplaced Pages is not a news source". If no one objects, let's add it. Cazort (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have it: see WP:NOT#NEWS. Fletcher (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I found it now! It's buried in there. Don't you think it maybe warrants its own heading? It seems this issue comes up very frequently. Cazort (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots of items in WP:NOT come up frequently -- what you see depends on what types of articles you edit most. I think people are pretty familiar with WP:NOT#NEWS and it doesn't need to be a top-level heading. There's also an essay WP:NOTNEWS which you can also refer people to when appropriate. Fletcher (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we clarify NOTDIRECTORY?

I AFD'd a large group of lists (about 150) basically named "List of companies in ..." as violations of wp:NOTDIRECTORY. It seems from the initial responces that the NOT policy is either unclear on this point or I am misunderstanding it's purpose. I think the purpose of the policy should be made more explicit so that editors have more guidance on whether they are using it to maintain a good encyclopedia or misinterpreting its intent. Please consider commenting here and/or at the above listed AFD. NJGW (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add to NOTDIRECTORY a phrase that indicates that a plain list of businesses is a business directory. It already says "wp is not a Yellowpages" (as a clause), and I think a list of businesses with no indication of notability or context also has no encyclopedic value except to create business buzz for those listed on such a list. Perhaps a note that such lists already exist in the form of categories. Any input on this? NJGW (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to start rewording this policy in a few days, so any input would be helpful. NJGW (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just not sure I've seen a problem here. We create articles on businesses. Why not have a list of those articles on businesses? Randomran (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

First, it would seem that the categories are precisely what you describe. Second, the lists have no notability guidelines, including grocery stores and the like. They read like a Yellow pages without the phone numbers. Someone suggested only listing those businesses listed on stock exchanges, but that would simply mirror existing websites. The lists are non-encyclopedic directories, so having some clause in NOT#DIRECTORY seems logical. NJGW (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• note: This issue has come up before to AFD lists: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Kuwaiti_companies. This is a proposal to stream line such AFDs by clarifying current policy. NJGW (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you saying we should delete every article in Category:Lists_of_companies_by_country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomran (talk • contribs)
    • Please see relevant discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Companies/Lists of companies by country. At that project, they suggest lists be about "notable companies which have or previously had a significant presence in the country," which may be a better naming template for the many disparate versions of names for these lists. Note also that List of companies was redirected to an appropriate category. I suggest that the lists are duplicating the categories OR adding NN company names to WP. NJGW (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • We already say that Misplaced Pages isn't for everything that ever existed. It should go without saying that we can have lists of notable articles, and that lists aren't necessarily a way to circumvent our standards for inclusion. We don't need to go ahead and start deleting entire categories of lists. Randomran (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Just saying "we can have lists of notable articles" is not accurate. Not every case of list is encyclopedic, and that is made clear in the policy. I'm trying to make the case that this particular group of lists is not encyclopedic, and that they are business directories, so that a clause may be included in that line of the policy. If you disagree with those points please explain why. NJGW (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
          • You're the one who has to explain to me what's unencyclopedic about this particular type of list of articles. Most lists of articles are okay if they're discriminate, and if they're not an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. What's wrong with these, if they're notable, and we're not tossing in crap or ads? Randomran (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
            • I have explained this, but because you asked politely I will do so again. Most of all they do not contain notable entries and are full of crap (like grocery stores), and are very difficult to police because of the sheer number of them (and permutations of naming conventions). They are an indiscriminate list. A discriminate list already exists for each of these at the semi-duplicate categories (I say "semi-" only because items notable enough to have articles can be listed by default--auto policing if you will--and so they are missing all the cruft). Also, once again, they are a business directory. My main points here are that that this policy already says we can't have a business directory (eg Yellow Pages), and consensuses in previous AFD's have confirmed this (including the AFD for "List of companies"), as well as at the Companies WikiProject. The consensus already exists, these are non encyclopedic, and what I'm suggesting is putting a clause that a list of businesses is a business directory and that the Categories take care of any perceived need of such a list perfectly. NJGW (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
              • I agree with you that they are hard to maintain, but not impossible. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Businesses and organizations in Second Life (2nd nomination). We almost deleted. But after a clean-up, we realized it was as encyclopedic as any other list. If there's a problem with spam, a solution might be to ask for semi-protection. Randomran (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Why do I have the feeling that we shall keep repeating NOTDIRECTORY and NOTYELLOWPAGES and then keep completely unrelated lists of companies (apart from their country of operation and/or origin)? Can anyone really tell why they should be included in an "encyclopedia", even in one as inclusive as the Misplaced Pages? What purpose are they serving that can't be served by the categories? Aditya 11:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This is straight out of our policy on lists/categories. See Misplaced Pages:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_lists. Sure, a plain old list of names is redundant with a category. But you can improve the formatting, and add other information to sort on -- such as the dates the companies were founded, or what sector of the economy they represent, or their current CEO. Randomran (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Makes pretty little sense. List of Mining Companies in Vietnam may be an encyclopedic list, but a List of any and every company of Vietnam looks pretty unencyclopedic. Where does the policy you quite says that unrelated business directories (a.k.a. yellowpages) are better than categories? Aditya 14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Categories are not equivalent to lists. A good list will include information and presentation that is not possible in a category. That bad lists of a particular type exist is not a very good reason to categorically ban all similar lists. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change NOTDIRECTORY

I've posted links to this section in many relevant places (including the policy pump a couple of times), and only received input from two people. I'm going to propose the change now, and see what discussion that sparks.

• I just don't agree these should be relegated to categories. To me, a list of businesses is definitely appropriate so long as it doesn't go into exhaustive detail and non-notable entries. And there is even more value to a list of businesses when it goes beyond a list of names. For example, the list of accompanying founders, founding-cities, years founded, its final status (merged, amalgamated, bankrupted...)... That's something that no category can do. Randomran (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What does anti-leech mean? Plus... on devoting time

The Misplaced Pages is not a battleground section contains the following text

• Misplaced Pages is not an anti-leech community. Users should not criticize others on not devoting time to edit.

I have two issues:

1. I understand really well what the second sentence means, but I don't understand the first one. The double negative doesn't help, nor does the use of an uncommon term not normally associated with a negative. If I interpret it to mean Misplaced Pages, as a community, does not care if people leech information from it, it has nothing to do with the second sentence. Does anybody know for sure what the intent is? (and what this has to do with the "battleground" section)
2. I like the second sentence, but I suggest the addition of "You should not create work for others or direct others to do work."

RoyLeban (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no rule against creating work for others or directing others to do work. We're a Wiki. We work by collaboration. Randomran (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some editors make a habit of proactively assigning work to others. Sometimes they pop in, tell other people to do things, then vanish. Absent a prior agreement, that is not collaboration and is appropriate. If you have a better way to phrase this, I'm open to suggestion. But, now that I think about it, it probably belongs somewhere else. Where? RoyLeban (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to start banning and blocking people who assign work to others, who haunt the talk pages, or focus on meta-editing meta-editing like tagging? If not, then we should leave this out entirely. Randomran (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see where this is going. The statement just means that people are not obligated to spend a certain amount of time editing, as it's a volunteer project and people have real-life concerns that take precedence. I do agree with RoyLeban that the "anti-leech" phrasing sounds a bit odd. But it's a given that we create work for each other by editing, tagging, or making comments in discussion. That's part of the collaborative process. Fletcher (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not my intent to take it "where it's going". Yes, we absolutely create work for others by editing. Every {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) tag is creating work for others. When we ask for consensus, we're creating work. And I ask people to do work all the time. For example, I've recently left notes for a bunch of people who edited the Ambigram page asking if they would comment on some pending actions on the talk page. I'm referring explicitly telling people what they should do. My response is "Do it yourself -- you're not the boss of me" :-) That's all I'm getting at. RoyLeban (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to add something about not bossing others around, since this is a volunteer community. Randomran (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a version without the "anti-leech" wording:

"Misplaced Pages is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users."

Not feeling bold tonight, sorry. Is that any good? Fletcher (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Randomran (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it. I could also see appending "When editing, think about whether you are creating new work for others." (note: think, not do) but I'm ok without it and this is certainly an improvement.

I'd love for it to say, bluntly, "Don't criticize others for not doing work that you're not doing either", but there's no "Be Blunt" policy :-)

Thanks RoyLeban (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Good call, Roy. I've removed the bit. It's cryptic for anyone not versed in the jargon and generally unnecessary. If anything, attempting to volunteer other people for work one is unwilling to do onself belongs in the civility policy, not here. Durova 03:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the sentence written by Randomran (oops!) Fletcher, without the addition of the extra things I commented on. I'm going to look at the civility policy and see if the other stuff might be appropriate there. Thanks, everybody. RoyLeban (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the credit goes to Fletcher for the wording. But agreed -- good job everyone. Randomran (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The passage -- "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely." -- is rather misguided and is not policy. Turning the other cheek or addressing only the literal factual content of personal attacks only works some of the time. There are other alternatives - removing or consolidating the disputed text, closing discussions, bringing the matter up for administrative review, cautioning the user to stop, etc. The first half, that incivility should not justify incivility in return, is reasonable. The imperative language on what editors are supposed do next is simply not the case. Wikidemon (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is policy -- I don't think I made any substantive changes to that part of the wording, just altered slightly it for readability. It's certainly true that turning the other cheek doesn't always work, but there is a progression indicated in the text whereby one might, at first, consider turning the other the other cheek; then one might warn the user about no personal attacks; and lastly one might consider the formal dispute resolution process, which is wikilinked. It sounds like you are only focusing on one sentence rather than the paragraph as a whole? And some of your alternative suggestions sound like they are geared towards admins -- do we want to encourage the average user to delete or modify someone else's comments in a discussion? That sounds like it would further inflame the situation. People should not generally do that unless they really know what they're doing. Perhaps however we should wikilink to WP:ANI which is a more common path than going to mediation or arbitration. Fletcher (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal - deletion of WP:NOT#WEBHOST

As it relates to userspace I propose, based on a seeming growing consensus at deletion discussions and other areas about user pages, WP:NOT#WEBHOST be deleted. If deletion is not an option than it must be reworded to reflect that "trends of opinion" do not support deletion of any material contained in userspace outside of blatant copyvios, direct sales/marketing (explicitly listing prices and/or information where one can purchase items) or non-free image gallery's. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, everything I've seen has still supported this. There was a "recent" ANI case (last two months) of several uses using userspace to play a virtual reality TV game; they were subsequently banned. What is an example of where this policy no longer seems to hold true? --MASEM 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

er (x2) - I see nothing to support this reading. I would also like an example. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Er.. <sarcasm>Sure.. but only after we add User: and User_talk: to robots.txt so that they aren't indexed by Google.</sarcasm> IMHO, removing this would effectively allow people to use userspace pages to host all kinds information on non-notable (entities|subjects) that have been or would be deleted from article space.. This happens to some degree already, but at least now - those pages can be deleted when it's clear that the user isn't here to contribute productively to the encyclopedia, but rather to promote (themselves|their pet subject) with a page that sits on en.wikipedia.org . --Versageek 18:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to state that, for me, it is the wording of associated guidlines based on this policy that I have had issues with in the past, however there is recent surge of discussion that has sparked this. "webhost" has many meaning in relation to userspace and a huge part of this. Also it partly stems from the MFD "Please familiarize yourself" section that includes a link to "Misplaced Pages:User page — our guidelines on user pages". Now, because it was asked for, not because I am canvasing or forum shopping, here are some related discussions that all tie back to this policy: The spark - A proposed article User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers and it's talk page brought it to this: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. The outcome of that has lead to this: DRV which in turn has resulted in this proposal as well as this: Misplaced Pages talk:User page#Deletion review regarding indefinite hosting clause (The direct guideline at issue there is Copies of other pages which explicitly defines how WP:NOT#WEBHOST relates to userpage content via this: "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Misplaced Pages is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."
Also somewhat related to this was a long standing (August 29, 2007) paragraph that was removed, on January 2, 2009, with no discussion, from the Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators that stated "Misplaced Pages policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions."
A few discussions that tie into userspace include: Editing policy-Getting on to the primary issue, Template:Underconstruction - TfD, Define and clarify "indefinitely" and, for comparison, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery from 2006 and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam Carr/My archive of original photographic contributions January 28, 2009. Some current, active, MFDS using the "isn't hurting anything", "not violating any Misplaced Pages policies", it who the user is type arguments - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Britt25/sandbox for CVS/Pharmacy, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChanceYoungJr.Robert and the controversial Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians
Related essays (because people do cite them in some way is deletion discussions) include: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and Misplaced Pages:There is no deadline. There is also a secondary issue of who the user is and if they are required to follow this (or any) policy related to userspace. See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khuntien Ngin/Rendy Marciano and compare it to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. In both cases these are articles meant for mainspace in userspace; in both cases the main authors came to the MfD and said they would work on the article and that they are trying to fix them up. Both contain arguments of "delete" based on Copies of other pages and not a free web host. Both also used arguments of WP:OR. However the outcomes are very different - one user has been active over the years so "there is no time limit", "OR does not apply to userspace" and "not a web host" does not apply to this user. In the other case not one person said "keep" because "OR does not apply", Not one person said "keep" because there is "no time limit", not one person said "not a web host" does not apply. Matter of fact outside of the author(s) only one editor voted "keep" because "there is no requirement for "notability" in userspace". Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here that necessitates any change. User space content (save for WP:BLP and WP:NFC, and uncivil behavior) are outside of the general content guidelines or notability guidelines (deleted pages are often userified to be improved before being added again). There is absolutely no problem writing a userspace article that you intend to move to mainspace without any references, just that once you do move it, reference should be present and all other content guidelines should be met. The only issue here is the present lifetime of the material, which the MFD review stated was not defined and thus up to consensus. I see no problem with a article being built in userspace to last a year or two there without modifications, but 3-4 years may be pushing it. But WEBHOST is still being considered in how the article is being retained, so there's no point in remove it particular for a minor case like this. --MASEM 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But it is not "a minor case like this" - did you read any of the links I provided? It is an ongoing issue. I was just re-reading one of the conversation unrelated to the current DRV I mention. From December 2008 opinions, from different editor (some are admins) is that the policy does not apply to everyone. For example one said that "keeping an article (Or a project or portal page) in userspace only becomes a problem when it violates WP:UP" and added on that if the argument was it was on their userspace and the version they like we "refer them to Misplaced Pages:Userpage#Copies of other pages" However the same editor, when asked about their own subpages, said "I am not at all concerned about the pages in my userspace" because they are a "pretty experienced user" and a "top contributor", and, in somewhat of a challenge, "feel free to nominate them. I am confident that my pages won't get deleted". This is a case of "who" being allowed to override policy. Other comments from other users were another admin who has had a small stub on their user page for over 2 years (untouched), and whose MfD closed before it was even opened after they made the comment "This is in my userspace" and "in general I don't see any need to delete inoffensive draft articles in userspace", who described why this is article is still in userspace - "keeping the article in user space serves as a reminder to me to check for new evidence every so often. Many of us have started articles on topics where evidence cannot be easily found but where we suspect that evidence of notability exists, and perhaps it will eventually be found." Another editor cyber yelled: "So what if an article that is userfied is never worked on?". The idea is one needs to look around - I was asked for example so I gave several. It is still not "all" of them. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But even if these particular cases, where the user is keeping an "unfinished" version of an article in progress in their userspace, is a small fraction of what WEBHOST deliniates. WEBHOST implies that we are not your blog, personal web page, your Myspace or Facebook pages, or for content that is outside the improvement of WP in general. That part sticks, regardless of what is done about articles in indefinite progress in userspace. If anything, if your concern is that certain editors manage to keep in progress articles alive in their userspace, that probably should be brought up to WP:USER where more specifics on appropriate userspace content is listed. --MASEM 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing that's important here is "are they here to build the encyclopedia".. if their contributions indicate they are - then a few sandboxes are probably just fine. I'm venturing a bit far from the topic, but if someone has an issue with an unfinished page/work in progress in a user's space, and it's clear from the user's other contributions that user is here to build the encyclopedia not just push a POV or futz around in userspace - why not request the user save the unfinished page with an empty copy as the top version when it's not being actively edited? It's WIN/WIN, user has access to the content, messy sandbox doesn't show up in a search. On the other hand, if the content goes against other policies/guidelines it probably should be deleted on those grounds or a combination of those grounds and NOTWEBHOST. An example that comes to mind is a POV-fork of an existing article. Generically speaking: "you are entitled to your POV, but en.wiki is not your webhost. " --Versageek 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But I think the issue is being somewhat overlooked. This is about Policy. Should it be brought up at WP:USER? Yes, and it has been, however what is there is based on this Policy - specifically it describes how this policy is relates in userspace and than says: "In other words, Misplaced Pages is not a free web host." << - link to this section being discussed, of this policy. So this issue does not solely lay with the guidelines found at user. It is not only about articles in userspace, although it is most often used in the way at MFD's. It is also applied to photo gallery's, blogs, resumes, chat rooms and anything else that an individual user could place on a "webhost". I like this policy, however I am, frankly, getting tired of citing it and being told, in various ways, "It means nothing" followed with the reason why it means nothing. So why have it? If we only have it to prevent blatant advertising and blatant copvios and blatant advertising than we should re-word it that way. In doing so it will effect wording in other guidelines that lead back to this. If we only have it so it will apply to newbies than it needs to be laid out that way as well. Sometimes editors tend to forget that everything is interrelated and that passing it off to somewhere else is not always the best thing to do because it puts us in a situation where one guideline says one thing and links to another that says something else and that in turn, links to something else. And, again, not everyone is "blatant" enough to say they are a "pretty experienced user" and a "top contributor" so "I am confident that my pages won't get deleted" but I see an awful lot of arguments that contain some variant of "it's doing no harm". In some of the discussions linked to it is fairly obvious the many of the "keep" opinions come from the same users who regularly vote "keep" no matter what. With the removal of the paragraph in Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators I mentioned above it now implies that any deletion discussion can be a head count and not have to be based on policy. Yes, it still says that the closing admin is is not supposed to do a head count and but the "underlying policy", but the wording removed was far more specific in that a closing admin had to consider policy first, not public opinion, even if the "rough consensus" seemed otherwise. Look at the talk page and the "discussion" about removing that paragraph - there is zero consensus. One editor says there is no "non-negotiable" policy, another editor says "the core content policies are non-negotiable. WP:CONSENSUS does not trump any of them" And another editor says "WP:Policies is fairly clear that consensus does trump policy" and removed the paragraph. And this applies here as as well. If a deletion discussion contains 2 vocal "keeps" based on nothing but opinion it supersedes policy. The same can be said for a "delete" as well but it is rare I see "delete" followed by "it is doing harm", but somehow I doubt that argument would be accepted the same way "Keep: It is doing no harm" is. But to steer back here - if "no web host" is only meant for specific items and specific people than lets reword it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

{unindent}I hadn't noticed the change about AfDs and I've replaced the text. No matter what the headcount there can be policy reasons to delete. And I want to keep the webhost section -- I've seen people try to store large pdfs for instance, let alone all the other stuff like chatrooms. dougweller (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, Dougweller, Masem, Cameron Scott and Versageek's positions are on solid ground here. Misplaced Pages:NOT#WEBHOST remains a necessary statement of limits on the use of Misplaced Pages webspace. Granted that its enforcement is not always perfect-- it frequently runs into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and other issues including the often off-the-cuff conclusions of users in MfDs that sometimes seem more like a vote than a consensus process. And, there've been occasions where MfDs have been frivolous and based on mere differences in personal POV about the material in a userspace. Nonetheless, a clear statement is needed that WP's purpose is to be an encyclopedia not a free webhost where userspaces are totally at the discretion of the user. Misplaced Pages:NOT#WEBHOST has long served this function, supplementing WP:USER with a concise statement of one of the things that Misplaced Pages is not. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting at the very different conversations. Here it is a solid "keep" while over at User it is a solid "delete" for the section that relates to this policy. However the idea that copyvios, advertising and such still be deleted is still holding. Once this is all "settled" my suggestion is to make sure, across the board, all related items be in sync with one another. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at User specifically involves a user's Misplaced Pages-related activity-- in this instance an old draft of a proposed WP page sitting in userspace collecting dust. The assertion that an old draft of a proposed WP article in one's userspace violates Misplaced Pages:NOT#WEBHOST is, at least IMO, not a credible assertion. :In general, as has been asserted by some at Misplaced Pages talk:User page#Question to consider here:, users are free to let WP-related stuff collect dust within reasonable limits, and perhaps even indefinitely. In addition, it's common practice to lay out research as well as to post opinions and various personal snippets on user pages and subpages. These are acknowledged to be within the reasonable limits of user pages. As Dougweller has pointed out, there's a limit, determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis, a limit beyond which one's userpage activity goes substantially beyond the purpose of Misplaced Pages and strays into activities that one would expect to conduct via a web host. If the participants at WP:USER seek to codify exactly what these limits are, e.g. by setting a specific limit on how long a draft can remain in userspace, that's a separate discussion. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In a sense you already answered, or at least acknowledged, a question about this policy. You ended with "...by setting a specific limit on how long a draft can remain in userspace, that's a separate discussion.", and that is a huge part of the overall issue. This policy does not mention any time limits or any sort or even hint at them yet policy trumps guideline. "Well it may violate the guideline but it does violate the policy" in other words. The fact we have a statement here that says "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." is not how it is related at the "Further information: Misplaced Pages:User page" link provided. Some would call this an opening for a "circular argument" because, while the Policy states " you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account.", the guideline allows this sort of thing by providing users the basic "keep" argument of "Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth." Now, as it ties into what you said - this is the policy is is it not? This policy links to Misplaced Pages:User page does it not? And under Misplaced Pages:User page#Copies of other pages the line "In other words, Misplaced Pages is not a free web host." direct links back to this policy does it not? And this proves my point - we have a policy that is linked to a guideline that defines, and explains, what the policy is as it relates to Misplaced Pages not being a webhost, yet, at deletion discussions admins and editors can be found stating there is no such policy or guideline or those who acknowledge it will "keep" and use the guideline description to back up that anything in userspace is somehow automatically "related" to the users work at Misplaced Pages, thus Misplaced Pages:NOT#WEBHOST Policy does not apply. Either the editors in the "policy camp" need to help to clarify the definitions with the "guideline camp" or there needs to not be, simply, any "webhost" policy, at least not in it's current form.

The time limit issue as it would relate to "works in progress" or "archive pages" does tie in because as worded in the policy it is a flat out "no" - as in "Do not use Misplaced Pages as a webhost". Period. When the "translation" got done vague terms such as "long-term", "indefinitely" and "permanent content" (as used in relation to "indefinitely") came into play. These are clear time limits, although to what degree is the issue. Would taking a page that was deleted from another wiki and placing in my userspace fall under an "indefinitely archive" of "previously deleted content" - "In other words, Misplaced Pages is not a free web host"? How about if I made a mainspace article about myself and it was deleted, so I moved to my userspace in a subpage and kept adding information of myself to it - would this fall under "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes" - "In other words, Misplaced Pages is not a free web host"? The discussion on that page is about the overall section that defines "Misplaced Pages is not a free web host". What I see is a bigger issue coming out - userspace is userspace and, outside of copyvios, blatant advertising, specific articles (userfied) (<- unsure because of an older topic on the same "how long" issue about deleted than userfied article) or (Not mentioned there -) an image gallery containing fair use images, "any old rubbish" can be in userspace without any restrictions. A list of my favorite TV shows, songs, Movies? No problem. A school paper that someday may be a mainspace article? No problem. A gallery of my favorite Common images? No problem. A list of concerts I have seen? No problem. The possibilities are endless. The consensus of that discussion, if it continues the same way, would defeat this policy, in essence. And if that is the case - well, you already know the question. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Image use policy#Removal of galleries is another discussion I was trying to remember when I was asked above for examples. While more related to WP:NOTREPOSITORY it certainly relates directly to WP:NOTWEBHOST, number 2 - "File storage areas" and if, via the overall discussion, userspace is deemed "off limits", outside of what has already been mentioned, it would nullify userspace galleries and images uploaded for use in userspace only galleries. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. With respect to your statement "The consensus of that discussion, if it continues the same way, would defeat this policy, in essence." : No, it wouldn't. As I pointed out, the discussion at WT:USER is about one very specific aspect of userpages, the length of time a page draft can remain in userspace. A consensus that such drafts can remain indefinitely would not by any reasonable stretch of imagination negate Misplaced Pages:NOT#WEBHOST. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We must be reading different things. The discussion I am reading contains comments that are saying that, outside of the few specific items mentioned above, anything in userspace is off limits. What you are saying, "the length of time a page draft can remain in userspace", in only one part of the discussion. The RC is based around Copies of other pages however one needs to read actual comments. Read the main RFD posting at the top - "If this deletion review is endorsed, it will essentially mean that userspace is, in most cases, untouchable." Now read the fullt content of most of the comments - so far, at least as I type this, most all say to remove the existing time limits and don't define/add any set time except for, possible userfication. But that is not all that is being said, for example "As far as I'm concerned people can have any old rubbish sitting around in their user space, provided it's not offensive or illegal or being misused" seems to also be a reflection of "userspace is, in most cases, untouchable." Another example is, while endorsing the removal of time limits for articles, "As we have said above, people can have anything they want in their userspace, so long as it doesn't run afoul of serious problems like copyvio/G10/spam/etc". Point is "anything" means "anything". I am really at a loss what I am not saying correctly to get that across. Let me try this:
* A personal essay about the sex life of somebody - An unamed diary of sorts, no BLP issues - in mainspace probably not going to fly. Move to userspace and it is hands off.
* A photo gallery of images of trains. In mainspace, with no context, may not be allowed. In usersapce - hands off
* A list of my favorite TV shows. In mainspace no way - in userspace - hands off
* An autobiography - unless I am "notable", in mainspace - no way - in userspace - hands off.
* An article on my favorite cover band that plays at the corner bar. In main space doubtful unless it meets the WP:Music criteria, but in userspace - hands off.
* An personal synthesis of how the end of the world will be caused when a giant scallion climbs on board the space shuttle and, along with Bart Simpson, defeats the headless corpse of Space Ghost. In main space - probably be speedied as a hoax but in userspace - hands off.
And, as I said above, the list is endless. And if your idea is that it only will deal with "draft articles" not having any time limit that is a fairly big misunderstanding. And even if that is a reading by some I can see MfD being met with the same "keep:Doing no harm" but also the defense "It is just a draft, someday I hope to get it into mainspace" and than - hands off, forever. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're reading too much into comments from a xFD/review. Userspace is not sacred - if it isn't part of helping to improve the encyclopedia (with just a salt of vanity for a user's main page) it should be deleted. If it passes the duck test - that is, it looks and reads like a potential WP article and, assuming good faith, the editor planned to use it in mainspace, it probably will be kept. None of the cases you describe meet that and thus would be deleted if they existed and were brought up for review. I think to be convinced there's a problem, we need to see a userspace page that clearly wasn't meant to be moved into mainspace, and that survived a xFD or review of such; if such existed multiple times, then there may be consensus to change this, but as it is now, that's not the case. --MASEM 00:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this puts the discussion into somewhat clearer context for me, as does the clarification by Soundvisions, IMO Masem is essentially correct. While liberties are commonly granted to users who develop ideas, keep track of research, and other such things that might not very clearly be for use in article namespace or project namespace, the principle Masem states is I think generally accepted as the purpose for which userspace is intended. I might not interpret it quite as restrictively as Masem does, but the principle holds. At present I don't see any contradictions between this page and WP:USER, almost no matter which way the current discussion there goes. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

← I can understand the ideas presented, and honestly - I agree. As I said was up above I like this policy. However when I stumble across a userspace that is "storing" something, contans a myspacey - resume like page, or contains a "work in progress" that has not been touched in almost a year or longer it, to me, invokes this policy. The guidelines that define this policy as it relates to userpages seem to aid in telling editors why is allowed and why. However when, at a deletion discussion, a handful of users come in and give their opinion of "keep" using some variation of the argument "not doing any harm" or "no policy talks about this" I truly think it 1> is a problem with how the policy and/or guideline is written or 2> overall, "consensus" that the policy/guideline is irrelevant (and also 3> The policy/guideline is only meant for newbies, not established users). Per "we need to see a userspace page that clearly wasn't meant to be moved into mainspace, and that survived a xFD or review of such;" I can only cite ones that pop into my head - although some may not have been brought to a deletion discussion because of who the user is and "clearly wasn't meant to be moved into mainspace" is going to be debatable when we get into subpages because sometimes, as shown above and below, these are "articles" deleted from mainspace and have become (take your pick) "long term" archives, "indefinitely" archived or "personal versions". Also "article" is a controversial term when push comes to shove because I have been told more than once that anything in userspace is not an "article", therefore any policy or guideline that refers to an "article" does not apply to userspace - even if it is intended to be a mainsapce article or once was a mainspace article. In some case userpages are nothing more that copies of existing pages so it would be hard to argue that these are page "never intended" to be in mainspace when they "are" in mainspace.

1. Taken from above examples. See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khuntien Ngin/Rendy Marciano and compare it to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. Excluding the "who" for a moment and focus on the reasons given in the noms and the arguments - there is no indication that these articles would make it in mainspace. In both cases the concept of policy issues came up - WP:OR, one of them. In both cases the main editors came into the discussion to plead their case. Both said they wanted to work on them, find more sources and present them on mainspace. In both cases this policy was cited. In one case the proposed articles had only resided in userspace for a few weeks, in the other - 11 months. In one case there had been no ongoing discussion about the subject, in the other case there was an 11 month discussion on the talk page. Arguments arose in one discussion about how WP:OR does not apply to user pages but was never questioned in the other. In one several editors argued there was no such policy or guideline that indicated works in progress could not be stored in userspace, it was never questioned in the other. At this point it is impossible to not bring in the "who" element as a possible indication of why one article was kept and the other wasn't, however one must read the actual "arguments" presented in these MfD's to see the arguments being presented really were not about "who" in one case, nut in the other were. One also has to now look at the related DRV for one to see further discussion. It is also where it is coming out more clear that the policy/guidelines do not matter. (Example, the closing admin re: WP:DGFA: "The page in question is not an article (it is not in the mainspace), and the OR policy does not apply to user space. So this sentence from the guideline is irrelevant (as well as the talk page)" and their response to the very specific WP:DGFA line that states "where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions" was "Which article? There is no article here. What we have is a page in the user space. Hopes and intentions of the creator do not matter.")<-(by that thought there should be a DRV brought for Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khuntien Ngin/Rendy Marciano as it seems all the "delete" arguments were invalid - at least following this admins logic)
2. Related to above somewhat - but as of yet untouched, and doubtful they will be, based on the current state of things: User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers2, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Wold Newton Universe characters from 2006 - ended up here: User:Lady Aleena/Wold Newton. Also see User:Lady Aleena/Speculative fiction, started in 2006 but seems to just be, well, an "indefinite archive" and there is not any real indication this is intended to be a mainspace article. Nor are any of the "lists" this user has such as User:Lady Aleena/Films, User:Lady Aleena/Friends or User:Lady Aleena/Media franchises, F-H (Which contains links to some of the users other non-article articles/lists)
3. User:TonyTheTiger/Photographs, photo gallery which based on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam Carr/My archive of original photographic contributions (Closed before any discussion could be had meaning it could not be noted that this gallery contains images not hosted here, but on Commons, as well as personal images only used in this gallery. To me this gallery violates a few things - "user pages are not personal home pages nor is Misplaced Pages a free host, webspace provider, communal image-sharing service or social networking site"; "Images should not be uploaded merely to fill a userspace gallery. Images appearing only within a userspace gallery are presumed to have been uploaded for private amusement and are subject to deletion as orphans." and "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted.") will not be nomed (at least not by me) because of "who", not because of policy. Related is Tony The Tiger (martial artist) and Antonio Vernon which resulted in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Antonio Vernon and has been at User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon ever since. When I asked about this last year, in relation to a violation of this policy and was told not to bother because "it is harmless" and that the user is very active therefor an MfD would fail.
4. A tale of two (three) resume/spam like user pages: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jason E Ramsey, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jarredland and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman. When I made the nom for User:Johnbuckman it was based on "Misplaced Pages is not a webhost". The user is also an SPA who has only made COI edits, although I did not mention that because I felt it did not matter (at the time) because the user page violated Policy found here. As you can see there was no debate at all - it was a solid keep and "who" the user was did not matter, at least based on the arguments). So when I saw that User:Jarredland and User:Jason E Ramsey had been nomed after only a few weeks I quickly voted "keep" because of the Buckman MfD. This is where I brought up the SPA/COI issues because of arguments against Land and Ramsey for being SPA/COI, however the end result was that "not a webshost" only applies to newbies who create their userpage first and do not make any mainspace edits fist, however not a webhost Policy does not state this anywhere.
5. When a stub is not a stub: Raimond Spekking deleted June 3, 2006. Also created June 3 at, and "officially" userfied to, User:Eastmain/Raimond Spekking on June 5, 2006, sent to MfD on October 31 2008 as "Long since abandoned sandbox" and withdrawn the same day after the user said it was theirs and there was no need to "delete inoffensive draft articles in userspace". While implied this would would be worked on it has never been touched by the user. When this was raised in another discussion it was established that because of who the user is this was allowed to stay, policy and guidlines do not matter in such cases.
6. Misc things - User:Cjneversleeps/Corrections.com - kept because it was nomed for MfD too quickly and despite having COI issues user was going to work on it. Not touched since. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Britt25/sandbox for CVS/Pharmacy (appears to be a duplicate of CVS/pharmacy) - kept because "not doing any harm" and "not breaking any rules". This is similar to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChanceYoungJr.Robert, a duplicate of Ray Charles - kept because "isn't hurting anything" and not in any violation of any policy or guideline. And here is a fairly fleshed out userspace that, to me, violates "not a webhost" but because of prior noms being snowed as "keep" because of "who the user is", ad because of the growing "userspace is off limits" feeling, have not made any nom for any of these - however: User:Wellus/Photo/2007 - personal photo gallery; User:Wellus/Miscellaneous/School - list of school related work including "articles" User:Wellus/Miscellaneous/School/Contemp and User:Wellus/Miscellaneous/School/General; A random page of "thoughts", in German, User:Wellus/Miscellaneous.

I am sure there are more, but other editor can take some time and search. Most times I find things because I am searching through images. I find links to userpage galleries and other subpages that leads me to these "hidden" pages. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Add on - A couple of interesting discussions. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:SmashTheState was a "keep" and, while not based on "not a web host", the discussion does indicate a strong "consensus" that what is in userspace is off limits. We have a user stating that "Misplaced Pages is the place where angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerds with serious personality disorders come to take out their frustrations on others." It appears to be a rant brought on by the deletion of Andrew Nellis, who the user says "My real name is Andrew Nellis and I am a well-known activist and when a deliberately libellous article was created about me here, Misplaced Pages entered my personal radar.". My personal feeling is that this userpage is being used as a "blog" - it fails "not a webhost" because of it. However one can also say it is a userpage, it is related to the users work on Wikiepedia. Yes it is full of WP:OR and some, such as the nom, claerly see it as a violation of WP:UP#NOT, number 10 but the "consensus" is not so. Overall this MfD is almost treated as a joke when you read comments such as "Keep, angry white males like me sometimes benefit from having our shortcomings pointed out". And a new MfD, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza/Userpage, based on "not a web host", appears to be leaning to the "delete" side but contains a interesting break down of why this nomination does not fail this policy. While I may not agree with it - it is from an editor who, more or less, votes "keep" in every MFD they can, but not with this much "effort". It also jumped out at me that another editor, here, says "delete" because this is "not a personal website" yet has agreed with "keep" elewhere because "consensus" shows userspace is...well, userspace. These are issues I just "don't get" because they send mixed singles - 1> "Vote" however "consensus" is going irregardless of policy 2> Always vote the same in every discussion irregardless of policy because 1> a closing admin only "counts heads/votes" so it doesn't matter anyway. 2> "rough consensus" always trumps long standing policy 3> nothing should be deleted from userspace. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected for a week

I've protected the current revision of this policy page for one week per WP:PROTECT. Please ensure that all changes to this policy have consensus among the community before making them. This is an important policy and editors have a right to expect it to not be in flux. Note that WP:POLICY suggests that WP:BRD is not an appropriate editing strategy for policies and guidelines. If and when the parties come to agreement on a change they may use the {{Editprotected}} template or ask any admin to reverse my protection of this page. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot section needs to return to more original wording

The text used to say:

Plot summaries. Misplaced Pages articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

This is the current wording:

Misplaced Pages treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.

That section should return to the older version. The current wording completely misses the point that encyclopedias are about real world impact and analysis and not merely explaining the plot point by point. The newer version replaces "brief" with "concise" (which is slightly more ambiguous -- and in fact recently someone tried to argue that some ten paragraphs was plenty "concise" and that I obviously didn't understand that concise didn't mean short and used this as rationale to revert a paring down of the plot section. Worse than that, it removed "may sometimes be appropriate" and replaced it with "is appropriate" which suggests that it is not something to be avoided but something that is encouraged.

I do not know under what circumstances this was all changed. Unfortunately a lot of changes to policies and guidelines get done under the radar of the overall community, sometimes incrementally so even people watching might not notice the overall change and sometimes quite suddenly. Frankly, all policies should be locked 100% of the time in my opinion so that they cannot be changed without a clear demonstration of wide-ranging explicit consensus.

"Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is the heading of the section that plot is discussed under. We need to follow that fundamental principle, and to do that we need to restore the older text. And if the text of the subpages of the manual of style on fiction summaries conflict with this, those need to be updated to fit the policy, not the other way around. A little group of people on a hidden corner of Misplaced Pages can't just decide to ignore policy and then try to get policy changed to reflect what they want. Until those pages do not contradict WP:NOT they should not be linked to off this page and confuse people. DreamGuy (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction should discuss its plot, as to establish what the work is about; WP's problem is that articles also tend to omit the second part that being the real world aspects. Both aspects should be covered, just not one over the other, however, we will never run out of plot to add. Not to any great length of course, but enough to explain the major themes going on. That's why "concise" was chosen over "brief" - it implies compacting it down without losing significant detail, while "brief" suggests partial plot aspects. Now, a ten paragraph plot may be hard to believe but it could be appropriate - what article was it from to compare? --MASEM 22:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC

Ten paragraphs would never be appropriate. At most it should be a couple, unless it goes through and explains special significance as it goes. DreamGuy (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose this suggestion. Agree with Masem, you just can NOT give an encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction without ever covering what it is about, particularly as it often gives needed context for other sections. This seems more like a new attempt to get rid of "spoilers" by trying to claim plots have no place when they do. The Manuals of Styles do NOT conflict with WP:NOT at all, which is why the have consensus, they simply help give definitions of what "concise" means in relation to various works. 2 hour film, a 400-700 word summary is concise. A 30 minute episode, 100-300 words. There is no "little group of people" attempting to hide anything nor ignoring policy. These MoS have long been upheld in FAC, FLC, and referred to in other such discussions. Where policy/consensus did change, the MoS were updated as well (such as the changes a few months ago noting that the episode summaries were too long in FLCs). Your continuing assumptions of bad faith at hundreds of active editors is pointless, and your continuing to attempt to claim that WP:NOT forbids any plot summaries and supports your ripping them from articles has yet to actually be backed up by consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement "you just can NOT give an encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction without ever covering what it is about" is true, but irrelevant to the point being discussed. You can talk about what it's about without a point by point detail. This isn't TelevisionWithoutPity.com, it's an encyclopedia. The changes you are talking about as supposedly being supported by a consensus were pushed into this page without any sort of site-wide discussion, or even an awareness that it was going on. Frankly, it surprises me very little that the same handful of people who pushed this nonsense through would be here trying to claim consensus on it now, while most people on the site have no clue that the policy was changed to read exactly the opposite of what it started out as and what it was put here for. DreamGuy (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Masem and Collectonian above. The plot does need to be covered to a decent level. Concise is a better way of saying how the plot should be covered because the word brief might suggest trimming important plot detail just to keep the section short. --Bill  01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot detail isn't even what it's supposed to be about, per the wording of the template about Plot and the way this page used to read, so to insist that it has to be there because otherwise plot detail might bemissed misses the entire point. This is not WikiPlotSummaries, it's Misplaced Pages. Real encyclopedias rarely go through and summarize any work of fiction point by point, and when they do it's because it's a work that is so famous and culturally influentially that every point has great meaning. Letting us all know every bit of everything of every TV episode and movie we have an article on is a mockery of the entire concept of an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP is more than just a standard print encyclopedia - we aren't limited by space. At the same time, we don't want random speculation and details about trivially minor characters that go on for pages. Plot is an allowed element of an article on a work of fiction. It should be concise and exactly the right length to describe the plot as to make the other parts of the work clear and coherent. Sometime this means it can be 50 words, sometimes this means it needs to be 1000 words. --MASEM 01:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP is a real encyclopedia, and this is how things are done here. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that there's a consensus to have things as you described. We are not limited by the styles of other encyclopedias. A plot summary detailing major events in a story is necessary to providing full coverage of the work, but If you think we're promoting scene-by-scene recaps then you're mistaken. --Bill  02:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, Collectonian and Bill above. I am ok with varying definitions of "concise" for different types of content. A great example of this: My son asked my yesterday what book X was about. I said, let's take a look at Misplaced Pages. We found a great plot summary (2,000 words, 4 paragraphs, 380 words) that told him exactly what the book was about. Not too little detail and not too much. Had it been any shorter, it would not have answered his question and, of course, he wasn't interested in the rest of the article, which discussed the style of the book, it's adaptation into a movie, a sequel, where it's been parodied, etc. I'm not saying that stuff should be deleted but the article should meet a broad range of needs, not just the needs of people who are uninterested in plots. Concise (not truncated or stupid) plot summaries absolutely belongs on Misplaced Pages.

DeletionistsExtreme deletionists would like to see plot summaries like "Hamlet's father is murdered, maybe. Hamlet goes crazy. Everybody dies." That's great for the Reduced Shakespeare Company, but Misplaced Pages should not be a joke. RoyLeban (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

*cough* Not all deletionists are that extreme...not even most, and certainly not this one. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies! No slight intended and I've amended it above. I tend to be an inclusionist, but I'm not an extreme inclusionist. I think the right place to be is in the middle, not at either extreme. Contextual flexibility (with consensus) is important and those on the extreme ends tend to be inflexible, thinking rigid adherence to policy is more important than significant consensus about when an exception is acceptable. To me, this is part of NPOV. RoyLeban (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite agreed there. :) Way to much extremism on both sides doesn't really help anything at all. It doesn't have to be "all (extreme inclusion) or nothing (extreme deletion)" - there are happy mediums which, for the most part, work quite well when the extremism isn't brought in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep current wording. It more accurately describes the community's consensus and common practice. As for what exactly is a concise plot summary, that should be determined on an article by article bases using editorial discretion. --Farix (Talk) 12:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The current wording describes neither community consensus nor common practice. --Pixelface (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you can read through these talkpage threads about WP:NOT#PLOT if you want. In September 2006, Kyorosuke changed WP:NOT#PLOT to say "articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely summaries of that work's plot" without any prior discussion. So WP:NOT#PLOT shouldn't be changed back to that. WP:NOT#PLOT needs to be removed entirely until it actually has consensus to be policy. --Pixelface (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Concise doesn't mean brief but neither is it more vague. We have expectations at various wikiprojects as to what "concise" is. I would oppose any attempts to establish a unilateral word/paragraph limitation and I suspect such attempts would not find consensus among the project as a whole. Protonk (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this and similar comments above. Another way of looking at it is that NOT#PLOT applies to plot-only articles, demanding that we have a balance of plot and other aspects of a work, but doesn't apply to plot-bloated articles. The guidelines and editorial consensus are the ways we decide how much plot to have. Fletcher (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The essential idea of an encyclopedia is to present all the information needed for a well-rounded education - the complete circle of knowledge. Such a complete education includes details of the plots of fictional works. This may be seen in the standard education in countries such as Britain in which the study of plays, books and poems is quite normal. In my own case, I was expected to read and recall the text of works such as The History of Mr Polly, Macbeth, Tam O'Shanter and so on. And it was the works themselves which were the essential content, not secondary analysis nor real-world details such as critical reception, author's royalties or the like. This focus upon the work can be seen in respected encyclopedia such as Britannica in which their entry for Macbeth, say, provides details of the plot of the play. So, the current reference to encyclopedic manner is quite false. It seems to be pure POV, unsupported by any evidence and original in its sentiment. It is thus utterly contrary to our core policies and must go. We are here to educate in a comprehensive way and so must not bowdlerise our content. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I disagree, and I don't think it's apt to make anecdotal comparisons to your literary studies. A literature class is aimed at literature students, not a general audience, so the material covered in such a class isn't necessarily ideal for a encyclopedia aimed at a general audience. Similarly, at a vocational school you might learn step-by-step detail about how to rebuild a transmission, but that doesn't mean we should include such detail in our transmission article in spite of WP:NOTHOWTO. NOT#PLOT means that comprehensive coverage means we should cover other aspects of a work besides plot. Fletcher (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly feel that "concise" is more accurate than "brief". We don't want it to be small. We want it to be lean. I actually think we need to go the other way, to prevent abusive interpretation of WP:PLOT that would let someone delete entire plot summaries, or turn a movie summary into a two-liner. Most of the time this kind of extreme deletion will get reverted, but it happens too often, and we can nip it in the bud by having a clearer policy. Randomran (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Concise is great -- "Expressing much in few words" or "marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail". This doesn't mean short. And length has nothing to do with POV.

It seems to me there is largely a consensus here, but I'm wondering if thers a better, more precise way of saying it than the current text and I'm also wondering if, given the contention here, even if it's just one editor, something should be done to get a wider range of opinions.

Finally, DreamGuy's revert/edit not only removed the edit which added the cross-refs to MOS, it also reverted a number of changes by a number of other editors, including the consensus change discussed above. What is to be done? RoyLeban (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics debate at Noticeboard

There is request for opinions on the inclusion of lyrics in fight song articles at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Summing_up. NJGW (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#STATS example

Could somebody tell me why Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 is considered a good example for this section? I just had my nose rubbed in it as an example of what's acceptable per policy, yet it would appear to be completely incomprehensible to somebody lacking a fairly detailed knowledge of the timeline of, participants in, and the electoral mechanisms underlying, the election in question. I notice that its use as an example uses the pre-move name -- it was renamed Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 in April. Is it possible that it was a good example, but has become completely bloated since? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

On further investigation, it appears to have been first introduced in October 2007, when the article looked like this. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the essence of my question is whether articles which are nothing (or little) but long lists of tabulations of primary information (election results, opinion polls, etc) encyclopaedic or WP:NOT? The main text seems to say 'not', but the example of Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 appears to contradict this. For example would it be encyclopaedic to have an article that consisted of nothing but the daily maximum temperatures of Al 'Aziziyah (where the highest ever temperature on Earth was recorded) for the last century? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 09:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, I think that the problem here is that you want the policy to place a complete ban on the tables of data, ignored the caveats in the policy despite repeated requests to look at the nuances, and you are now shocked to find that the example cited in the policy does not illustrate the hard line you were reading into the text.

Let's pick apart the three sentences of WP:NOT#STATS:

1. "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles."
   Note carefully that it does not say that this is always the effect, just that it "may" be the effect. In the case both of the opinion polling example and of the British National Party election results whose deletion you have been pursuing, the data is not sprawling: it is tabulated and cross-linked, and additionally it has been split out from the main article to avoid overwhelming that article.
2. "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader".
   There is an issue here in relation to WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT about how much is needed. In some cases that may be one sentence, and in other cases it may be much more, but since both the articles under consideration are clearly labelled as split-outs from the main article, a reader who needs more context than is available in the lead section of the split-out can read all the background in the main article. A balance has to be drawn between the need to provide a comprehensive explanation of the context of the split-out and repeating too much of the main article, which would waste the time of those who had already read the main article before venturing to the split-out.
3. "In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists."
   Again, this has been done in both cases.

If you read what the current policy actually says, the opinion poll article doesn't contradict it. The contradiction is between what you want the policy to say and what it actually says. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

BHG: given that you've made it abundantly clear that to you WP:NOT#STATS actually reads 'WP::LOTS_OF#STATS', I think I'll wait for a less partisan opinion, preferably one that doesn't reduce that policy to irrelevancy (I have to assume that it wasn't created unless it was meant to serve some purpose). I have seen no indication that articles covered under WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT are exempted from any other policies. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 12:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1. If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate mailing list, contact the Wikimedia Foundation, or in cases of copyright violations notify us at Misplaced Pages:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.
2. If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate mailing list, contact the Wikimedia Foundation, or in cases of copyright violations notify us at Misplaced Pages:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.