Revision as of 21:32, 29 June 2006 editRossami (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,096 edits →Plot summaries← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:22, 30 June 2006 edit undoLeflyman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,340 edits →Plot summaries: response to "difficult"Next edit → | ||
Line 528: | Line 528: | ||
I think that's common consensus? ] <small>]</small> 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | I think that's common consensus? ] <small>]</small> 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
*Strong support. It's almost impossible to do a plot summary without either original research or copyvio (if it's a reliable source's summary) so I think it's entirely reasonable. ] 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | *Strong support. It's almost impossible to do a plot summary without either original research or copyvio (if it's a reliable source's summary) so I think it's entirely reasonable. ] 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
*I think this would be an extremely contentious issue, as the vast slew of articles dealing with television shows, film, books and comics go beyond merely "plot points" into full summaries. I would not be surprised if that's a major chunk of the many articles on fictional topics. For example, the ] is specifically set up to ''create'' episode summaries. See, ]. And don't forget the huge ]. This addition is too late to have an effect on such developments. While I'm concerned about the spewing of original research in popular culture articles, I think the way to "improve" the situation is to promote better written, less y content. I will eventually put a proposal up that ]). (Or would someone else like to take up the cause?) Perhaps now that there is ], it might be suggested that such fictional material be moved over there (as much of it is getting re-created anyway).--<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 18:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | *I think this would be an extremely contentious issue, as the vast slew of articles dealing with television shows, film, books and comics go beyond merely "plot points" into full summaries. I would not be surprised if that's a major chunk of the many articles on fictional topics. For example, the ] is specifically set up to ''create'' episode summaries. See, ]. And don't forget the huge ]. This addition is too late to have an effect on such developments. While I'm concerned about the spewing of original research in popular culture articles, I think the way to "improve" the situation is to promote better written, less ]y content. I will eventually put a proposal up that ]). (Or would someone else like to take up the cause?) Perhaps now that there is ], it might be suggested that such fictional material be moved over there (as much of it is getting re-created anyway).--<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 18:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
*I agree with the intent of this proposal, but I'm afraid that Leflyman is correct in that there are huge numbers of plot summaries on Misplaced Pages (most dutifully marked with "spoiler alerts"). It will take more than a change to WP:NOT to make them go away. But I support the effort. -] 18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | *I agree with the intent of this proposal, but I'm afraid that Leflyman is correct in that there are huge numbers of plot summaries on Misplaced Pages (most dutifully marked with "spoiler alerts"). It will take more than a change to WP:NOT to make them go away. But I support the effort. -] 18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
* I'll support it as well even if it will be difficult to apply. I would, however, stop the sentence after "historical significance. The "which can be" clause adds a lot of words to the text but does not add to the meaning - at least not in any way that I can see. ] <small>]</small> 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | * I'll support it as well even if it will be difficult to apply. I would, however, stop the sentence after "historical significance. The "which can be" clause adds a lot of words to the text but does not add to the meaning - at least not in any way that I can see. ] <small>]</small> 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
:*Saying it would be "difficult to apply" is a bit of an understatement. I suspect that if this were to be seriously promoted, a veritable rebellion would be fomented on Misplaced Pages. One need only see the antagonism generated by removal of '''DVD cover images''' on a single "List of" episodes page: ]. Now imagine raising that to the Nth fandom power. Editorial improvements can be shaped with good policy and guidelines, but attempting to ban plot summaries outright just isn't going to meet with success. (Hint: Nearly ''everything'' on Misplaced Pages is, in effect, a "summary" so why stop at "plots"?) --<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 00:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:22, 30 June 2006
Spoken Misplaced Pages | ||||
|
Archives
- Archive 1
- Unencyclopedic (formerly at wikipedia:encyclopedic)
- Archive 2
- Archive 3 (September 2004 to July 2005)
- Archive 4 (Aug 2005 to Dec 2005)
- Proposal to modify WP:NOT image gallery
- Archive 5 (Jan 2006 to April 2006)
Misplaced Pages is not a link repository
I'd like to raise again the point I raised here: Misplaced Pages is not a link repository. Right now the guidelines say "Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" but they disclaim this with "there is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article." I've seen people use this to justify putting a bunch of links to fan discussion boards into an article. The guidelines need to take a firmer stand against this, so that articles don't end up with wars over which fan sites are "good enough" or "large enough" to be linked from an article. - Brian Kendig 17:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Aha, thanks - I'll add a link from the article to that. - Brian Kendig 22:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sometimes I find WP:NOT and WP:EL somewhat contradict; For instance, "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox", #3. advertising where it says:
- "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example)."
- This compared with Misplaced Pages:External links#What should not be linked to, #3. "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services."
- The wording cited above in WP:NOT was added in Sept. 2002 by DW and refers to Finishing school, Aug. 2002 version.
- I don't think this wording in "WP is not a soapbox" is so useful anymore. People could use it to justify all sorts of commercial links and advertising for products and services. I suggest revising or eliminating this sentence from WP:NOT and ensuring WP:EL and WP:NOT better support eachother, as one way of having the guidelines take a firmer stance. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 23:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sometimes I find WP:NOT and WP:EL somewhat contradict; For instance, "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox", #3. advertising where it says:
- This has been slightly updated in the light of WP:en passing the million article mark. At one time an external link served the useful purpose of covering something we hadn't reached yet. Now, if an external link offers something that is still not covered within our sites (and I'm included Wikisource, Wiktionary, etc here) then if it offers something clearly beneficial to the reader to have a link to then by all means include it, but be sparing of such things and, where possible, use it as a spur to writing a free-to-all article instead!. --Vamp:Willow 01:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- This ignores the fact, that the *vast* majority of external links are to sites that do things that no Wiki Media project does, or allows. The size of Misplaced Pages is irrelevant. Very few external links are to other encyclopedias, so there's no comparison. --Rob 01:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a how-to-do guide
Many articles are written in style where the reader is addressed directly, as if the material in question was copied from a how-to-do-guide, instruction manual or something like that. This is quite usual style in many articles, and I understand that instructions can be encyclopedic just as any other material. It's the style I'm worried about. Do we really need large parts of articles written like the (invented) examples below?
- -If the patient doesn't breath, do this or that.
- -After welding the parts together, let them cool before .. blah blah blah
- -You can find the connector by opening the ....
- -First run a disk manager; if the ..
etc. etc.
I haven't find a good way to address this situation. Maybe a new template that could be used to mark articles that need a style change? There are lots of articles written in this style, and if it is deemed inappropriate, something should be done. Well, is this kind of style desired or undesired? Santtus 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops. I actually stumbled upon a line where it actually reads: Misplaced Pages is not an instruction manual. Ok, fine, policy is known. Should we set up a project to correct those pages where this kind of style is used? Santtus 18:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- If the articles are in fact how-to guides, and cannot be rewritten to not be how-to guides, they should be nominated for deletion. And I would say the sample lines you quoted above are from how-to guides. -- Dalbury 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Some of these could be rewritten to not be how-to guides. For example:
- -Typically, if a patient is not breathing, the proper course of action a person would take would be to ...
Whether or not a how-to article can be rewritten should be taken into account before nominating it for deletion. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought most how-to guides were m:transwiki'd to Wikibooks. Transwiki is an action which can be taken by any editor and does not generally require deletion. Rossami (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Every time I've seen discussion regarding an article being too "how toish," - comments to the author(s) of the article generally direct them to move that content to a Wikibook /shrug --Naha| 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Deleting the content seems bad when there is no place to move it to. Perhaps we need to clearly establish that wikibooks can be short, and that this is where such material belongs. No reason to delete helpful stuff!Brokenfrog 07:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused where to draw the line on this sometimes. I mostly work on articles in the horticulture, gardening, and agriculture categories, and there is a bit of "how-tooishness" to a lot of articles there. Part of this might be because gardening encyclopedias (the kind printed on paper) have a lot of how-tooish content. Perhaps part of the problem is that these fields are applied, as opposed to theoretical, and so many articles there are describing methods and techniques. I get a bit worried that someone will get into deletion mode in those categories, thereby scaring off a lot of people with a lot of knowledge, who would otherwise be able to provide valuable content. Perhaps there needs to be a bit more leeway when it comes to applied sciences? SB Johnny 14:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
HOWTOs are great. Linearized articles dealing with procedures in the way they would typically be executed are excellent resources to refer to. Jimbo says were doing this for That Girl in Africa. We should give her all the tools She needs, by covering applications and techniques. If howto format is unacceptable, an example of procedures and expectations may suffice. (Deletion is not the default solution) Ieopo 15:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There are a couple of places online where one can place HowTo Articles I would suggest my site www.OpenTutoprial.com which is uses MediaWiki or wiki.ehow.com which is inspired by MediaWiki OpenTutorial is still in it's very early infancy but has potential to be a great resource with some help of course. --Hapa 03:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Wikimedia project Wikibooks takes how-to guides (wikibooks:Wikibooks:How-tos bookshelf), and they can be transwikied to there from here. Thryduulf 10:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Added category: Category:Articles_containing_how-to_sections. Self-explanatory. Santtus 12:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is censored, whether we like it or not
I believe the elimination of the words "for the benefit of minors" has created a lot of the confusion now at Misplaced Pages talk:Censorship.
The fact is, Misplaced Pages is censored, and it has to be. As I pointed out on Misplaced Pages talk:Censorship, we have no images, thankfully, at vomit. We also don't show the picture in question at goatse.cx.
I think we need to be more specific about what is not censored. I believe the wording should be something along the lines of: Indecency and blasphemy are not censored on Misplaced Pages. I believe indecency was what was meant in the original wording of the policy. -- Mwalcoff 05:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Mwalcoff, Misplaced Pages is censored and should be in some cases. This is a clear case of "use common sense" - Misplaced Pages shouldn't contain pictures of, say, hardcore porn. Similarly, we should (and thankfully often do) have some taste and not include some material even if we could. Just because we have the legal right to say gratuitously offensive things or include silly pics doesn't mean we have the obligation to (as the more shrill members of the "OMG, WP:NOT censored!" crowd seem to suggest.) Mikker 10:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just so I can follow you correctly. Why "Misplaced Pages shouldn't contain pictures of, say, hardcore porn."? If the article was discussing hardcore porn or the specifics of that scene (ie. if it were from a movie and the article was about that movie), why should it not be included? Why is it common sense to not include it? Just because some people are offended by images of sex does not mean it should not be included. That is the point, IMO, of WP:NOT. It prevents people from being able to use their own world of 'that is offensive, that is not offensive' in working on articles. I would not find the mentioned subject offensive and would not disapprove of it being included - but I may, as a vegan, find a picture of animal cruelty offensive. I should not be able to make that judgement claiming 'common sense'. -Localzuk 10:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, judging from the content of the porn/sex articles the consensus there seems to be that there is no need for such pictures. It seems to me that it is "common sense" that WP is an encyclopaedia and only material likely to educate should be included. For example, I have no problem with the pics at penis or vagina - they serve an educative function. However, do we need a pic at, I dunno, child pornography? At interracial sex? At bestiality? I don't think we do; including such pics is simply gratuitous. I.e. WP is (and should be) pragmatically censored. Mikker 11:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Some editors seem to feel they need to include the most offensive image they can find to illustrate an article. Misplaced Pages is not in the business of deliberately offending readers or of testing the limits of what the law will allow. As an example of what I consider taking things too far, look at Pubic hair. Images have been placed there in a way that I think was intended to shock readers. They certainly go beyond what is necessary to illustrate the subject. I think it is in particularly bad taste to use an image of a semi-erect penis to illustrate male public hair. I've raised that question on the talk page, with no response. I would replace the image, but I don't happen to have any PD photos of male genitalia lying around. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- You are missing my point. Mentioning 'Child Pornography' and 'bestiality' show that you do not understand my point (IIRC they are both illegal in Florida so would not be allowed on the site anyway). My point is that 'Misplaced Pages is not censored' should not come down to a 'common sense' decision - as your view of common sense may be skewed depending on what you find offensive. The fact that you find an image of a semi-erect penis offensive proves this and is not the fault of the author of the page but is your fault for finding it offensive (as it is mine for finding other things offensive). Including that picture is not perfect (it is a poor example of pubic hair (not much contrast)), I agree, as it is though we have no better pictures so complaining about it being offensive is POV. It is a picture of hair and genitals... The word offensive is subjective and so is one's 'common sense'... -Localzuk 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- And you are missing mine. I did not say I was offended. I said I thought some editors were choosing images because they wanted to shock and offend, and I think that approach is bad for Misplaced Pages. We need to select images that illustrate a subject while giving the least offense possible. The subject in this case is pubic hair, not erections, and including a photo of an erection to illustrate pubic hair is, in my opinion, deliberatel;y offensive and trying to see how far something can be pushed. And, again, I strongly feel that is bad for Misplaced Pages. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- You are seemingly not assuming good faith on that issue. Have you checked through the images on wikipedia to see if there is a better image to show there? As I stated, the showing of the image is more than likely due to a lack of others that are PD. Offense is still a subjective word. -Localzuk 11:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Another example, Image:Pubic hair.jpg was (and still is) in Pubic hair, illustrating female pubic hair. An editor then added Image:L'Origine du monde.jpeg at the top of the article. As there was already a perfectly adequate illustration of female pubic hair in the body of the article (in case any readers didn't know what it looked like), the only reason I can think of for adding Image:L'Origine du monde.jpeg at the top of the article was for shock value. Images of potentially offensive items should be 'clinical' in nature, as befits an encyclopedia, and not intended to appeal to prurient interests or to try for maximum shock value. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 11:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- What I am trying to say is that it should not by policy to censor things but instead should be taken on a case by case basis (as the current policy states that things placed for shock value may be removed). The title of this policy should reflect the content - ie. 'Misplaced Pages is not censored to prevent offense' reflects the content, whereas 'Misplaced Pages is not censored' or 'Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors' are too wide and too narrow meanings respectively. If you have issues with specific articles, it should be taken up on that page and a policy to back you up does not need to be in place. -Localzuk 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Another example, Image:Pubic hair.jpg was (and still is) in Pubic hair, illustrating female pubic hair. An editor then added Image:L'Origine du monde.jpeg at the top of the article. As there was already a perfectly adequate illustration of female pubic hair in the body of the article (in case any readers didn't know what it looked like), the only reason I can think of for adding Image:L'Origine du monde.jpeg at the top of the article was for shock value. Images of potentially offensive items should be 'clinical' in nature, as befits an encyclopedia, and not intended to appeal to prurient interests or to try for maximum shock value. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 11:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- You are seemingly not assuming good faith on that issue. Have you checked through the images on wikipedia to see if there is a better image to show there? As I stated, the showing of the image is more than likely due to a lack of others that are PD. Offense is still a subjective word. -Localzuk 11:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that anyone would need photos of something they almost surely have. Coyoty 20:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- So we shouldn't have pictures of anything that people 'almost surely have'. What about stuff that people almost all will know about? Just because people have something themselves does not mean it should not be included in Misplaced Pages... -Localzuk 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- And you are missing mine. I did not say I was offended. I said I thought some editors were choosing images because they wanted to shock and offend, and I think that approach is bad for Misplaced Pages. We need to select images that illustrate a subject while giving the least offense possible. The subject in this case is pubic hair, not erections, and including a photo of an erection to illustrate pubic hair is, in my opinion, deliberatel;y offensive and trying to see how far something can be pushed. And, again, I strongly feel that is bad for Misplaced Pages. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury) 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- You are missing my point. Mentioning 'Child Pornography' and 'bestiality' show that you do not understand my point (IIRC they are both illegal in Florida so would not be allowed on the site anyway). My point is that 'Misplaced Pages is not censored' should not come down to a 'common sense' decision - as your view of common sense may be skewed depending on what you find offensive. The fact that you find an image of a semi-erect penis offensive proves this and is not the fault of the author of the page but is your fault for finding it offensive (as it is mine for finding other things offensive). Including that picture is not perfect (it is a poor example of pubic hair (not much contrast)), I agree, as it is though we have no better pictures so complaining about it being offensive is POV. It is a picture of hair and genitals... The word offensive is subjective and so is one's 'common sense'... -Localzuk 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just so I can follow you correctly. Why "Misplaced Pages shouldn't contain pictures of, say, hardcore porn."? If the article was discussing hardcore porn or the specifics of that scene (ie. if it were from a movie and the article was about that movie), why should it not be included? Why is it common sense to not include it? Just because some people are offended by images of sex does not mean it should not be included. That is the point, IMO, of WP:NOT. It prevents people from being able to use their own world of 'that is offensive, that is not offensive' in working on articles. I would not find the mentioned subject offensive and would not disapprove of it being included - but I may, as a vegan, find a picture of animal cruelty offensive. I should not be able to make that judgement claiming 'common sense'. -Localzuk 10:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- So the experiment in changing the section title has been in place for about a month. As some predicted, it is causing new (or at least different) confusion and ambiguity. Do we have enough experience to recommend changing it back yet? It sounds to me like the answer is "yes". Rossami (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think it should not be changed back but clarified more - something like Misplaced Pages is not censored to prevent offense or similar. Stating for minors is just one aspect as there are many adults who may think it should be censored for their beliefs also. -Localzuk 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think there's a difference between the political or religious offense potentially created by the Muhammad cartoons and the innate revulsion people may feel at seeing, say, graphic depictions of gay sex (if they're heterosexual) or certain bodily functions. If we say Misplaced Pages is not censored for offensiveness, I'm afraid it will leave some people with the perception that this type of repulsive images may not be removed. -- Mwalcoff 23:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying images such as those described should be removed? I think that if the image has a purpose then even if it is 'repulsive' (which is majorly POV anyway) it should stay. As the content of the section reads now it follows either 'Misplaced Pages is not censored' or 'Misplaced Pages is not censored to prevent offense'. It states that it isn't censored for social norms (which those things you mention are social norms for those parts of society) so I cannot see what you are saying? -Localzuk 10:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am saying that the policy as currently written is too broad. I think that a policy that prevents editors from removing graphic pictures of excretion, abortion, bizarre sexual practices, etc. should be changed. If I click on a link to an article about a train wreck, I don't want to wind up staring at a picture of a victim with his eyeball hanging out. -- Mwalcoff 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- But is that not your POV? Just because you think something is offensive does not mean everyone else does. I think the idea of being able to say 'this picture will offend people so we shouldn't include it even if it does serve a purpose' is wrong to the largest level. A picture of a rail crash victim would only be appropriate if the article was discussing that - else it is already covered as it would be an innappropriate image. -Localzuk 08:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- And this is where I think you're wrong. I don't like this ultra-relativistic idea that because "offensiveness" or "repulsiveness" is in the eye of the beholder, no discretion for good taste should be allowed, not even to spare us from the gruesome or disgusting types of images I've mentioned. I don't know how the section should be worded, but it ought to draw the line somewhere between banning pictures of breasts at breast and saying that anything goes as long as it isn't illegal. -- Mwalcoff 23:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
If WP is not censored at all what does the phrase "obviously inappropriate content" refer to? Localzuk, do you think anything flies? I.e. that we should have simulated child porn pics @ child pornography? (these are not illegal, look quite real and are widely available). Mikker 14:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, but I do not think a policy stating that stuff should be removed should be the case. I think it depends on each article and the consensus reach at that article. The innappropriate content refers to stuff such as the examples given. But this is based upon the decisions of editors at the specific article and not by referring to a policy stating 'offensive, or innappropriate material should be removed'. Simulated child porn is still illegal... -Localzuk 14:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, but what policy states that offensive material can be removed? Currently, policy seems to favour those who want material included rather than those who want it removed. From my experience, if several editors want content removed, it takes only one person to come round yelling "WP:NOT censored!!!!!" to put it to a stop. Mikker 14:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I forgot to say: If a person is interested in learning about 'Pubic Hair', why would they be offended by an image of the topic? Surely if a person goes to read an article about that subject they expect to see images of the genital area as examples?
- To answer the question regarding policy that says material can be removed - well, that depends on the definition of 'offensive' and the material at hand. If for example it were an insult against a person which was unreferenced then it would be removed as unreferenced. If it were referenced then it would still be offensive and could stay. If it were an image of, say, an abortion on the abortion page - it would likely cause offense to those opposing abortion (or those suffering from post abortion stress syndrome), but I would argue that it should stay. It could be removed if it was an inappropriate image - this being defined as one that does not belong there.
- If the person 'yelling "WP:NOT censored!!!!!"' is misinterpretting the policy then that helps your argument - if they are correct and you are all arguing to remove an item based on personal beliefs, standards or morals then you are incorrect IMO. My point is and always has been that 'offensive' is completely POV and as such should not be anywhere near a policy. -Localzuk 14:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- To answer the question about 'pubic hair', you assume that the reader baiscally knows what the term is, so that they are prepared to see a picture. What if it is their first time to encounter the word Gokkun, and they don't know what to expect? Perhaps we do them a diservice to present the image, at least without a warning first. What if it is a 12 year old boy that wants to find full-color video of adults having sex at sexual intercourse? That still doesn't mean we can or should present those images. We shouldn't default to a position of every article having the most shocking/revealing/pornographic image possible. Johntex\ 22:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, but what policy states that offensive material can be removed? Currently, policy seems to favour those who want material included rather than those who want it removed. From my experience, if several editors want content removed, it takes only one person to come round yelling "WP:NOT censored!!!!!" to put it to a stop. Mikker 14:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to "Misplaced Pages is not censored for minor" translation, lot of censorship happens in Japanese wikipedia. No inclusion of name or photos of vicitims of crimes for example. Can you change it to "Misplaced Pages is not censored to cater to political, social, religious, or any other kind of cultural sensitivities." FWBOarticle
- True. Misplaced Pages is censored up to a certain point. The above-mentioned title by FWBOarticle gives a more accurate representation of Misplaced Pages. --Siva1979 06:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Plagiarism
Hi, I'm fairly new to Misplaced Pages and have just observed a user copying large bulks of writing from within an external source and putting it in wikipedia. Is this allowed or does it need to be reworded before it can be added? I just want to clarify before raising the point with the user himself. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- If the original is copyrighted and not released under a license compatible with the GFDL it is against Misplaced Pages policy and should be treated a copyvio. If the external source for some reason is in the public domain, it may be OK (provided the material is suitable for WP to begin with), but the source needs to be acknowledged. Please give a link to the relevant diff. Tupsharru 06:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nobleeagle, for all that Misplaced Pages opposes plagiarism in principle, too many of its active editors applaud it in practice. On two occasions, I found and pointed out extensive, unmistakable plagiarism in featured article candidates. Was the plagiarism removed? For the most part, no. The "editors" who wrote the articles claimed what they did was OK, because they changed a handful of words in each paragraph, often doing no more than changing tenses. The editors' friends raise hell, enlisting sympathetic administrators to threaten me with blocks and bans. The articles, both quite poor, were "promoted" to feature articles and labelled as being examples of Misplaced Pages's best work. So save yourself a lot of trouble. You're a new user, the plagiarist isn't. Unpleasant as it may seem (and unpleasant as it is), disputes like the one you describe are almost always resolved in favor of the editor with the most experience and the most extensive network of friendly editors. Spare yourself the annoyance and unpleasantness, and lie low. Monicasdude 00:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do you remember which articles they were? RJFJR 21:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, in almost all cases plagiarism is not an acceptable course of action for an editor to take. Even if the source is "free" it is likely to be seen as a copyvio if there isn't a clear GFDL licence and the dates applicable can be proven. Most plagiarism, however, happens from commercial sites ... --Vamp:Willow 02:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a Recipe Book
After finding one article that was completely on the making of a food product, I searched for others and found several very recipe-oriented articles. To say that a certain sauce is usually made with the following ingredients, or a vegetable can be cooked or eaten in some of these ways is acceptable, but listing the actually preparation and/or measurement of ingredients does not seem conducive to an encyclopedia.
- That's generally considered to be covered by the 'how-to' section (consensus is to move to wikibooks). --InShaneee 20:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why not? A recipe is a factual description of how to make the food in the article. It seems to me the basic recipe for any food (and there are numerous foods in this encyclopedia) is a fundemantal part of what that food is. Variant recipes I would agree have no room - but I would strongly argue that the default basic recipe for any food is a part and parcel of what that food is. Of course, if the food is chicken then no recipe could accompany that - but if it is bread, you should have the basic recipe in the article - surely it is a failing just to list the ingredients and not to list how to put them together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.61 (talk • contribs)
- Because people don't go to encyclopedias for recipes. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. That's what a recipe book is for. Coyoty 05:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. If I want a recipe for chile con carne I will Google etc until I find one I like. But... If I am looking up about bread making, I would be further educated by having a sample recipe for basic bread. I can then Google to find all sorts of cheesy breads or raisin breads or wheat breads and so on - but I'll go to Google pre-armed with the basic knowledge of how bread is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webchat (talk • contribs)
- We decided long ago that recipes belong in Wikibooks, specifically in Wikibooks:Cookbook. The problem is that there is no real "default basic recipe" for any food. There are 6 different "basic" bread recipes that jump immediately to mind, each favored by a particular culture. How would you pick between them? Rather than argue in the encyclopedia article, we've found that it generally makes more sense to create a cross-wiki link from the Misplaced Pages bread article to an appropriate page in Wikibooks. Rossami (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a free speech platform
A grouchy rant for the day.
Perhaps this should be integrated with "Misplaced Pages is not a blog" or "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox", but:
Several critics of Misplaced Pages (including the noisy crowd at such places as wikitruth, wikipedia review, and a few other forums) seem to think that because Misplaced Pages is a forum that anybody can edit--it is (or should be) a free speech platform which must suffer the rants, opinions, and beliefs of anyone who wishes to write here (regardless of how encyclopedic)--and that many Misplaced Pages policies, both those (like WP:NPOV and WP:V) which apply only to articles, and those (especially WP:NPA), which apply project-wide, somehow constitute an infringement of their "rights". (And that users who are disciplined and/or banned for violating Misplaced Pages policy are being "censored" or "oppressed" or such).
We probably should emphasize loudly and clearly: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Everything we do is intended to build a better encyclopedia; there is no reason whatsoever the project should tolerate behavior or content which is counter-productive to that end. Users who wish to rant on their favorite topic (say, Israel--a popular topic, it seems, among the WR crowd), should get a blog and do so. Of course, it happens that Misplaced Pages is a popular and well-read website, whereas most blogs are routinely ignored--and many with axes to grind think that their opinions will get a better airing if presented here, and especially so if presented as encyclopedic fact (or as a notable point of view) in the article space. The fact that nobody cares about someone's blog doesn't entitle users to exploit Misplaced Pages's good reputation in order to more widely disseminate (before a larger audience) editorials that the world at large would, in most cases, otherwise ignore.
Misplaced Pages is not a free-speech platform, and is under no obligation to endure the rants of every drive-by malcontent.
Rant off. --EngineerScotty 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. Misplaced Pages is not a place for free speech; it is already established that Misplaced Pages is not a free hosting service, or a soapbox, but like you, I know that some people still feel like Misplaced Pages is a place for free speech. Andrea Parton 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It would perhaps be more acceptable to all concerned to say something like "Free Speech comes second to making a good encyclopedia." - after all, we value free speech - just not when it screws up the articles. SteveBaker 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This discussion makes me think about the recent debate on userboxes that I have seen on Misplaced Pages. I agree with the NPOV and no personal attacks policies, but I feel like the former should apply only to the encyclopedic namespaces, not to user pages, talk pages, or project pages. I feel like userboxes of a political nature should be allowed, as long as they are not potentially offensive, but some, including Jimbo, disagree with me. Every day, userboxes pertaining to ]]politics|political]], religious, and polemical beliefs are deleted, and Jimbo has discouraged their use, as he says they "attract the wrong kinds of people and give the wrong impression of what it means to be a Wikipedian." Many others feel that such userboxes are helpful to the project by allowing Wikipedians to state their inherent biases on their user pages. Even though it's been established that user pages are not meant for lengthy biographies or to host personal websites, userboxes are still highly controversial.
Well, with that controversy aside, free speech is valued on almost all talk pages, as long as it is not , profane, libelous, it does not violate copyright, and it is not patent nonsense. Generally, topics on talk pages are expected to be related to the subject of the article. Differing points of view are encouraged in articles, as long as they are all represented fairly and are all verifiable. After all, this is a free-content encyclopedia, but the really important word there is encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a place for political propaganda, advertising, vanity content, and a number of other things. Information in articles must be verifiable and neutral. I don't know that saying that Misplaced Pages is not a free speech platform really says anything that is not already stated in Misplaced Pages policy. I think saying that "Free speech comes second to making a good encyclopedia" leaves out a great deal in terms of what is acceptable on Misplaced Pages and what is not.
Andrea Parton 00:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Soapbox contradiction, part II
Recently, the following text was removed from Misplaced Pages:Autobiography:
- "Of course, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, sexual orientation, criminal involvement or lack thereof, current employer, place of birth, work done in foreign countries, etc. However, be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it."
with the summary "letting people correct factual errors about themselves is inconsistent with official policy" and refering to #Soapbox contradiction.
That section quotes the ArbCom ruling "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so" from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt#Writing about yourself. Ken Arrombee claims that this implies that people may not correct errors in articles about themselves. However, I think that the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Proposed decision#Writing about yourself and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop#Writing about yourself clearly shows that the Arbitration Committee did not want to put an absolute ban autobiographical editing.
I think that "you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself" reflects Misplaced Pages practice. It was added to Misplaced Pages:Autobiography during the above-mentioned ArbCom case for that reason and I think there was little discussion because it reflects the consensus. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved" is pretty hard to misinterpret. It doesn't, after all, say 'editors should usually avoid...' or qualify the ban in any way. If Misplaced Pages practice doesn't match the policy, and Misplaced Pages practice and not the policy should be considered correct, then the policy should be changed.
- If you don't or can't change the policy, then the policy stands. Ken Arromdee 19:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The policy only mentions the ArbCom ruling, which as I said is not meant to ban autobiographical editing in all circumstances. Furthermore, the "see Misplaced Pages:Autobiography" suggests that that point of the policy is meant to summarize Misplaced Pages:Autobiography. So, I don't think there is a policy supporting an unqualified ban.
However, apparently you think there is. How about clarifying the policy in the following way:
- Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." This does not constitute an unqualified ban on autobiographical editing, but it does warn editors to be very careful when working on articles related to themselves. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography for further guidance.
For reference, the current wording is:
- Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography and Misplaced Pages:Notability.
-- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps it's easier to change the ArbCom decision being quoted. The principles
- Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Involvement_in_the_event
- Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others#Autobiography
are on the same subject, and they clearly do not ban autobiographical editing. By the way, I haven't found any discussion here about adding the ArbCom ruling. Is there none? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Quoting a second ArbCom decision that allows autobiographical editing doesn't really fix the problem, because the fact that such a decision even exists means that you have two ArbCom decisions which, when read literally, contradict each other. Is there someone with the authority to say that the words of the first ArbCom decision don't accurately express what was intended?
- (Also, upon reading those decisions myself, I don't find that they clearly allow autobiographical editing at all. They condemn autobiographical editing in terms as strong as possible without actually banning it. It's clear to us that this strong condemnation isn't a ban--but it won't be clear to people like Siegenthaler, who are newbies. If you want Siegenthaler to be able to edit his own article, you can't bury this among verbiage like "discouraged" and "guideline". You need to say it clearly and distinctly.) Ken Arromdee 16:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure i like the original text either. I'm not sure sexual orientation (which is one of the examples given) has a place in most wikipedia articles at all (unless there is a very good reason to give it) its hard to verify and in most cases not very relavent (similar to the shoe size example on the main page). I propose something like.
- Feel free to remove accusations without a good sources. Personal information that is not already widely availible and Unsourced changes of figures that you know are incorrect and to make corrections to such unsourced information but do not change or remove information attributed to a reputable source even if you know it to be untrue or outdated (you may of course point out the date of the source though).
Ken, I was proposing to replace the ArbCom ruling by another one. I think it would be helpful if you proposed some text yourself. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- How does replacing the ruling do anything? Just because you stop mentioning the first ruling doesn't mean it isn't policy; there are still two contradictory rulings, one on the page and one not on the page.
- My only proposal is for someone with authority to decide that the first ArbCom ruling need not be followed in the way it is worded. I don't know who has the authority to override ArbCom rulings, but I'm pretty certain it isn't me. Once this has been done, thus negating one of the contradictory rulings, replacing the text is easy. Ken Arromdee 05:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- The only ones with the authority to recant ArbCom rulings is the ArbCom itself and Jimbo Wales. However, ArbCom rulings are always in relation to a particular case. The Arbitration Committee itself does not make policies, but they reflect the policies. Policies arise primarily out of consensus of the editors (see Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#How are policies started?). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- The ArbCom ruling certainly wasn't phrased as if it referred to a particular case. "Editors should avoid..." doesn't seem to say that only one particular editor should avoid it, but rather that this applies to all editors.
- And the fact that we are including ArbCom rulings in this page at all means we think they apply to future actions by other editors. If ArbCom rulings are as specific as you suggest, we shouldn't mention them. Ken Arromdee 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Plugwash, the text "Of course, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself …" was at Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, not here; but your make a good point that sexual orientation should be excluded.
I had a look at the history of this page and found the version before it was changed to include the ArbCom ruling:
- "Self-promotion. While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. A very few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography and Misplaced Pages:Notability."
Actually, I like this version better than my previous proposal. However, I'm not so keen on the sentence "A very few … after some debate." and I propose that it is replaced by some kind of warning, for instance,
- "Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography and Misplaced Pages:Notability."
-- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I like this version. Stephen B Streater 08:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- How about adding a section mentioning the ArbCom decision and stating that it doesn't apply?
- Although the arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved," the arbitration committee only rules on particular cases. Editors other than the one in that case need not avoid contributing to articles about themselves as long as the above rules are followed.
- As it is, the decision still contradicts both this page and other ArbCom decisions. Ken Arromdee 13:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- How about adding a section mentioning the ArbCom decision and stating that it doesn't apply?
- I think that would be going into too much detail. This is primarily about the nature of ArbCom decisions, and it would only be useful for those who know Misplaced Pages well enough to have read that decision but do not know their nature. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Those who know Misplaced Pages well enough to have read that decision" in this case means "those who read the previous version of the page and wonder why that changed." Though I suppose this section is enough for that. Ken Arromdee 13:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the ArbCom, in order to handle one bad case, made a ruling far broader than they should have, and people are scurrying to ignore the ruling in ways vague enough to not cast aspersions on ArbCom rulings in general. I don't think that's going to work. If you don't make it clear that this ruling applies to one editor and not "editors", it's going to come up again and again. My proposal, such as it is, is that if that ruling isn't valid, we should outright say "please ignore it." How to do this without going into too much detail, I don't really know, but having a ruling which contradicts both policy and other rulings *is* a problem, and needs to be solved somehow. Ken Arromdee 13:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I say we just ignore mentioning arbcom cases, and use Jitse Niesen's 9th May text. Steve block Talk 15:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a guide to the internet
Is it? Should we have an article on every website on the net, using that article as source, or not? Should we document every occurrence on the web, given the web acts as a reference guide to what occurs on it? I say no, we need third party sources to build articles, but I'm interested in opinions. Steve block Talk 21:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- We don't need to document the internet as it happens, the net itself does this. And yeah, by simple WP:V, no third party sources means no article. Friday (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages does not need an article on every website out there. I think that falls under the policy that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That said, articles on websites should be written according to the notability guidelines. Andrea Parton 23:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- WP:N is a touchy subject, hence the classification as an essay, and not a guideline as you imply. Ansell 06:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- So can we add this text to the page under Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information?
- 9. Internet guides. Misplaced Pages articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
- Would that sum the position? Steve block Talk 18:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I like the wording of the above statement, it puts emphasis on the practical meaning of encyclopedic in the context of websites. Ansell 03:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a mirror
How do other people read the mirror part of "Misplaced Pages is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files"? I take that to mean that WP should not duplicate the content of another page (unless it substantially changes it, in which case it is no longer a mirror). I've read another interpretation that this applies to mirroring repositories of links and that WP may mirror encyclopedic content. I think the neither/nor excludes that reading. Шизомби 00:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- You have a point there, even though I was the one who brought this issue up here in a bold statement of my view. Possibly too bold now that I think about it from another perspective. However, I still think that the fact that the content is actually encyclopedic (IMO) overrides the fact that it was from a mirror. Ansell 06:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I too share the same opinion about this with user Ansell. If the content is encyclopedic, it has to overide the fact that it was from a mirror. --Siva1979 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Attack Lists and other trivial stuff for Anime, video game, manga, etc. Characters
I understand completely how everyone feels "indiscriminate collections of information," and I fully agree that random information bits have no place here, however when it comes to anime characters with special "attacks" that they use I feel differently as they can be an important part of these characters and the story that they tell.
As for Misplaced Pages policy, I quote "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic" which the character attacks do very much.
Not only do the attacks give the Misplaced Pages readers a feel for each character's unique fighting style, but they give insight into their personalities and help reinforce their attitudes. Take Monkey D. Luffy from One Piece for example, all his attacks are based on real objects and weapons (Pistol, Rifle, Windmill) thus reinforing the idea that even though he's a pirate on an unimaginable journey, he is in essence a normal person. In contrast take someone like Eneru, also from One Piece whose attack's are mostly based on various Thunder deites, thus reinforcing the fact that he sees himself as a god and nothing less. In closing I feel very strongly that they are essential to the character's Misplaced Pages profiles and as a loyal fan to Manga, Anime and the hard working people who create them and will do everything I can to keep them in their rightful place, because if they were not significant then why would writers and animators bother to make them in the first place? (KingKogs 7 May 1:46 GMT)
- Readers might also note I've been transwiking said information to wikibooks for more consise organization. See Talk:Roronoa Zoro#Incriminate information for an ongoing discussion, as well as the most recent posts on my talkpage. A demonstration of my actions can be seen in the previous version and the transwikied version. There is no removal of data here, its simply classified as indiscriminate and for that reason I moved it to wikibooks (per policy) and made the appropriate link from there. Everyone wins. -Zero 06:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- As of this update, KingKogs and I have more or less resolved this issue. However, this is a relelvant case that I think would assist for future reference, so I'd still prefer to hear discussion on this matter. -Zero 08:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
NPOV query
The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable.
Does this mean that I cannot contribute to an article about the school I am studying in? Does the 'personally involved' phrase prevent me to contribute? blooz 21:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)blooz
- That ArbCom ruling concerned the case of a notable computer science professor, Carl Hewitt (that's his biographical article, not his userpage; he's no longer on Misplaced Pages). He created numerous interlinking articles about his main contribution to the discipline (the Actor model)--including numerous claims that his research is of significant important to physics (he never published in any physics journal, and the link is tenuous at best). Many other computer science and physics editors implored him to stop, and he continued on; eventually an arbitration case was started. The ArbCom told him to cease and desist (or be blocked otherwise), at which point Hewitt left Misplaced Pages. Rest assured, that this case involved a significant conflict of interest, and significant inappropriate behavior. Creating a link about your school is not going to get you in trouble.
- Also, should ArbCom rulings be cited as policy? Misplaced Pages has in the past tolerated edits about yourself, as long as you respect NPOV--has there been an official change to discourage edits where a potential conflict of interest exists? --EngineerScotty 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- See the related discussion above specifically about autobiographical edits. While the ArbCom ruling is not exactly policy, it does seem to me that the consensus is shifting on this topic and that autobiographical edits are being viewed with increasing skepticism.
To the original question, contributions about your school are still acceptable but it is important to maintain a degree of distance and perspective. If you find yourself in edit wars or getting emotionally attached to certain versions of the article, you should ask whether you are too close to the topic to edit neutrally. If you find yourself unable to do so, it's best to let others build the article. Rossami (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)- I'm not sure you are reading the tea leaves correctly as on which way the consensus is shifting. I recently came across Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons which suggested that the consensus is moving in the other way. However, when I reread that page just now, I noticed that it is also in a state of flux. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- See the related discussion above specifically about autobiographical edits. While the ArbCom ruling is not exactly policy, it does seem to me that the consensus is shifting on this topic and that autobiographical edits are being viewed with increasing skepticism.
Abbitis
So far I have not been able to find an official definition of the word "Abbitis"
Here are my search results so far:
- "... the abbitis that was round the fort."
Page 242, 1776 by David McCullogh
- Col. Sumter having no cannon to destroy the abbatis or the buildings selected some of his bravest followers to remove the abbitis and to endeavor to set fire to the buildings, while his troops, under cover of the trees and rocks, on the declivity of the mountain, maintained a heavy fire upon the Rocky Mount garrison. After three attacks, in the last of which some of the forlorn hope penetrated within the abbatis, the Americans retreated with loss and precipitation."
The Southern Campaigns of the American Revolution, Vol. 1, No. 1 September 2004, Charles B. Baxley, editor
Here are the results when you type 'English definition of abbitis' in Google:
- Did you mean: English definition of rabbits
- Our line was quickly formed, as I looked across the intervening space to the bristling forts, and viewed the rugged mountain side, with the interminable abbitis that lay between, and then cast my eye along our slender line, I thought to myself, there will be hot work here if the regiments are made of resolute men.
MEMOIRS OF THE CIVIL WAR, W. L. TRUMAN
--66.90.229.82 14:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)JorgeG
- If all you want is a definition, I recommend that you try Wiktionary, the open-source dictionary. The word you are looking for, though, is properly spelled "abatis". It is a barrier made by cutting down trees and interlocking the branches. In Civil War times, the branches were often sharpened to make the barrier even more impenatrable. The name shares a derivation with "abattoir" which should give you a sense of how effective they are against infantry attacks. Rossami (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not Wiki
I have seen many new users refer to Misplaced Pages as simply "Wiki", which is incorrect because a wiki does not necessarily mean Misplaced Pages. SCHZMO ✍ 19:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Wiki" is shorthand for Misplaced Pages and valid in the context of local usage. Everyone knows what it means and no one needs to type the whole thing out all the time. Coyoty 04:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, there are those that claim that WikiWikiWeb is the only wiki which gets to call itself Wiki. :) Fortunately, Ward Cunningham is not the territorial sort. --EngineerScotty 05:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (who frequents both of the wikis that call themselves Wiki).
There is a difference between uppercap Wiki and lowercap wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Time to rethink the philosphy of the page "What Misplaced Pages is not"
Discussion transferred here from a deletion page on a List (with minor revision to remove topic specific comments)... I think the comment transcends that specific area...
- Our basis for deciding what should be allowed in Misplaced Pages is bizarre. We apparently do it by telling the reader what (Misplaced Pages is not). Decision processes based on negativity are always weak and open to debate.
- It is time for a logical and systematic statement of what warrants being placed on a list. Here are my quick thoughts on a systematic set to rules for a list based on the characteristics of an encyclopedia:
- … “comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge” …“an encyclopedia treats each subject in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject”… Since the use of the encyclopedia is research, the primary purpose of a list is to facilitate research.
- THEREFORE A LIST may cover any branch of knowledge, but must be arguably relevant (i.e., useful for some form of research):
- “General encyclopedias often contain … as well as embedded dictionaries and gazetteers”… a gazetteer is a “geographical dictionary, an important reference for information about places and place-names”…
- THEREFORE A LIST may cover gazetteer information if it provides important reference information about places and place-names. (Note: this does raise a question whether we shouldn’t create a sister Wiki project… a Wikigazetter.)
- “Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain.”
- THEREFORE A LIST should convey important accumulated knowledge for an identifiable subject domain.
- … “systematic method of organization is essential to making an encyclopedia usable as a work of reference.”
- THEREFORE A LIST should logically enter into the Wiki list structure as a head set or subset… the proposor of a new list has the responsibility for proposing a logical structure under which a list falls in the current scheme of lists.
- “As modern multimedia and the information age have evolved, they have had an ever-increasing effect on the collection, verification, summation, and presentation of information of all kinds.”…
- THEREFORE A LIST may be proposed if it is a logical collection or summation of information… the logic must be clear to the casual reader.
- “lists for the sake of lists may become an unmaintainable list of lists."
- THEREFORE A LIST may be proposed if it is useful to categorize or disambiguate”
- … “comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge” …“an encyclopedia treats each subject in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject”… Since the use of the encyclopedia is research, the primary purpose of a list is to facilitate research.
We need to get beyond… well I think so… well I don’t think so… well, I still think so… well I still don’t think so…
Anyone else think it is time to move beyond the philosphy "What Misplaced Pages is not" and develop criteria against which article can be judged when they are proposed?
UmptanumRedux 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Idea by User:Peripitus inserted into list above. Williamborg 02:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
List vs. Game Manual
Instruction manuals - while Misplaced Pages has descriptions of people, places, and things, Misplaced Pages articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.
Recently this guideline has been used in a AFD debate regarding a page entitled Structures of the GLA. It has been settled that the page can not be maintained here in its current form, a discion which I accept; however, this AFD has been riddled with claims that the page voilates the game manual clause of WP:NOT.
By their very nature both real-time strategy and turn-based strategy games rely almost exclusively on a collection of units and structures that are operated by a player or by the player’s opponent. I feel that there must be a way for this encyclopedic information to be listed and maintained here on Misplaced Pages without violating the game manual provision. To that end, I feel that a better definition of a game manual as it pertains to RTS and TBS games is needed here. I submit that a list of units and/or structures that appear in RTS or TBS games, the general roles of those units and/or structures (ie vehical manufacturing, resource gathering, etc), and any upgrades for units/structures appearing in these games is encyclopedic and therefore should not be in violation of the game manual clause. By omitting the cost, tech level, and prerequists we aviod produce a game manual by requiring a person to either research such information or purchase the game. TomStar81 01:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I took part in this AfD and there certainly seems to be a need for specialist input into definitions, rather than a reaction of "it looks like stuff in a game manual, so it's not valid". Tyrenius 01:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd think that such a list would violate the current WIKI NOT guidelines. If these guidelines need to be changed is a matter for the consensus and community. I would like to suggest instead that it be considered if a page that merely sums up the major points of each side and the major structures/units of each side existed, would it be against WIKI NOT? --Lakhim 02:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- How about this? General information should be the limit of such articles, such as what so and so does and makes available to the player. The moment it starts mentioning technical details in excess such as what is mentioned above, or even more in-depth data such as game formulae, consider it unnecessary and open to culling. CABAL 11:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I could a gree with that, but I would take it one step further and say that all RTS games and TBS games should adhere to that, not just generals. In this way other games like StarCraft and Dune can follow in C&C's footprints and expand there pages accordingly. TomStar81 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are plenty of game guides and lists of game items online. Just link to them from the wikipedia article. No need to saddle wikipedia with this kind of information - its unencyclopedic Bwithh 23:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Consider a seperate argument then: Why do we have game articles on dedicated charcters from Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts and Pokemon and so forth? It seems somewhat unfair that those pages are not being nominated for deletion, but a page with RTS structures is. All I am asking is for some wiggle room with these two types of games as it pertains to Misplaced Pages. Outsorcing information to other websites when it could be covered here in a legitimate and community agreed upon way seems bias. TomStar81 23:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
List of definitions vs glossary
I recently supported the deletion of List of fighting game terms, as it was a list of definitions. However, I wonder if I have erred, and should have instead supported its transmogrification into a Glossary of fighting game terms. What would be the key differences? Here are some rough ideas - please contribute, with a view to formalising the distinction somewhere: A glossary should have:
- Only widely-accepted, standard terms within the field, no slang or obscure terms
- Only a brief definition as required to understand the term. No long definitions with examples, or fine nuances explained.
- Only terms actually used within Misplaced Pages (within reason).
In this case, that list came pretty close to fulfilling these requirements, and with a bit of trimming, would have gotten there. Perhaps an admin could undelete it for review? Stevage 09:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think the distinction between a "list of xxx terms" and a "glossary of xxx" is one merely of semantics and that neither are appropriate for the encyclopedia. They just don't fit well. They are, however, very appropriate pages as an appendix in Wiktionary. See Wiktionary:Category:Appendices for a number of examples of such glossaries. Some of them are very good, some still in development - like all our wikipages.
- The sentence on this page that "Misplaced Pages also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields" predates the general acceptance of Wiktionary Appendices and is, I believe, obsolete. We can easily provide a handy cross-wiki link directly from Misplaced Pages to the specific Wiktionary appendix page for anyone interested in the glossary. Rossami (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Database dumps
I'd like to add the following to Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information:
- Database extracts, especially from readily available authoritative sources.
We have deleted a number of articles including Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of SWIFT codes (Second nomination) where the content of the article is simply an extract of an offsite database. Others we have kept, like List of ...For Dummies books, despite the fact that the entire content is a (non-authoritative) copy-paste of the lists on the publisher's website which appears to include around 1,400 entries, among which as far as I can tell there is not one single bluelink despite the fact that we have recently doubled the number of For Dummies books on which we have articles. There are now two of them.
Database copy & pastes are not technically a copyvio as long as the data is presented in an obvious order (or so I'm told), but there is surely nothing encyclopaedic about copying and pasting lists of text - especially if a fully authoritative source is freely available online. It was noted in a discussion some time back that if you find yourself copying and pasting the bulk of an article from another source it's a sure sign that what you are doing is wrong. Whether that's entirely true I don't know, but I do know that, for example, maintaining a mirror of the UK's list of statutory instruments for 1996, all 3,278 of them, of which only a handful are bluelinked, is probably less useful than having a category for the articles and adding a link to the OPSI website which lists the rest. Yes, we're not paper, but neither are we the Yellow Pages.
This would not prevent a Wikiproject from making an article in Project space with a number of redlinks for filling by interested parties, but it would reduce the problem of lists which are mirrors at sme fixed point in time of an easily available authoritative source which is, if the reader wants current information, the place to go. It seems to be what was meant by WP:NOT a mirror or collectionof external links, but I find some reluctance to interpret that guideline as covering copy and paste from database extract or online databases. Just zis Guy you know? 13:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- You can't have such a blanket rule. What if the entries are for encyclopedic topics? What if its just a limited portion of a larger article? Such a rule could be used to delete the track listings from albums, imdb credits from bios, neighborhood listings from municipalities, and various other things. Let's keep the section to things everybody agrees on. For instance, there's wide agree any directory listing company phone numbers is bad. BTW, I agree List of ...For Dummies books is bad, but List of ...For Dummies books to win award X might be ok, even if gathered in the same way. Oddly, your proposal would actually discriminate against well sourced lists, done with no originality. Yet lists based on originality would be unnaffected. --Rob 15:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Example: List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning would be exempt from your rule. As the unaccredited ones, aren't (AFAIK) in the source database, and hence aren't from an extract. It is made from original research by Wikipedians, combining many sources, often adding names individually, based on investigation. However if List of accredited institutions of higher learning were copied straight from International Association of Universities (or whatever is the appropriate reliable source), with no additions/removals of individual entries, it would violate your proposed rule, even though it would list encyclopedic topics, and be properly sourced. Personally, I would rather have a verifiable list of accredited institutions, than an original list of unaccredited ones. --Rob 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a travel brochure
I've noticed that many location articles, especially the ones about towns and villages that are popular tourist destinations, read like a travel brochure. Words like "stunning", "splendid views", "offers four star accomodation" and other suggestions about what to do and where to visit blah blah blah. It never fails to piss me off that no matter how obvious it is that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA people still write up articles that seem to've been copied straight out of the Going Places guide. Perhaps we need some legislation on this? --Badharlick 12:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Suggested wording change to "Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary" section of policy
Following a Village Pump discussion here, I would like a propose a change to the wording of section 2 of the "Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary" section of this policy:
- Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary: "Misplaced Pages articles are not: Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Misplaced Pages also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields."
I propose changing this to clarify that disambiguation pages are not lists of dictionary definitions:
- Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary: "Misplaced Pages articles are not: lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these disambiguation pages are not intended to be lists of definitions, but are used to distinguish between articles where the words used in a title can refer to several different meanings. Misplaced Pages also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields."
Please also see the related proposals here and here. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
"Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy" section needs redesign
Currently, the section states:
- In particular, Misplaced Pages is not a system of law. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines (see Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering). Our dispute resolution process exists to mediate and arbitrate disputes between users, not to enforce judicial remedies.
I am afraid this section is needs to be rewritten and retitled. Currently it is a collections of claims, some of them true, some of them disputable, but all apparently lumped together in this one section without much thought to their connection and even less to the section title (bureaucracy). Let me divide the claims into several groups:
- Misplaced Pages is not bureaucracy. In particular, Misplaced Pages is not a system of law. This is the part that I find dubious. Consider Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines. While that very policy states that we should respect spirit of the law (Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules comes to mind), the very existance of those policies and guidelines, and in fact the very existence of the 'Misplaced Pages' namespace seem to indicate that Misplaced Pages has a legal system of sorts. It is not important here whether our system is based on codexes, precedents, traditions, norms, their mix or something else, the fact is that it *exists*. This becomes even more clear when we consider the existance of WP:RFM and the organisations that it has spawned (Arbitrators, Mediators, Advocates...). As for bureaucracy, looking at our definition it reads that this concept refers to administrative execution and enforcement of legal rules is socially organized. This office organization is characterized by standardized procedure, formal division of responsibility, hierarchy, and impersonal relationships. With standarized procedure reading 'Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines', formal division of responsibility reading 'we have administrators, bureaucrats, developers, etc.' and impersonal relationships reading 'there are too many Wikipedians for any single of them to know all others, therefore in many cases a Wikipedian will look for example for 'an administrator' to solve his problem, not for a particular individual', I think it becomes quite clear that Misplaced Pages is in fact a bureaucracy. For those sociologically-minded, this article explains why any complex organization such as Misplaced Pages has to become a bureaucracy, no matter how idealistic its goal is (and on a sidenote, becoming a bureaucracy is nothing bad).
- Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines (see Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering). Those statements continue debating the organization and spirit of Misplaced Pages, however unlike their two predecessors which state dubious 'facts', those three sentences are a praiseworthy guideline and should be kept. Whether they belong in 'What Misplaced Pages is not' article or some other, and under what heading, is howerver a matter for debate.
- Our dispute resolution process exists to mediate and arbitrate disputes between users, not to enforce judicial remedies Finally the third part of the discussed paragraph concerns the dispute resolution process. The same concern as in my point 2 above apply: while this is a good piece of information, does it belong here and does it belong in this paragraph?
I am awaiting your comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with what you are saying. Would you be able to do a draft rewrite somewhere to incorporate these suggested changes? Oh, and thanks for the link to stuff on oligarchies. Isn't the way to avoid that through change and renewal? With different people coming in as others leave or become less active? Carcharoth 10:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd recommend merging the 3rd part of the above para with 'Misplaced Pages is not a battleground'. The 2nd part could be retitled 'Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in rule making'.
- I am glad you liked the article; I am not sure that the rule can be ever completly disregarded, but I do think Internet makes it more easy to 'bend it'. Misplaced Pages, although it is becoming more and more oligarchic, is unlikely to ever become an oligarchy like a modern political party. For example, we are much more informal and the division between 'mass and rank' and 'leaders' is less clear cut, the power distance is also much smaller (for example we can freely debate the (minor, sure) change to *this* policy, and likely implement it in a few days, even if not a single person from the Board becomes involved in the process). The membership rotation I am afraid doesn't work here, as it actually reinforces the iron law: is not about the members that leave: it is about members who stay and in time become more aware of our internal workings, possibly joining various Misplaced Pages organizations, achieving some recongnition (positions, barnstars, becoming known as 'experts' in given field, etc.) and thus their opinions will count more in a discussion just because they are who they are, especially compared to the other end of a spectrum (unregistered editors).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- In reality, very few communities or societies have truly implemented a single political system. Misplaced Pages, like most communities, is a combination of bureaucracy, oligarchy, autocracy, anarchy, democracy, meritocracy, and other things. I agree with the others that Misplaced Pages's original goal was to have as little hierarchy as possible, but that some hierarchy has been necessary to maintain order and efficiency on Misplaced Pages. If Misplaced Pages were to be considered an experiment in anarchy, it has definitely shown that pure anarchy would not be very practical. Of course, as Jimbo has said, Misplaced Pages is not meant as a social experiment, though it is one by necessity. In addition to having a problem with the section "Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy", I also am not happy with the current revision of "Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy". I think the best thing to say would be "Misplaced Pages is not a majoritarian democracy", as that is what the paragraph in this section is basically saying. Perhaps another section could be titled "Misplaced Pages is not a social experiment". That would cover many things that the existing sections stating that Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in anarchy or democracy, and that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. As was recently mentioned on this talk page, I am increasingly believing that this page is problematic because it lists things that some people may see Misplaced Pages as that it is not meant to be, often without clearly stating what Misplaced Pages is with regard to the issue. As someone once asked on this page, if Misplaced Pages is not an anarchy, a democracy, or an oligarchy, what is it? The real answer is that it is all three of these, and some other things as well. Andrea Parton 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I feel kind of sentimental about "Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy" but I agree with your reasons above. The largest reason I am not happy with it is because it's not comprehensive (as you note we are not *many things*), then, of course, a complete list of things Misplaced Pages is not is a rather silly idea. Having said that, I'd support statements like: "Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in any social or political system" (with a note that we have the qualites of many).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
A Joke
Misplaced Pages is not a democracy? Well, I think it should be! Let's have a vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.217.225 (talk • contribs)
Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection
Would anybody have any objection if I expanded point 1 from WP is not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons." to "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)"? Vizjim 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I'll be bold and do it. if anyone has any objections, please just revert it and discuss your reason here. Vizjim 08:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest adding that WP is not a repository of pointless trivia. Some articles have grown a section on "<X> in popular culture", which is typically a mind-numbing enumeration of appearances in films, video games, etc. Leibniz 16:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a database of all people
Nimur was bold and added a new section to this page without discussion here. I'm not going to revert it because I think it's a good addition but we should probably discuss the addition some. I particularly like the wording on the caution against autobiographical entries. We do not have an absolute prohibition but it's never a good idea to try to write about yourself. The link to Misplaced Pages:Notability is also explicitly described as a guideline, not a policy-level rule. I think the wording strikes a very good balance. Rossami (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I reverted it. Misplaced Pages:Notability is itself an essay, not even a guideline, let alone policy. If a guideline were to be linked to it would be Misplaced Pages:Notability (people), but even that's not good, as this is core policy, and that is a mere guideline. Also, the whole autobiography thing, is very much lacking consensus. This page is supposed to be reserved for things where there's an unimabigious consensus to not have it. --Rob 03:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize for my failure to discuss this section. I believe it is appropriate, however. I have recently been working on some projects regarding public education; and it seems that a lot of articles about schools have an Alumni section filled with random and un-encyclopedic content (e.g., lists of all persons who graduated in 1984, etc). This is a particular case of a larger issue across the wikipedia. We want to make sure that the content stays relevant to the larger percentage of Wikipedians.
- As far as the my addition: I have seen references to this concept scattered in other guidelines and official policies. During a recent wave of article-edits, I made several deletions, and was looking for a central citation for reasons on a AfDs. I could not find a central location. Can we find a way to reach consensus so as to re-include this section? I believe it is important. Nimur 11:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- It could however mention WP:BIO which is generally accepted as a guideline (although there's a disputed tag on there now, there usually isn't, and the dispute is I think over a relatively fine point). As far as I can tell WP:NOT doesn't mention that right now. But WP:NOT is already pretty long and it's hard to imagine uninformed people reading it in its entirety before creating a new article... does it really need to define every single inclusion guideline we have? --W.marsh 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a TV/Radio Guide
I've seen a number of articles, especially radio articles start to contain full schedules of television and radio programmes. Because schedules change often and don't usually contain information about the TV/radio station of the article, could it be classed that schedules in articles can not be seen as encyclopedic, and would be better suited to a dedicated TV/Radio guide? Sonic 18:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is somewhat covered under 1.7.7, "a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable)". I think you might consider tweaking that a bit rather than creating a new section. --W.marsh 19:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I'll make a little tweak to that point now. Thanks. Sonic 20:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Not an "instruction manual"
I was wondering what "instruction manual" actually means. Someone proposed deletion for a page I created, because of this "instruction manual" policy. However it was a list, and not a how-to in any way. I think that some clarification needs to be made as to what an "instruction manual" is. Fresheneesz 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, given the discussion above concerning how-to's and instruction manuals, I have a mind to question the "not an instruction manual" policy. I think it really needs to be clarified when an article can be a how to, when it can't, and what an instruction manual is. Fresheneesz 19:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Main space articles should not give any form of instruction. Period. Raul654 19:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
To make this operational: Misplaced Pages articles should not contain anything unquoted in the second person, the imperative, or the exhortative:
- Second person, speaking about the reader: "You are reading an English Misplaced Pages article, so you can read English." Misplaced Pages does not know the reader; and indeed does not even know if it has been translated into a different language.
- Imperative, instructing the reader to do something: "If you want to block spam from your Eudora mail client, follow these steps ...." Misplaced Pages does not give explicit instructions, requests, or commands to the reader.
- Exhortative, suggesting a course of action: "Anyone who wants to buy a cow should go to their local cow dealer." Misplaced Pages does not advise the reader or recommend actions.
(The caveat "unquoted" is because we may want to quote from sources which are in these forms.) --FOo 20:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Concentrating on writing style versus the substance of the information contained in an article is evading the question. An article written in a "how-to" style that contains encyclopedic information should be marked for improvement, not deletion or transwikification. Similarly, an article written in a discriptive style, but which contains information one would expect to find in a non-notable instruction manual, should be nominated for deletion or movement to a more suitable site.
- For example, an article containing the phrase "to find the most appropriate battery technology for your application, gather the following information" is probably a candidate for improvement, while an article that contains the phrase "the purpose of the timer button on the remote control is to turn the television off after the viewer has fallen asleep..." is probably a candidate for deletion.
- Since the discusions on this talk page have concentrated largely on style rather than substance, I feel little guidance has been given on what is or is not suitable for Misplaced Pages, other than to rule out paraphrases of the instruction manuals that manufacturers provide with products. Gerry Ashton 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
On citing your *own* "original research" elsewhere
Eric Zorn, a journalist and blogger, coined a law in his blog, and then created the article Zorn's Law to legitimise it. This seems to exploit a hole in the WP:NOT rules, specifically the line "citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion", which doesn't work when the editor is himself a print-medium author. Further discussion on Talk:Zorn's Law.... /blahedo (t) 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Everything in wikipedia also has to be notable. If Zorn's law is only mentioned in Mr. Zorn's blog/website/article, then it's not really notable. If it catches on then we can have an article on it that cites Zorn's work, but if it hasn't caught on or been used elsehwere then it's really NN. --Bachrach44 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Citing your own research is acceptable on Misplaced Pages; this is obviously true, because to tell a Nobel Prize-winning physicist he couldn't write on the subject of his published research would be lunacy. However, everything on Misplaced Pages must be from a reliable source, and I very much doubt this guy's blog counts. -- SCZenz 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd say his blog is borderline. If you think the phrase is non-notable, merge it, or put it on AfD. This isn't a whole in the rules, though, just a grey area. -- SCZenz 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
WP is not the pages
A bit of advice I've included in some speedy nominations, as part of RC patrol: Misplaced Pages is neither the white pages nor the yellow pages; we're not a directory of people, business, or other organizations. The fact that some people or businesses are given articles doesn't mean that anybody gets one. --EngineerScotty 23:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- We already say wikipedia is not a directory - is that good enough? (It's number 7 under "inidscriminate collector of info). --Bachrach44 01:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- We could add the white/yellow pages as an alternate expression; to drive the point home. :) --EngineerScotty 04:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Was I right to do this?
I removed a link to a Nazi propaganda, anti-Semitic film called "The Enternal Jew". It was being linked to from a neo-Nazi website through Misplaced Pages. The film is banned everywhere in the world and only available for viewing with special permission or explicit educational licenses.
Was I right to remove it? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.194.50 (talk • contribs)
- Depends; what page was it removed from? If it was an article on anti-Semitism or a similar topic, the link may have been relevant. If it was on an article on Judaism itself, I would remove it--the screeds of neo-Nazis are seldom a reliable source on the topic of Jews. The fact that it is illegal in some countries doesn't matter. It's legal in the United States, where Misplaced Pages is hosted (our First Amendment generally prohibits the outlawing of political texts, no matte how offensive); and Misplaced Pages links to much content which is illegal in many parts of the world (including other Neo-nazi sites). In some cases, this is clearly appropriate; Misplaced Pages links to works on the Falun Gong, for example, which are illegal in the People's Republic of China. --EngineerScotty 16:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It was linked to from "The Eternal Jew" page.
- In that case, I actually would have left the link. The Eternal Jew clearly labels the film as a piece of Nazi propaganda, and linking to the film in question seems to be a logical step. (For the record, The page on Mein Kampf links to an English version of that book). I would put it back, but we can wait for a few other people to chime in before doing anything if you want. --Bachrach44 17:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Proposal: Misplaced Pages is not a shock site
Last week, there was a case in which a user had put a male pornographic picture on his user talk page. He was convinced to take it down, but it appears there was no Misplaced Pages policy specifically addressing the issue.
The problem was not that the picture exists on Misplaced Pages but rather that it was placed where people would not expect to see it. If someone wants to see porno, that's that person's perrogative, but no one should be "subjected" to it if he or she wasn't looking for it.
I'd like to propose an addition to this project to address this situation:
Misplaced Pages is not a shock site
While shocking or disturbing content, such as sexually explicit or violent images, is not prohibited on Misplaced Pages, it, like all content, should only be placed where it is appropriate. No one should be subjected to shocking or disturbing content he or she was not looking for. This is not simply an issue of people seeing something they don't like. Users can get into serious trouble at school or work for viewing what their teacher or boss considers "inappropriate."
A topless photo might be appropriate on an article about a porn star, but should not be placed in an article about the porn star's home town, even if she is the only famous person to come out of the town.
Editors be sure that any links to potentially shocking or disturbing content clearly indicate what is on the other end of the link. For example, do not simply write, "John Atherton was executed for buggery." Because "buggery" is not a commonly used word in much of the English-speaking world, some users would be likely to click on that link, not realizing it leads to an article on anal sex.
Mwalcoff 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've actually been doing some thinking about this lately in regards to a case I've been dealing with and the whole discussion about images on the ejaculation page. I think this should actually go under the "wikipedia is not censored" section. Many peopl eassume that not censored = anything and everything goes. This is not true. The fact that it's not censored means we'll have open and adult discussions (as well as informative pictures) relating to genetalia, reproduction, and human sexuality. I think you've hit the issue right on the head though - when considering a given image, is the purpose of the image to inform, or is the purpose to tittilate or shock? If the later, then it doesn't belong. --Bachrach44 20:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- This concern is actually already discussed under the guideline Misplaced Pages:Profanity and the precedents described at Misplaced Pages:Pornography. It seems to me that WP:NOT should clarify site-wide content issues, rather than specific concerns. We could just as well create any number of similar NOT additions.--Leflyman 20:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. A link to the drill-down discussion might be appropriate in the "not censored" section. But we must be very cautious about adding more full paragraphs to this page. This page is too long already. Rossami (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with a policy such as this would be that people who disapprove of any particular kind of content can always claim to be "shocked" by its "explicit" depiction or discussion. They can then set up an argument, grounded in this policy, demanding that material of which they disapprove be excised from the encyclopedia, or replaced with material of such vagueness as to be uninformative. Any number of topics, such as social or cultural practices, religious works, human and animal anatomy, or controversial artworks could be targeted this way. If we're going to make a "shock site" distinction at all, it needs to be on the basis of preventing Misplaced Pages from being used trollishly rather than on the basis of content. For instance, goatse is a shock site, but medical images of the human rectum aren't. --FOo 04:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Unless, of course, the medical image of the human rectum is at dinosaur or something. -- Mwalcoff 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: This is adequately covered by other ares of WP:NOT.... such as: Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech. ---J.S (t|c) 16:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a translation guide
Lately there have been some deletion debates about articles that are, essentially, lists of how to translate proper nouns into other languages. For instance, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages. Sometimes, translations can make good subject matter for an article, if people have written interesting things about translation (see, for instance Harry Potter in translation). I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't have articles where the only purpose is to provide the translation of X between languages. So far, the only counterarguments I've seen are that the translations might be useful... but to me, that's too much along the lines of "all useful information should be in Misplaced Pages" which policy rejects (WP:NOT). The only kind of translation I've found interesting as a translation on its own are unusual non-literal translations; for instance, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is translated into German as "... Chamber of Fear," which is pretty different. There's GOT to be a point where we don't accept translation. I'd like to add "Misplaced Pages is not a translation guide" or "Misplaced Pages is not an intra-language dictionary" or something similar to the list. Any thoughts? Mangojuice 17:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a...
Cookbook and depository for every minor comic book character ever conceived. Can we add those two as well? BJK 23:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
WP is Not a Mere collections of internal links...
Item 2 under "Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" says
- Misplaced Pages articles are not: Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles.
I think this is outdated as far a lists are concerned. First of all the term structured list isn't defined anywhere and it isn't clear to me what it means. The part about "assist with the organisation of articles" makes it sound like the only lists that are allowed are the topic lists that predated the Category implementation. Yet lists are allowed. There are guidelines that instruct the best way to format and present lists and not just those that assist with the organisation of articles. My suggestion would be to remove this item as it hasn't been enforced for a long time. --JeffW 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to disagree. The lists that I know of which are clearly supported are those which meet the listed criteria. Yes, we have many other lists. I would argue are merely tolerated or just have not yet been cleaned up or deleted. Rossami (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff and I have been having a discussion about this after meeting at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies. I've been drafting an essay at WP:BO after being involved in several AfDs and discussions about these kind of lists. Deizio talk 01:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm with Rossami on this. A list which has no encyclopaedic content might as well be a category (which is at least self-maintaining). The best lists are ones which contextualise and order articles by some significant and encyclopaedic criteria. Just zis Guy you know? 17:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm also with Rossami here. JzG put it better than I could. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Pornography
I was reading the Misplaced Pages policy regarding who Misplaced Pages "is not censored." It says that the content cannot violate the laws of Florida. I was thinking, since this material is accessible to anybody without any kind of obvious warning about objectionable content, is there some concern about children accessing the material and how that could be a violation of the law? I understand that Misplaced Pages is provided primarily as an educational resource, but there's no doubt that some images (such as the one for the Prince Albert piercing) wouldn't be too hard to be considered pornographic or unnecessarily lacking in educational value. As an avid supporter of Misplaced Pages, I just want to know what the policy is on this, and, if I don't understand the law sufficiently, what prevents the Wikimedia Foundation from being required to institute some sort of click-through notice of potentially offensive content. If this was addressed previously, forgive my ignorance; Misplaced Pages can be so dense with content that I sometimes find adequate research a daunting task. Please be gentle when answering my question; I'm relatively well-schooled in law, but I have delicate personal sensibilities. Thanks. Lemonsawdust 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think Misplaced Pages is doing anything illegal. Misplaced Pages does have disclaimers, linked to at the bottom of every page. But since most sites have a "you must be 18" screen before showing any adult content, many assume that Misplaced Pages could get in trouble for not having one... I don't think there's really a legal case for that, despite what many people assume. Such laws have been proposed, like Child Online Protection Act, which was struck down as unconstitutional. I'm not sure what the situation with the Florida law specifically is though. --W.marsh 14:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Plot summaries
Given guidance on writing about fiction, any objections to adding the following to Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information?
10. Plot summaries - Misplaced Pages articles should not act as repositories for plot summaries, annotated or not, but should offer plot points where germane to sourced, critical discussions of the work, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
I think that's common consensus? Steve block Talk 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. It's almost impossible to do a plot summary without either original research or copyvio (if it's a reliable source's summary) so I think it's entirely reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think this would be an extremely contentious issue, as the vast slew of articles dealing with television shows, film, books and comics go beyond merely "plot points" into full summaries. I would not be surprised if that's a major chunk of the many articles on fictional topics. For example, the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television episodes is specifically set up to create episode summaries. See, Category:Lists of television series episodes. And don't forget the huge Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Star Wars. This addition is too late to have an effect on such developments. While I'm concerned about the spewing of original research in popular culture articles, I think the way to "improve" the situation is to promote better written, less fancrufty content. I will eventually put a proposal up that Misplaced Pages is not a fansite). (Or would someone else like to take up the cause?) Perhaps now that there is Wikia, it might be suggested that such fictional material be moved over there (as much of it is getting re-created anyway).--Leflyman 18:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the intent of this proposal, but I'm afraid that Leflyman is correct in that there are huge numbers of plot summaries on Misplaced Pages (most dutifully marked with "spoiler alerts"). It will take more than a change to WP:NOT to make them go away. But I support the effort. -Will Beback 18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'll support it as well even if it will be difficult to apply. I would, however, stop the sentence after "historical significance. The "which can be" clause adds a lot of words to the text but does not add to the meaning - at least not in any way that I can see. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Saying it would be "difficult to apply" is a bit of an understatement. I suspect that if this were to be seriously promoted, a veritable rebellion would be fomented on Misplaced Pages. One need only see the antagonism generated by removal of DVD cover images on a single "List of" episodes page: Talk:List_of_Lost_episodes#DVD_Covers. Now imagine raising that to the Nth fandom power. Editorial improvements can be shaped with good policy and guidelines, but attempting to ban plot summaries outright just isn't going to meet with success. (Hint: Nearly everything on Misplaced Pages is, in effect, a "summary" so why stop at "plots"?) --Leflyman 00:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)