Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 25

< Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
Latest comment: 15 years ago by DGG in topic Tweak needed for IINFO
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

censorship rule

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Why do we even have this when it usually ends up being used to defend porn articles only? When articles have something considered "hate speech" or "dangerous" it gets removed automatically on the basis of being offensive. But if you said that about the pictures on [fellatio/fellatio] you'd be called out and in some cases banned permenantly. Shouldn't we just change this to "wikipedia is not censored for minors" to avoid misleading people into thinking we don't get rid of content simply for being offensive? YVNP (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

we've used it to justify the cartoons about Mohammed, among many other instances. DGG (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time thinking of something that might be deleted as "hate speech" that wouldn't be a clear and extreme NPOV and opinion problem; censorship neededn't even enter into it. I'm not sure what YVNP is referring to with "dangerous." TJRC (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Removal of random hate speech, personal opinions of editors, and unsubstantiated rumors (I assume this is the "dangerous" information to which you are referring...) does not constitute censorship. For instance, hate speech that is relevant to the topic of a particular article and covered in reliable sources should be mentioned (and attributed to the person or organization responsible for it)—though probably not reproduced in entirety—at the appropriate location. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I see YVNP's point in that sometimes we remove things that are considered offensive even if they are notable, but consider this a hope and a prayer that we'll get better.Hobit (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
NOT CENSORED is fully compatible with Responsible and Appropriate. DGG (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A small change.

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I took the liberty of making a small change. I hope it will meet the approval of others here.--Srleffler (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a positive change. The use of "certain" at the start of the sentence rendered unnecessary the use of "usually", and the sentence overall seemed too ambiguous and uncertain. Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
a positive change may not/doesn't have to be be a truthful one!there are a lot of comments around from official sources ..eg..school ministers and education chiefs in the uk that totally dispute wikipedia claim to be an encycopedia of any value at all.. and I have found that in general its like a history book written by people who have a desire to add their opinions on their favoured subjects...a page with a biased editor with experiance is less an encyclopic entry and more of a personal opinion..I would say that the wiki is best taken with a bunch of salt and is better viewed as less than an encycloppedia and more of a launching ground for further research.after looking around here this is my biggest disapointment of the wiki..see..[1] and [2]quote from there...."in many good schools, pupils are given nought out of ten if they're caught gleaning 'facts' from Wikipedia, the notoriously unreliable reference website".see this for how to change history..[3]quote from there..."British history has been 'feminised' by female writers who want to put women centre stage, according to TV historian Dr David Starkey".
It's just a reality that people will insert their POV. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
While I agree with quite a bit of what you've written (particularly the notion that Wikipedia is best used as "a launching ground for further research" rather than a primary source for research itself), I don't quite see how it applies to the change made by Srleffler... –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
the change by Srleffler was to this .. "Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic"...and my comments were just to bring discussion to the fact that in some corners of the world wiki is disputed to be regarded as a encyclopedia at all! sorry ..I know it's not a chat page. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC))
I support the change. It's a step forward. Of course such extrapolations must be well supported by expert sourced opinion, presented as such. There may well be more than one responsible view,as for other things. WP:NPOV and WP:RS apply. DGG (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

is there a cite for this comment then? who is it that considers "Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic" or is it a personal opinion?and I agree that the other side of the coin should be presented. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

We're not writing an article., We're stating our policy. The meaning is that for Wikipedia purposes, we choose to consider certain scientific extrapolations permissible here, if well sourced [etc] .... " -- that's the same with all policy poges--we are not discussing Real world issues in them, just our practices. DGG (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

All of the Department of Correction articles have become memorials to "fallen" officers who have died there, but of course, not to "fallen" convicts, some of whom were equally blameless! See, for example, Alabama Department of Corrections. Template at the bottom points to all the rest.

But at any rate, I am changing the wording of the phrase "friends and relatives" to try to include anyone who is WP:NN, which I think was the original intent.

I don't know what to do to clear up this mess with corrections. I don't think I can fight all 50 state article editors on my own, all of whom think that they are validly copying the others. These are probably lightly read articles (stat reporter down) which is why they have been overlooked in the past. I'd appreciate suggestions and/or help.Student7 (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Er. Well, I guess I won't change it after all! Need some help here!Student7 (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Just edited them all out. (whew!). Most large states had none which kind of begs the question IMO. Would have taken a completely new article! The wording still needs changing to avoid ambiguity. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments15 people in discussion

The title would read better if it does not repeat words. This page should be renamed to Wikipedia:What it is not OR Wikipedia:What the project is not. -- IRP ☎ 01:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I kind of agree with a renaming to the latter. It seems to fit the overall naming convention of the policies. — Deckiller 02:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm ... The second. ...or (Wikipedia:What is not acceptable maybe?) — Ched :  ?  05:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I could live with the latter, although I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the current name. Have fun updating the redirects. Randomran (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need to do this. The leading "Wikipedia:" is not part of the page name, it's a namespace header. Trying to replace the second "Wikipedia" makes the page sound awkward for those that recognize this (eg. "What it is not" doesn't describe what "it" is.) --MASEM (t) 05:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, then Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines would be located at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Policies and guidelines. The "Wikipedia:" namespace is designed specifically for pages that pertain to Wikipedia. -- IRP ☎ 20:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The title reads fine as it is. "Wikipedia:What it is not" is trying to be too clever. "Wikipedia:What the project is not" sound like it might be limited to project space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. No change needed. When you use "it", it is very confusing what it you are talking about. Same for "the project" - which project? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose...frankly, that is just silly. I can't believe someone actually added the move tag. *shaking head* The name: "What Wikipedia is not" is perfectly fine. It does not repeat words. The namespace has nothing to do with the name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Then why don't you move Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Policies and guidelines? -- IRP ☎ 03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Because the subject implicit and unnecessary (though I'd certainly be fine with it). What is not makes no sense, however, without the explicit subject. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
"What it is not" ? What what is not? What templates are not? What deletion discussions are not? What files are not???
"What the project is not" ? Which WikiProject are you referring to? Which WikiProject workgroup are you referring to? Which WikiProject taskforce are you referring to? Which WikiProject subproject are you referring to?
70.29.213.241 (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The title is fine the way that it is. The namespace header isn't part of the page name, and there's no point in renaming it, the title is perfectly clear on what the page is about. Neither of the alternates suggested are better than the original title. ƒingersonRoids 13:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • A move isn't needed, in my opinion. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think that "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" makes more sense than any of these proposals. The "Wikipedia:" simply sets its namespace, and isn't part of the actual name. It would also be just plain confusing to use "Wikipedia:What it is not", or some similar thing which treats the namespace as a part of the page's name. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Following on from the discussions about expanding the scope of WP:NOT#PLOT past fictional works, I think it is time to renew the proposal that a new section be introduced, namely Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide. There is already a prohibition on articles & lists comprised only of guides WP:NOT#GUIDE, so maybe now is the time to make it explicit that media listings that are neither notable nort contain analysis, commentry, context or criticism as they are unencyclopedic, and fall outside the scope of Wikipedia. The amendment would read as follows:

Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide. Articles and lists of movies, books or television titles should be treated in an encyclopedic manner, not simply as a record of everything that has ever been distributed or broadcast in the media. Such articles and lists should provide analysis, context or criticism, regarding the reception, impact and development of notable works (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)).

This would apply to such articles as Survivor: Tocantins or 1959–60 United States network television schedule in which primary or teritary sources are used on their own without any secondary sources that would provide balanced coverage about these topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But these are accept as are lists of episodes and so forth. I point out that while the Survivor article now is in bad shape in the possible extension to PLOT (to include any narrative work), a general season of Survivor can be added with secondary sources (as was done on Survivor: Borneo). TV schedules that generalize over all networks was just recently shown to have consensus. And I will add that the WP:N RFC suggests that lists that are verifiable but not necessarily covered by secondary sources were not rejected by the community, but nor universally accepted. An article does not need secondary sources by any policy. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, just like before in October. And like I've said before, there is no consensus to delete articles about television schedules. Wikipedia is obviously an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias can and should have articles about films, books, and television shows. And, for the nth time, WP:NOT#PLOT does not (and never did) have consensus to be policy. "Analysis" and "criticism" and "reception" are not actually necessary to tell readers what a film is. Just like "analysis" and "criticism" and "reception" are not necessary to tell readers what the Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club is. Wikipedia:Notability is not policy, despite your proposal to make it policy Gavin.

    Why do film distributors, book publishers, and broadcasters have an incentive to have articles about their products on Wikipedia? A potential buyer could just read the plot summary in a Wikipedia article and not even have to pay money for their product. Wikipedia is giving away their stories for free. Lists of television episodes don't duplicate content in TVGuide. And providing information that can be found elsewhere isn't a problem at all. Wikipedia has articles about several topics covered in Encyclopedia Brittanica. Information on Wikipedia typically should be available elsewhere. If you fail to see the value of the content, the failure is yours. You're not the only reader of Wikipedia. Books, films, and television all exist in the real world. You're just prejudiced against them Gavin. How about "Wikipedia is not a guide to cricket clubs"? How many people do you think have ever heard of "Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club"? Do you think that article you created is promotional Gavin? --Pixelface (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm - pure TV schedule listings (as opposed to lists of episodes) might have copyright issues, though. Incidentally, though I don't wish to start a "your article's more non-notable than mine" argument, that cricket team does seem to fail Wikipedia:CRICKET#Notability_criteria_guideline_for_article_inclusion. Black Kite 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the schedules in question are ones like 1959–60 United States network television schedule (the example Gavin stated) that is a general summary of what shows aired when on the major networks during the given year, not specifically which episode of a show aired on what date. Eg the type of schedule that shows that The Simpsons and The Cosby Show once battled at the same timeslot on Thursdays. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
In this thread I did mention copyright issues. I mentioned that this AFD closed as delete, and that the nominator mentioned copyright issues and this thread from October 2006, although those seem to be UK-specific. Something about publishers of programme schedules having to pay royalties to the BBC/ITV/Channel 4 under Broadcasting Act 1990. IANAL so I can't speak to that. I don't think anyone in that thread was a lawyer either. And I bring up that article because Gavin continually says articles without context, criticism and reception are unencyclopedic, and that article Gavin created gives me reason to think that Gavin does not actually believe what he's saying. --Pixelface (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, the cricket article does have third-party sources; but according to the cricket WikiProject it doesn't meet their notability guidelines. This is reasonable - there needs to be a bright line somewhere, or else *I* would be notable for once having played Under-18 cricket for my county. And we really wouldn't want that. Also, I think it was remembering that AfD that made me bring the issue up. But IANAL as well. Meanwhile, apart from PLOT, my view would be not that "it's cruft", but - just what is the point of a plot-only article? Why not have a summary of the plot in a "List of .... episodes" article? tv.com does a good job of summarising plots, and many of our articles are ripped off from there anyway. I've no objection to a good TV episode article, but too many of our articles don't cut it. Black Kite 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Honoring deceased section

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

There have been a few edits made to this line recently: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize dead friends, relatives, and so forth. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." Frankly I think the existing line is fine. The notability reference takes care of any issues for me. But feel free to disagree and propose something if you'd like. Locke9k (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


I replaced the weaselword "departed" with "dead"; that should make it a little clearer for the euphemism-impaired. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to deceased; this is just as clear at a bit less unnecessarily blunt. Locke9k (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Also I think describing 'departed' as a weaselword is a bit extreme. Its a common usage of that word, and if it were taken to mean anything broader (for example, someone who left town) that actually wouldn't be a bad thing; wikipedia shouldn't include that either. Locke9k (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I favor dead over deceased. I also favor keeping it as simple as possible. We don't memorialised the dead. Doesn't matter who or what is dead. Hiding T 16:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, stick with dead. It's a straightforward rule, keep it that way. Angryapathy (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
While I personally prefer deceased, I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority. Pretty much across the board it seems that consensus on this is to stick to the "dead" phrasing. — Ched :  ?  01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Where across the board? Is there another discussion on this? I'm also not clear on the reasoning. Deceased it equally straightforward and clear as dead. Its also less emotionally blunt for no reason. Locke9k (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
My question is why do we need to be emotionally sensitive for a guideline? Angryapathy (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(out)Why worry at all? "Memorialize" (or "ise") rather implies people who are not here any more in the first place. "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize anyone" is fully sufficient (unless one thinks of an archaic usage of presenting a gift to a monarch, which I regard as unlikely) . Collect (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all readers are native English-speakers, so I'd prefer "dead". Re "memorialize", why not why not rewrite the sentence as "... not the place to preserve memeories of the dead"? --Philcha (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer "Wikipedia is not the place to honor the dead". It cuts out so many layers of wiki-lawyering, from he's a dog to these aren't memories. We have articles on dead people. We don't have articles because they are dead. WP:KISS. Hiding T 12:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I really think it is fine the way it is. The first part of the sentence clarifies for the newbies that just because their best friend or grandma died, they can't make a WP page on them. The second sentence clears up any confusion by reminding that people (or dogs, as Hiding suggests) must be notable for inclusion. Someone can't wikilawyer out of notability because of the examples in this section. Angryapathy (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The failure of WP:FICT as it applies to WP:PLOT

Latest comment: 15 years ago39 comments13 people in discussion

Recently, WP:FICT failed its third RfC. I am wondering how this failure effects WP:PLOT, and should their be a reevaluation, and even a RfC about WP:PLOT here?

Please forgive me if this issue has already been covered in the archives. Ikip (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

  • No, multiple previous versions of WP:FICT which had no consensus have been built around WP:NOT#PLOT. There's no consensus that plot-only articles don't belong on Wikipedia. WP:NOT#PLOT has never had consensus to be policy. The problem with another RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT is that the people who want it to remain in this policy say there needs to be consensus for it to be removed, and the people who want to remove WP:NOT#PLOT say there needs to be consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be here. Sections must have consensus to be policy or they cannot be policy. That plot-only articles are acceptable on Wikipedia is shown again and again at AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

\

  • A policy should be changed because a small group of people don't like it and ignore it? Interesting argument. Perhaps we should change WP:BLP because people occasionally write nasty things about people in articles too? Black Kite 11:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not what I said at all. WP:NOT#PLOT didn't have consensus to be policy when it was proposed, yet Hiding added it to this policy anyway. And WP:NOT#PLOT has never had consensus to be policy. As for your claim that a "small" group of people don't like it, it's actually a small group of people who want WP:NOT#PLOT to be in this policy page. That doesn't mean it has community-wide consensus. WP:NOT#PLOT is frequently ignored in AFDs. Is WP:BLP frequently ignored in AFDs? --Pixelface (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Widespread support?" [citation needed]. WP:NOT#PLOT didn't have widespread support when it was proposed, it doesn't now, and if it did, then these articles [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] would have easily been deleted at AFD, but they weren't. WP:NOT#PLOT represents the opinion of a handful of editors, nothing more. And an article only citing a primary source has no bearing on the notability of the topic whatsoever. Once you realize that the Wikipedia article about Hamlet is not the actual play Hamlet, you will realize this Gavin. And no, I don't think your last sentence is correct. That sentence in WP:V came about because Hiding wanted to win an edit-war he was having over the UGOPlayer article. Hiding also happens to be the editor who proposed WP:NOT#PLOT and added it to this policy (without consensus to do so). --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Pixelface, it seems to me that your repeated argument based on AFD's is a red herring. An AFD weighs whether an article should exist on a given topic; it does not necessarily weight whether the present content of the page is acceptable. Thus if there is a page that consists entirely of plot summary, the AFD doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this fact. The question is whether there are sufficient RS to write a legitimate article on the topic, regardless of whether they are used in the present article. Thus, in the case of a page of plot summary on a highly acclaimed book that could and should have a well balanced article on it, the conclusion of the AFD could and should be to keep the page and improve it, not to delete. AFD's are usually not simply broad referendums on content policy, and should not be represented as such. Rather they are case-specific consideration of inclusion policy on a topic rather than on a specific article. They thus don't seem to have any intellectually honest relationship with this issue, from my perspectiveLocke9k (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not a red herring at all. WP:NOT#PLOT says "Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles should not consist solely of:...plot summaries" and that has has been proven false. Also look at this AFD and this AFD and this AFD. There was no consensus to delete in any of them (although an admin did delete the second article because he was just following orders, ignoring the actual discussion, and an admin did delete the third because he was just following orders at DRV, ignoring the actual AFD debate). All of the AFDs I cited above were about articles that were just plot summaries. And yet there was no consensus to delete them. Can you say that about articles that are just propaganda? Advertising? How to guides? A fictional work is a reliable source. Please read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storylines of EastEnders (2000s), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) (EastEnders storylines nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Spider-Man, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Spider-Man (2nd nomination) and please read those articles as well. If there were multiple AFDs where articles that were vehicles for propaganda, and advertising were not deleted, those sections wouldn't belong in this policy either. If a policy does not actually have consensus in practice, it cannot be policy. You can think up anything you want to put in this policy, and anyone can edit this policy, but that doesn't mean that what they add represents community-wide consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As for your claim that a "small" group of people don't like it, it's actually a small group of people who want WP:NOT#PLOT to be in this policy page. [citation please]. I mean, really... WP:POTKETTLE. --EEMIV (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you like citations for that sentence? How's this?

    As for your claim that a "small" group of people don't like it[citation needed], it's actually a small group of people who want WP:NOT#PLOT to be in this policy page.[10]

    Hiding proposed WP:NOT#PLOT[11] so he probably wants it here (although that's debatable[12]); in the proposal thread JzG, Rossami, MartinRe, Mwalcoff, and Deckiller appeared to support it. Taxman [13] and Dougweller [14] have supported it. The editors Bignole [15], Cameron Scott [16], Collectonian [17], Future Perfect at Sunrise [18], Jack Merridew [19] [20], Masem [21] [22] [23] [24] [25], Moreschi [26], S@bre [27], Sceptre [28] [29], and Sgeureka [30] have all re-added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT after it's been removed. You might be able to say they want it here. 1,476 unique editors have edited Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as of right now[31] (although that tool only goes as far back as February 2002 when a script converted Wikipedia pages from UseModWiki to PhpWiki). I'm sure there are other people who have expressed wanting WP:NOT#PLOT to be in WP:NOT in the various threads about WP:NOT#PLOT on this talkpage.

    Remind me again how many editors Wikipedia has? Feel free to provide any citations yourself. --Pixelface (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "There's no consensus that plot-only articles don't belong on Wikipedia." Nonsense is really all that needs to be said to that. In fact, consensus has always been that plot summaries should only be a small section of articles, if they belong at all. DreamGuy (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It's glaringly obvious that you are purposefully picking and choosing unrelated discussions to try to support a rather radical stance that violates all longstanding policies here on Wikipedia. Individual AFDs only show masses of people voting on something, often completely ignoring all policy on the topic in the process. If that's your support for your side it's clear you have nothing worthwhile to support yourself. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Policies can be edited by anyone. Edits to policy must reflect consensus. Those aren't unrelated discussions. Those are AFDs about articles that were solely plot summary, and there was no consensus to delete those articles. If people are ignoring WP:NOT#PLOT, how can you claim it has consensus to be policy? There was a grand total of six people who supported WP:NOT#PLOT when it was first proposed to be policy (and six people who opposed it). That's not consensus, that is no consensus. WP:NOT#PLOT never should have been added to this page. My stance isn't radical at all. And I don't know what "longstanding policies" you think my stance violates. You might as well say that policy proposals only show bossy people voting on things, often completely ignoring current practice on Wikipedia. Please read the threads at User:Pixelface/NOTPLOT threads and educate yourself. Is your argument that WP:NOT#PLOT should be here because WP:NOT#PLOT is here already? That's a non-argument. --Pixelface (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree; consensus is fairly split WRT fiction. However, most agree that plot summaries should not get into every single detail, nor should they be nonexistent. Virtually everyone agrees that the answer lies somewhere in the middle — the question is where. — Deckiller 20:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#PLOT is about plot-only articles, not the length of every plot summary on Wikipedia. And if there's any question, then WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't belong here. Is the answer to "Should articles be vehicles for advertising?" or "Should articles be vehicles for propaganda" somewhere in the middle? --Pixelface (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Two things there - a plot-only article automatically fails WP:V to begin with, and I don't see anyone suggesting that WP:V doesn't have consensus. Apart from that, a number of people have suggested changes to the wording of PLOT, but the number that actually want it to be removed completely is very small indeed. You can't work things both ways - you say that PLOT has never had consensus to be included, but every time someone suggests removing it there is never consensus to do that either, which indicates to be that there is in fact consensus to keep it in some format. Black Kite 16:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That line in WP:V and WP:NOT#PLOT were both proposed by the same editor [38] [39], and I don't think either represents community-wide consensus. People objected to that line in WP:V here and here. And if people are still arguing over the wording of WP:NOT#PLOT, that is just further evidence that it never has had consensus to be policy. From Archive 6, when WP:NOT#PLOT was first proposed, to the latest Archive 24, there have been threads about WP:NOT#PLOT on every single archive page (except 12 and 14, and 12 was entirely about WP:NOT#NEWS).[40]

    You don't seem to understand what no consensus means, so let me explain. Say I propose on this talkpage a new policy that says Black Kite should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. There's no consensus for my proposal, but say I add that sentence to WP:NOT anyway. Then you say it should be removed, but a few people who don't like you think it's a good idea and show up. So there's no consensus to remove it. No consensus to remove is not the same as consensus to keep. And besides, there was consensus to remove WP:NOT#PLOT last year, which I explained here.

    Imagine two questions: 1) "Do you think WP:NOT#PLOT should be policy" 2) "Do you think WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed from policy." No consensus for question one and no consensus for question two are two drastically different outcomes. The bottom line is, there does not have to be consensus to remove something from policy before it can be removed. Things within policy must have consensus to be policy, not just lack of consensus to remove them. It has to have consensus to be here, and it doesn't. --Pixelface (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Just because there was no formal poll, RFC, whatever to bring it into policy doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of policy; WP is not a democracy and doesn't require formal processes to be followed to create and change policy. That's not to same editors well aware of the consequences of such changes won't take steps to get as much input to prevent disruption, but not every policy change necessitates wide discussion. Policy can be changes by one person boldly making a change and seeing if it sticks, or by engaging in discussion - neither way is wrong. PLOT has been introduced and attempted to be removed both ways, and the fact that time and time again it stays around pretty much means most agree its true. The only argument that I've seen against PLOT is that "it never had consensus to be there", but again you don't need consensus to add something - that consensus comes if it stays around without any significant arguments. The fact we're arguing over wording is not an indicator that there's a problem with PLOT, but instead an attempt to make it read better, and infact (at least as I see it) a way to try to distance PLOT and notability issues. I do urge you to look at what PLOT is trying to say now, and recognize we're not talking about plot-only articles, we're talking about how in general works on fiction are to be treated. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Masem, there was a proposal thread and a discussion. And in that discussion there was no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be in this policy. Therefore, WP:NOT#PLOT should not have been added to this policy. I can't even believe what I'm what I'm reading right now. You said Wikipedia "doesn't require formal processes to be followed to create and change policy." Then what were these ANI threads[41] [42] you started about me for? What was all that stuff at my user RFC about "not adhering" to WP:BRD and not being able to follow WP:IAR and "policy and guideline pages are meant to be 1RR"? Changes to policy must reflect consensus. Policy can be changed by one person and seeing if it sticks, but WP:NOT#PLOT has not stuck. Editors routinely ignore it, it's been removed multiple by multiple people, and people are arguing over the wording as we speak. The fact that ten people have re-added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT only means that those ten people like it. As for "The only argument that I've seen against PLOT..." I stopped reading right there. You know that's a lie, and I know that's a lie. It's become obvious to me you don't read anything I write. Good luck with your Xbox 360 and your blog, pal. --Pixelface (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between being incorrect, as Masem was, about a policy and telling a lie. Masem isn't right that we prefer policies to be updated boldly. We don't. And I might even be convinced that the "pro-PLOT" side is taking liberties with expectations for consensus when adding policy so much as the "anti-PLOT" side is. I'm not convinced right now, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility. However, it is another thing altogether to level the accusation that masem is lying in order to keep PLOT on these pages. I have no idea what that last line is meant to be so I'll just assume that it was charitable and in the spirit of comity. I'm sure that you are doing your best to ensure that is so. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have seen editors make policy changes without establishing consensus for them and then immediately seeking discussion on them, so the "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" isn't an invalid approach, but it is not preferred particularly when one knows the topic at hand is disputed. This current round of the PLOT rewording is due to someone making a bold edit to reword it, and only after I saw a few more changes did I start the talk thread. That said, yes, the practice should be discouraged.
  • That said, yes, I strongly believe that the core idea of PLOT - that we don't just talk about plot in covering a work of fiction - has strong support throughout WP, and even Pixelface has stated that he agrees with the idea that plot-only articles should be avoided. PLOT is disputed primary because its former wording married it too closely to the issue of notability, which is a problem - NOT is content, NOTE is inclusion, and ne'er the two should meet, which is why I implore Pixelface and others to help make sure the language of PLOT clearly separates this. I think the current version on the page does just that. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • But Hiding didn't throw WP:NOT#PLOT at the wall and see if it stuck. He proposed it and there was no consensus for it. Then he added to this policy. And he had comic book characters in mind anyway. Comic book characters, I assume, like Ego the Living Planet. And yet Hiding signed off on that AFD when the article looked like this.

    Where's the evidence that WP:NOT#PLOT has "strong support" throughout Wikipedia? I've said plot-only articles can be better. I've never said plot-only articles should be deleted for being plot-only. People nominate plot-only articles for deletion per WP:NOT#PLOT. And there is frequently no consensus to delete them [43] [44]. It is leading people in the wrong direction. I can think of a scenario where I would argue to delete an article that's plot-only, but it wouldn't be based on the fact that the article is plot-only. AFD is about topics. The content of an article being plot-only has nothing to do with the notability of the article topic. WP:NOT#PLOT has nothing to do with notability. And the editor who proposed WP:NOT#PLOT, has admitted WP:NOT#PLOT has nothing to with notability: "It has nothing to do with notability, never has, never will."[45] But I've told you that already.

    If the Hamlet article was plot-only, Wikipedia should still have an article about Hamlet. WP:NOT#PLOT is as ridiculous as saying "Articles should not consist solely of battle summaries", and then watching Wikicops try and purge Category:Battles involving the United Kingdom. --Pixelface (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • To reply to Protonk; Wikipedia was a way different place back then than it is now. Back then you were allowed to use the Bold revert discuss cycle to find these critics when editing policy. You can't judge an edit made in June 2006 by today's standards. See the standards of the day. Hiding T 10:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point. My main focus wasn't that a change was illegitimate because it was made boldly but that we prefer not to change policy like that. In that sense policy changes are different from article changes (where we prefer bold changes, all else equal). I can accept that things were not always so. I also want to make sure that we are perfectly clear that you didn't lie when you said that BOLD changes to policy are ok. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Protonk, me and Masem have replied enough to each other on this talk page to both know that Masem's statement "The only argument that I've seen against PLOT is that "it never had consensus to be there" is a blatant lie. I'd be happy to provide citations to Masem's own comments in various WP:NOT#PLOT threads that show it is a lie. But before I do that, if Masem wants to qualify that statement with "seen in this thread", I'll let him. If Masem wants to admit that he's forgotten what he's seen, I'll let him. --Pixelface (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll clarify, the argument that "PLOT never had consensus" is the one that is pushed the most by Pixelface and seems to be the strongest that he uses to try to invalidate PLOT. I know he's presented (in this thread even) examples of plot-only articles that survive AFD, but that's just it, examples, not a basis to decide further. Other arguments don't seem to hold up and it always comes back around to what Pixelface considers as the contested addition of PLOT to this policy, which is why that's the only one that after a year+ of his constant battles on PLOT that easily comes to mind. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have repeated WP:NOT#PLOT has never had consensus many times, because it's a strong argument, and it's a fact. Policies are supposed to be considered standards that all editors should follow. Policies are supposed to describe standards that have community consensus. One way to create a policy is by proposing a change in practice and seeking consensus for implementation of that change. Policies are supposed to have wide acceptance among editors. Consensus for policies should be reasonably strong. Policies are supposed to state what most Wikipedians agree upon. If there is no consensus for a given text, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus. You cannot claim consensus where none exists. Have you read the thread where WP:NOT#PLOT was proposed? If you still haven't, please read it now. And other arguments against WP:NOT#PLOT do hold up and I'd be happy to repeat them for you, but not if you're not going to listen. Please refresh your memory. Here's a starting point: you've made 249 edits to this talkpage, beginning on November 29, 2007[46]. Look at the list of threads at WT:NOT about plot summaries, start with the one from 2007-12-27 (where you made your first comment) then read each thread after that. And you should probably read the threads before then too. Then maybe you'll stop trying to pin this all on me. Maybe. --Pixelface (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't disagree that the exact nature of how PLOT was introduced into this didn't necessary have clear consensus. But what happened almost 3 years ago doesn't matter any more because WP is not a democracy and Consensus can change. You and others (but primarily yourself) have brought up trying to remove it and there's enough discussion to show that something along the lines of PLOT is needed by consensus even though you and others disagree with that. The fact that something contested was added but has otherwise enjoyed apparent consensus since its addition is not invalided by the nature of its addition. Can a change like how PLOT was added to NOT be accomplished now in 2009 with the current state of WP? Very likely not and particularly something that would inflame the issue with fiction per the ArbCom cases.
  • Now understand, I'm trying to help your case. Again, please read the current version, which does not say anything at all about plot-only articles. I and others have tried to help encourage wording that separates the nature of how we should be treating the coverage of fiction from the issues of notability as you're right that notability has no direct place in policy. And I'm trying to remove the bias this has on fiction, because even for notable published non-fiction works, we simply don't want to repeat what the book says. So I am trying to address all the points with the understanding from plenty of past conversations on PLOT that the plot aspects of a work of fiction should only be a part of the coverage of that on WP and not the only aspect. That doesn't invalidate any of the "plot-only article" examples that you provide that haven't otherwise been shown notable on their own. I'm trying to compromise among several different positions to state that we can have a working PLOT that meets what happens (or doesn't happen) at AFD along with the fact that there are certain encyclopedic goals in mind. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • ...I guess in order to make any sense of this we would have to agree on WHY fict failed to reach a consensus. If we come to the conclusion that if failed because it was too complicated or inchoate, then it has zero bearing on PLOT. If we come to the conclusion that if failed because it was too permissive then it might cause us to tighten plot. Only if we assume that if failed because it was too restrictive of fictional content on wikipedia (and I agree w/ masem that FICT was an attempt at an inclusion guideline, not a content guideline--the difference is critical) can we argue that the failure of fict to reach a consensus would lead us to somehow impute a lack of consensus for the current writing of PLOT. I don't think that we can credibly assume that fict failed solely or largely due to its restrictiveness, so I don't think this is a fruitful line of discussion. Protonk (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this is largely a repetition and a waste. A lot of people don't even bother participating in these discussions because they don't see the need to explain each and every section of WP:NOT that a small group of editors dispute. If there's a consensus to remove it, then remove it. If there isn't, let it go. We had a much more productive discussion upthread about how to revise WP:PLOT to prevent it from being applied abusively, and made a lot of productive copy-edits. "Evolutionary" discussions like that lead to more constructive debate and consensus building, and people sometimes even enjoy joining in those discussions. "Revolutionary" discussions never get anywhere, and most people have stopped trying to explain why. I have no clue why people even both trying to remove WP:PLOT anymore. It strikes me as an example of "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 30 times my viewpoint was discredited and rejected, so I'm going to try again in hopes that I get a more sympathetic audience". Can we move on yet? Randomran (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a clarification which I hope Pixelface will accept. WP:V stated Subjects that have never been written about by third-party published sources, or that have only been written about in sources of dubious credibility should not be included in Wikipedia long before I went anywhere near it. That was a tweak by User:Slim Virgin here. I'll own up to anything I'm responsible for, but I'd appreciate it if people made sure they reflected the record factually. Hiding T 09:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait, are people now arguing that WP:PLOT is an inclusion guideline? That an article that just has a short plot summary should be deleted from Wikipedia? This is crazy talk. There are many books, movies, etc. that are notable, but don't really have much more than plot discussion in reliable sources. Are people suggesting that a book that has reviews in the NYT, Entertainment Weekly and the SF Chronicle should be deleted based on WP:NOT if the primary content of the article is a 1 paragraph plot summary and an infobox? That's just wrong. WP:PLOT is not now and has never been an inclusion guideline, it is a content guideline. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    Two things:
    PLOT is a content issue, and the current writing attempts to move it away from a notability issue. Basically, the coverage of a work of fiction should not be heavily emphasized about its plot, instead the plot a small part of its overall coverage. That's a style/content issue, nothing about deletion.
    WP:N, the inclusion guideline says that a plot-only article sourced only by primary sources with no obvious potential for expansion should be deleted. An article on a book that is presently only a plot summary that has reviews in notable publications but otherwise doesn't include them should not be deleted, but instead improved by adding the reviews. An article on a book that is plot-only and doesn't have any reviews in notable sources, on the other hand, will likely be deleted. But that's not being deleted via PLOT, that's through WP:N.
    There is still the case that an article that may pass WP:N will fail PLOT, but that means the article needs to cleanup to trim down the plot and expand the other material, and may result in merging, but not deletion. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not an academic review

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'd like to get some consensus that Wikipedia is not a collection of journal articles. (As an example, see Talk:Tori Amos and the related Tori Amos#Academic_criticism). The argument is that if a paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it is automatically notable enough for inclusion on WP. I, among others, believe that academic criticism should be included only when it is substanstial or by a notable source. I hope I get some other opinions on this, because it seems like we've reached an impass in Tori Amos. Angryapathy (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not agree with such a change. Any article already has to meet the general notability criterion, which specifies whether an article should exist on a given topic. This would tend to rule out articles on, for example, a single isolated academic paper that has not been cited. As to whether a scholarly article should be mentioned within a given wikipedia article, and to what degree, this is a matter of due weight, which is already covered by WP:NPOV. The point is that once an article on, in this case, Tori Amos, exists, the content of the article is not technically a matter of notability, but of due weight. As long as the material is reliable and is not given undue weight with respect to other sources, its inclusion shouldn't be a problem. There is not need to add anything to WP:NOT to address this type of issue. Locke9k (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
So therein lies the question of what would make a source have more weight than another source? Angryapathy (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
About half of all single academic papers are cited. About 1/4 of them are cited 2 or more times. Probably 1/5 are cited 2 or more times by people other than the original author. This is a ridiculous amount of coverage if we use the criteria for when to have articles about a single paper. I know this was not the major point of Lockes comment, but I think it needs to be said. Single academic papers are very rarely notable in any real sense, and the ones that are covered by Wikipedia at present in separate articles are usually there because of special interests.
on the other hand, there are many aspects of a subject, and, typically, academic sources cover some well and non-academic sources cover others well, and we use them as we need. The quality of the source for academic comment is the notability of the journal or the author, not of the individual paper. Any paper published in a decent peer-reviewed journal is an acceptable academic source, and in mny subjects, material published less formally is also, according to the nature of the field. In case of conflict, some of them are of course better than others, and get the emphasis.
I would like to see the amount of academic sources used on popular culture subjects much expanded--there is an immense literature out there which we are not taking advantage of. DGG (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a Directory or "Hate Directory"

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

How many external links or references are added to an article before it becomes a directory?

Background: The Leuchter Report article here on Wikipedia, is about a Genocide / Holocaust Denial research report / study (also a pseudo scientific and pseudo historical research study) done by American Execution Technician Fred Leuchter. The report purports to claim the Homocidal Gas Chambers during WWII were grossly exagerrated or fabricated.

On the Article Leuchter Report, I put a link to the actual Leuchter Report because it is a specifically valid and pertinent reference / link and the reference link was deleted over and over again in a revert war (I was punished for 48hrs), the deleter said WP is not a directory of links or W is not a hate directory.

So my question is what are the rules, regulations and so forth of linking Hate Sites, Revisionist Sites, Holocaust Denier / Genocide Denier sites from those actual WP articles about those subjects?

My purpose in adding these references is so the pseudo science / history could be seen by open minded adults so they could form a stronger opinion against these topics, but the links and references were "censored" or "deleted" for dubious emotional and political reasons in my opinion and I make NO PERSONAL ATTACKS against the deleters, my criticism of emotional and political reasons is on the deletions themselves, not the persons who deleted them.

Markacohen (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor was blocked for edit-warring, two unblock requests were denied as he was calling other editors 'neo-Nazis' and vandals. The two links were to hate sites and the documents linked to contained not just the report but propaganda justifying the report. The information is the report, though bogus, is in my opinion too technical for the average reader to be able to see through the report, and would have help them 'form a stronger opinion against these topics'; indeed, they might form a stronger opinion for them. A link has been added to a detailed debunking of the report, and I've suggested a link to a non-hate site which has a portion of the report. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
And NPOV dies a little bit inside. Angryapathy (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. I'm not saying that Zundel's site can't be linked from Ernst Zündel. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a link to the report either. WP:Verify makes it clear that links to questionable sources "should only be used as sources of material on themselves," These links qualify as questionable sources, [47], and the material linked to is not just the raw report, but information/propaganda added by the sites. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on NOTGUIDE

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I am looking for clarification on including safer sex guidelines as outlined by reliable sources in articles. Please see the quote box in Men who have sex with men, which is under scrutiny on the talk page. The initial commenter pointed the conversation to the WP:NOTGUIDE section. I do not feel this is a matter for article consensus, but policy clarification in the policy page. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not very familiar with this particular subject matter, I did have a go at the NOTHOWTO thing back in my early days. I was trying to introduce information on how to remove and avoid viruses and malware in computer related articles. The understanding that I came away with was that we are not supposed to explain "how to" or "how not to" do things. Rather it's best to describe events and studies, as well as the outcomes of following particular practices. Then, it's up to the reader to derive from the facts what should and should not be done. That's just my take on the whole guide thing, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. ;) — Ched :  ?  19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand and that makes sense. The point arose on the MSM talk page, however, that there is an article on safe sex that says basically the same thing as the quote box in the MSM article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
hmmm .. good research Moni3. Without venturing into the "wp:otherstuffexists" area, can you use the references and wording from safe sex in some way to add the same type of information to the MSM article? I know there's a vast difference, but there are some clearly connectible threads in both articles. I would look at it as going from a general topic (safe sex) to a more specific topic (MSM). As far as I know, and I'm not a GFDL expert, there's no rule that says we can't use the same information, references, and wording from other articles. I know I've been able to expand various articles by pulling from the main topic in sub-sections before. — Ched :  ?  20:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC) (or...you could block the other editors, write the article the way it should be, and then protect the page .. lol, just kidding of course)
We've tweaked the title on the box Men_who_have_sex_with_men#Sexually_transmitted_infections to state more clearly that Wikipedia is not instructing but who is. We certainly could convert this information but it would expand this content exponentially and likely be a magnet on the article when we can just plop a concise version attributed to someone else and be done with it. Moni3 do you think this starts to address the issues? Also we're still discussing if a handy footnote expanding any of it would make sense. -- Banjeboi 03:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the citations to reliable medical sources should take care of the "experts who have stated the following" issue. The bolded intro in the quote box is overkill. And I read it as "public health officials who have had sex with men", which is funny (but irrelevant). --Moni3 (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over the dubious tag

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a discussion going on on that previous line with a reasonable number of editors involved. Even if I feel that PLOT should stay, at this point there's enough editors involve to make sure that readers can be aware there is discussion. {{disputed}} only can be used at a section level, but the inline dubious tag is appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I don't think you can call it disputed, unless you say what aspect is disputed. Please remove the tag.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot issues

Latest comment: 15 years ago140 comments18 people in discussion

Plot rewrite

I have no problem with the main gist of Randoman's rewrite, it still captures the intent of NOT#PLOT: Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A plot summary is appropriate as part of that coverage, but should never become the dominate aspect of an article. My only concern is the last few words: PLOT before has always been about the work's coverage, which does not explicitly limit it to a single article, which is why I changed the end to dominate aspect of a topic. Then DGG changed this to be sole aspect of a topic, and then Randoman changed it to sole aspect of an article. This last change, personally, is just a bit too strict in that one could use that to rule out the allowance that currently exists but otherwise unstated for lists of episodes and characters, if one considers "lists" to be the same as articles. Before we wheelwar on two terms, I'm tossing this for discussion. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Hiding was actually the first person to make the edit, and I thought his was pretyy close to accurate. I wasn't crazy about your edit, but I could live with it too: "should not be the dominant aspect of a topic". I could also live with DGG's, "should not be the sole aspect of an article". But taken together, it seems pretty loose to me. I know I'm on the stricter side of this discussion, but I don't want to see plot summaries stamped down to tiny teasers either. I'm hoping we can find some common ground as to what a sensible summary is. Maybe we won't agree on how strict or how loose, but we can get down to a range. Randomran (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I prefer to see Hiding's wording ("dominant aspect of an article") restored, as all the other alternatives seem problematic:
  1. "Dominant aspect of a topic" is unclear. Is the combination of all articles in Category:The Simpsons one topic? Would it be alright for 10% of articles in that category to consist of pure plot summary and the 90% to cover plot summary and real-world significance?
  2. "Sole aspect of an article" is clearer, but it sets a very low bar for content. It suggests that even a single sentence of non-plot information in the article makes it appropriate (i.e. as long as 1% of the coverage is not plot summary).
  3. "Sole aspect of a topic" essentially combines the problems of the first two variants.
–Black Falcon (Talk) 00:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
But when there are sufficient secondary literature discussing the plot, an article on it is justified wby WP:N, and I cannot see any reason why it is unacceptable. Black Falcon, why should we not have such articles. and why should plot not be the principal part of our coverage of a fictional topic? I think it usually ought to be, in fact. Explain why not--and not in terms of other policy of the same standing as this, because this iis a policy page and could control that. In terms of the basic principals of Wikipedia. The reason people read or watch fiction in the first place is primarily the plot. Its the main interest,and should have the most coverage. DGG (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If a particular plot element in a work of fiction, or the actual plot of a particular work of fiction, is independently notable, I have no objection to having a separate article on it (unless it makes more sense from an organization perspective to cover the topic in another article, but that's a question of merging and not deletion). As for why plot should not be the principal part of our coverage of fictional works, I can offer two reasons. The first is copyright: overly detailed plot summaries (such as scene-by-scene description) can violate the copyright of the work, since they potentially "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media" (quoted from WP:NFCC). The second reason is one of the five pillars: Wikipedia is a general-reference encyclopedia and, as such, covers topics of real-world significance; it is not a guide or walkthrough for video games, books and comics, or films and television series.
I understand your reasoning behind the "main interest" argument, but I do not find it to be convincing. Yes, most people read or watch fiction for the plot, and I would go so far as to say that most people searching a work of fiction online are interested in its plot, but that does not mean that the plot should therefore be the main focus of an encyclopedia article about the work of fiction. Consider this example: most people who search for "sex" online are looking for pornography, yet that is hardly reason enough for us to make pornography the main focus of the article Sex.
For what it's worth, I am not a supporter of reducing plot summaries to one- or two-sentence teasers (to borrow Randomran's words), and I think a healthy plot summary should be about two to four paragraphs long. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I just want to applaud both of you for being civil and trying to understand each other. Even though you have different views, I think there are a few points where you both agree. Would both of you agree to compromise on wording that specifies a range? Namely, instead of talking about what's dominant in an article, we could simply say "a concise plot is less than a scene-by-scene synopsis, but more than a two or three sentence teaser?" Randomran (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with BlackFalcon about the appropriate length, assuming he is referring to episodes and the like, not major literature or films. Most of the prior discussion has been about episodes, but the text here is completely general, and has to accommodate everything from a short sketch to a novel. If we do have agreement on what we want, now perhaps someone can find out how to say it. I certainly would accept a range-- it's absurd to force people to write more than is needed, or less. I agree there are some shows where a sentence may well be quite enough (it will also sometimes happen that if we're working from secondary sources & don't have the work available to us, that it may not be possible to write more.) On the other hand, i can think of some really major works where scene by scene might be the way to go--though if possible i think it better to follow the plot lines than the strict order of the show). I can even think of some works where we might need two version: a summary, and a detail. I would hate having to tell the plot of Moby Dick in detail without first giving a sketch. What I want to do tonight is to look at some of the numbers from the discussions Masem started. Before we get there, though, can we agree it depends on a/the importance of the work b/the length of the work c/the complexity of the work d/the available reliable information about the work, and e/the amount of secondary discussion about the plot. But how much detail we can do here is another matter, though. (Perhaps a footnote?)DGG (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that you're amenable to a range. It sounds like Black Falcon would be willing to concede that a plot summary is more than a teaser. But then, do you honestly think there are some times when every single scene needs to be summarized? If so, then is it rare? If so, then is there another standard we can use to say "most reasonable people would say this is excessive"? Randomran (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Randomran, thank you, but I don't think I've ever seen DGG be anything other than civil and willing to consider alternate or opposing viewpoints. :)
Getting back to the question of plot, I think DGG highlights an important point: it is inherently problematic to impose a uniform quantitive restriction on the amount of plot that is appropriate in articles about works of fiction. All things being equal, a 30-minute television episode will likely require significantly less plot description than War and Peace... So, I support the idea of focusing on the depth of coverage rather than on the length of coverage (I gave the suggestion of 2–4 paragraphs of plot just to support my argument and was definitely not suggesting that it be codified in this policy). One final thought: perhaps we could all agree on the use of the word "dominant" if it was defined more previsely. Dominance need not necessarily be defined in quantitative terms (e.g. >50% of article's length). –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There are too many factors on either side of the debate. Most of the WP:FICT rewrites (dating back to my original in mid-2007) emphasized real-world content in each article; since each proposal failed, I think we should word it as "dominant aspect of a topic" (instead of "sole...article") to avoid controversy. Personally, I think the current version helps support a theory I was nearly able to implement with WP:FICT two years ago (key word being "nearly"):

An ideal plot summary is subjective; for instance, I've always preached that most Final Fantasy games can be summarized in roughly 750-1,200 words. However, there are many reviews, interviews, and strategy guides for these games, most of which provide enough real-world content and analysis to justify sub-articles, which allow for greater in-universe detail and thus a shortening of the main synopsis. The theory regarding WP:FICT was that sub-articles should be treated as their own entities, chiefly because a storyline can be summarized succinctly without the need for spin-off articles. It requires talented writers with sharp eyes for redundancies and useless information, but it's possible. Sub-articles could be justified if enough real-world content was presented along with the in-universe information. For instance, a sub-article on the setting of Final Fantasy VIII should not only contain the fantasy locations, but also reliably sourced information on the development and critical reception of the setting. — Deckiller 07:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing to consider here is to point to concerns that Pixelface and others have stated about plot implicitly bringing in notability, and the aspect of Hiding's initial change seems to help towards that. If we recognize that notability will decide about the appropriate of an article that's strictly plot, and that PLOT here is specifically meant to not judge articles but topics in general (thus removing PLOT for being a possible deletion reason). "dominate aspect of a topic", in conjunction with notability, would then allow appropriate summary-style approaches to fiction. Mind you, this still could mean that if I added up all the words on plot aspects, say, for the Simpsons and compared that to every other word, you may find there's more words in the plot side, but clearly looking through the episodes, the articles do not make to have the plot dominate each. If someone attempts to justify a plot-only article as part of a topic's coverage, we point to WP:N and ask about secondary sources to demonstrate that an article is needed. Thus, PLOT and WP:N are two distinct aspects that work together but are not comingled here. This also justifies that, at times, there are articles that are fully plot summaries but that are part of supporting coverage (eg the lists of characters, etc.) --MASEM (t) 17:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

as usual, I am very willing to endorse Masem's view, even though it does not exactly correspond with my own. I know this is not the place, but i want to IAR and express my appreciation for the great amount of careful and patient work Masem has devoted to attempting to resolve issues about Fiction, and the ingenious and appropriate solutions he has found. DGG (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure we'd get a consensus that we don't do *something* about an article that is entirely a plot summary, even if that's just a merge to an article with more verifiable information about reception/impact. In practice, this is pretty consistent with our requirement for third-party sources. NOT#PLOT and third-party sources are complementary, rather than redundant. Most people expect some real world context for a fictional article, beyond "it's part of this book" or "it's from the imagination of this author". We're back to the problem of determining how much plot summary is appropriate, and we're not going to get a strict agreement there. Obviously some people do like pure plot summaries, and some people want a few sentences that sum it up with a lot of information on development and reception. But certainly we can define some kind of reasonable range. Even if that's just "we know we don't want to freeze, and we know we don't want to boil". That would be better than nothing. On the exclusionary side, Black Falcon seems willing to make some concessions, if those who prefer more detail are willing to look for common ground. Randomran (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The assertion that the recounting of a plot is not encyclopedic is false. Counter-examples can be seen in the Encyclopedia Britannica which presents articles of this sort, such as its coverage of Macbeth. And we have numerous other types of article which are presented in far greater detail here than you will find in a general reference encyclopedia - mathematics, sports, popular songs and so on. I have seen no objective reason or evidence for the exclusion of plot in particular - it just seems to be personal prejudice. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at Britannica's article on Macbeth the fictional character, and it is in keeping with WP:PLOT, because it talks about Macbeth's internal development and the impact on the audience of the character's actions. That's what we're looking for with WP:PLOT, to say, yes, summarise plot, but also summarise opinion that analyses the plot. That's how Brittanica treats fictive subjects, that's how we should too. Now if you go look at their article on Superman, the fictional character, and contrast it with ours, I'd say we win hands down. Oh, and no-one here is looking to exclude plot. Everyone is on the same page with regards including plot. What we're looking for is agreement that plot needs to balanced with analysis, because that better informs readers. I have seen no objective reason or evidence as to why we should not balance plot with sourced analysis. Hiding T 09:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Colonel Warden, plot summary on its own is not encyclopedic, because it does not contain any real-world commentary, criticisim, context or analysis. In answer to Hiding, don't forget that Britannica is writen by an editorial team, so from the perspective of Wikipedia, their contribution would be classed as original research, because the articles are based on their own research and expert opinions about a particular topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was leaning towards that when I said we needed to summarise opinion that analyses the plot, but was wary of opening up the full can of beans. Hiding T 12:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hiding, could you please explain your closure of this AFD and how WP:NOT#PLOT related to that article when the AFD was closed? --Pixelface (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Masem, I don't think I've ever said anything about WP:NOT#PLOT "implicitly bringing in notability." You have. Please don't put words into my mouth. Hamlet is notable. If the Hamlet article was just a plot summary, Wikipedia should still have an article about Hamlet. Period. AFD is about topics anyway, not the current state of the article. And like I explained to you at my user RFC, before I removed WP:NOT#PLOT for the very first time last March, there had been multiple AFDs about plot-only articles where there was no consensus to delete the articles. The only relation between WP:NOT#PLOT and the GNG is the editor currently named "Hiding" — in that Hiding proposed WP:NOT#PLOT and Hiding was the first editor to summarize the SNGs. --Pixelface (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You did state your concerns about making WP:N policy through PLOT at least once before (see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 18) and it's still a very good thing to keep in mind, since NOT is a content policy, not inclusion (which is why I don't want PLOT to be able the article content, but the content of the coverage of a topic) And regardless of that, PLOT, NOTE, and pretty much every other quality-control policy/guideline on WP is meant to be used to judge the article's potential, not the current state of the article. Of course Hamlet's notable, because I know there are sources out there for it, even if the article at the present time was plot summary. There's probably plenty of plot-only fiction articles that are kept, usually because they represent significant elements of significant works with potential for sourcing to move away from being plot-only in the future (this is what Phil tried to write in his version of FICT). And for a more practical example, we're now working under the assumption that every episode article on South Park can be expanded past plot only thanks to the work of a few individuals to establish that four random SP episodes can be expanded past plot per my suggestion. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Archive 18, May 2008, nearly a year ago:

You said "Instantaneous evaluation of a plot-only article right now should not be means for deletion, but instead, such articles need to be given a fair amount of time (about a month) to show good faith efforts to improve and include the real-world context, after the article is tagged for lacking these through {{notability}}. Plot-only articles that, given this time, fail to still show why the fictional element is important, should be deleted -- but only after considering if there are merge targets that the information can be transferred to." and I replied "Again, you mention notability — which is not a policy and will never be a policy. So is WP:NOT#PLOT some attempt to make WP:N policy?" You're the one who brought up notability. That's why I asked you that question. I am opposed to every effort to shoehorn the concept of "notability" into policy, since whether something is "worthy of notice" is merely personal preference.

Later I replied to NeoChaosX saying "And "notability" has nothing to do with what Wikipedia is not, except for the fact that Wikipedia is not The Notability Project that anyone can edit. Questions of "notability" are completely separate from What Wikipedia is not."

Later I asked you "What if an article is just a plot summary written entirely from secondary sources and yet contains no analysis? Should the article be deleted?" You said no, you said it was a matter of cleanup, and said "Again, we are looking at the ultimate state of the article and if there is the likelihood of an article showing notability, than the instantaneous state." Again, you're the one who brought up notability, and Wikipedia has no notability policy. WP:NOT is not for cleanup issues. It is for things not allowed on Wikipedia.

If WP:NOT#PLOT is meant to judge the article's potential, then people citing it in AFD nominations are clearly using it wrong. And what if people think a plot-only article has no potential to be more than plot-only, yet it's kept anyway? I don't think many plot-only articles are kept because they show potential to have more than just a plot summary. Read the comments in this AFD (which should have been closed as no consensus, but again, the admin was just following orders, doing something blindly because some text existed on a page with a {{policy}} template at the top, ignoring the actual discussion they were supposed to be evaluating, ignoring text on another policy that several participants cited).

Hamlet is not notable due to outside sources. It's still performed to this day. It's a well-known play. People go and see it. Millions of people living today are familiar with it. That is why it's notable. An encyclopedia would be expected to tell readers what the play is about — that requires a plot summary. Some "professional" critic's opinion of the play, while perhaps interesting to read, is not actually necessary to tell readers what the play is (and mostly serves to promote the critic's name, by riding the coattails of a notable fictional work).

And your suggestion for people to expand four random South Park episode articles was unnecessary anyway. There is no consensus to delete those articles.[48] Every episode is notable regardless of your little experiment to get other people to jump through your imaginary hoops. You seem to think that the only way something can be notable is for people to write about it, but that's simply untrue. Discussions about "notability" are off topic on this policy talkpage anyway. --Pixelface (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, back then I talked about it, and you expressed your concerns about mixing WP:N into policy. And guess what, I now agree with that and thus agree that we should not be trying to imply notability concerns in WP:NOT. I'm trying to compromise and listen to everyone else to find a median position and my beliefs on what we should be doing have changed to match. And while discussing notability here on WP:NOT is out of context, I still will argue that we need to be discussing an appropriate threshold of notability for having an article - yes, per a normal dictionary every episode of most major TV shows are notable, but they don't meet the threshold we ask for standalone topics. The work done by people at the South PArk page helps to demonstrate that likely most SP episodes will pass that threshold and thus need to merge. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The wording there was way too far onto the side of demanding plot summaries on every article and suggesting that any length ios fine as long as it's not the "sole" part of the article -- so 95% plot summary and then 5% "in popular culture" trivia would be fine? No. And we need to make that clear. Plot summaries have always been described as "brief" or "concise" -- the person who removed that was doing the exact opposite of what WP:NOT is all about by suggesting it needs to be deatiled. It also does not need to be in every article. Hell, that's not what most encyclopedias even are for. I think some people are wanting a WikiCliffNotesSubstitute.org kind of place. Summaries of classic works are fine, because knowing that info is part of cultural heritage. Summaries of modern works are not significant in that way.DreamGuy (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It currently reads "brief plot summary" and that is should not be a "dominant aspect of our coverage". I think this easily covers the 95/5 case you describe. However, I see absolutely no reason that if a work or element of fiction is determined to be notable to have an article to then include a plot summary to establish context. A brief plot summary is not a replacement for reading/viewing the work, nor attempts to create analysis as cliffs notes will do. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The wording neither suggests nor endorses the 95/5 case. Plot summaries should be handled on a case by case basis, with this rule being used as a general indicator of what we're trying to avoid (dominant plot summaries without real-world content). I think the only issue is whether we want to say "dominant aspect of a topic" or "dominant aspect of an article"; as I said above, I think the former is more of a compromise. — Deckiller 15:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
While "not the sole aspect" implies 95% plot is okay, using the wording "not the dominant aspect" implies that anything more than 50% plot is not okay. I'm just being matter of fact here. I think there are people who actually like 95% plot articles, just as there are some people who would never expect every fiction article to have more than 50% of its information be about reception/development. We need to find a workable range. Part of that will come from an appropriate comparison word (e.g.: something other than "sole" or "dominant"), but part of that may come from a word that describes the level of detail itself (e.g.: "not scene-by-scene"). Randomran (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't read "dominate" as necessarily implying majority, nor is that what is meant. For example, a notable TV show that's still on with 20+ years of episodes that are otherwise non-notable is going to have a main page about the show which is well covered on the real-world aspects to merit a good-sized article, possibly a character page, and reasonably a page for each season with episode summaries (I think most responding here agree this is reasonable). If I did a word count of plot vs non-plot, likely the plot will be more than 50%, but this is certainly not "dominating" the coverage of the show; those other lists are necessary parts per convention. It's a very case-by-case word, but clearly establishes an almost undue weight aspect specific for fiction that the article's focus should not be on the in-universe treatment of the work or topic. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this is just semantics, then. Because "not dominant" suggests < 50% to a lot of people. Is there another wording that would allow more than 50% plot in many cases, but never anything even close to "plot only"? Randomran (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Plot summaries don't need to be described as brief or concise, that's implicit in the word summary. The use of the word concise was a mistake by the initial proposer, for which I'm happy to hold my hands up and say mea culpa. But I'll let you guys move it on from here. Hiding T 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Plus, "impact" and "significance" mean the same thing; we should change one of those words to "development". Thus: "Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, development, and significance of notable works. A plot summary is appropriate as part of that coverage, but should never become the dominant aspect of a topic." — Deckiller 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree on changing "significance" to "development". The other words are kind of redundant. Randomran (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I swapped impact for significance. I prefer that. Hiding T 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I think this is a less controversial/tricky part of the section, and I think it will basically stick. Let's get back to focusing on the (1) proportion of plot summary and (2) detail of plot summary. Those are the real issue. Randomran (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I point out that we had previous talked about "brief" vs "concise" and other words as to describe the depth of plot summary, and "concise" was the better word, because it still implies brief but not omitting key factors. We use just as many words as needed to describe the plot to make it understandable and support the rest of the article. As to proportions - I don't think we want to spell out any numbers, and that's why "dominating" is good, because it's not so much the numbers but how the article is written that comes into effect. The only 'special' case here is when an article is all plot and nothing else, but that 1) clearly dominates (by a ratio of infinity) and 2) fails WP:N, so we don't have to call it out as being special. The only thing that I would prefer is to avoid the word "article" because, due to accepted existence of lists of characters and episodes, it's the topic or the coverage of the topic that we consider how plot applies, and not any specific article. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I just think that "not dominant" might be abused to cut down articles that are more than half plot. And for what it's worth, lists of episodes and characters are :sometimes: accepted (and for a group of editors, they're begrudgingly tolerated), and :sometimes: deleted or merged. Trying to settle that issue here and now is only going to disrupt any chance of reaching consensus. Instead, we should come up with a wording that allows some and not others. I actually think these are a question of detail, rather than proportion. Take a look at the kinds of character lists that we delete (indeed, you nominated a few of them): [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] ... Randomran (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I don't want to have PLOT being what justifies the acceptable LoC/LoE, but to simply make sure they aren't rejected by it either, which is why basing our judgment of the amount of content by per-article level is not the best approach - we have notability to deal with the problem of overwhelming primary-sourced plot-only type articles at the article level.
So basically we're trying to look for a word or phrase to replace "dominate". I'm tossing out words here like "primary", "focused", "concentrated", "directed towards", "highlighted"... I sorta like "concentrate" , as this implies both a possible ratio and a possible tone aspect but does not limit by any specific numbers. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Those are good ideas. Just brainstorming. But what about "... may sometimes be the majority of an article but should not dominate it". Or perhaps, "... should not be presented without major coverage of reception or impact." The idea being that we often have 50+% plot, but you get into trouble as you get closer to 100%. Randomran (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
After looking at the back-and-forth changes in wording today, I think it might be best to avoid using the word "article", and I thought that Hiding's suggestion to use "coverage" instead of "article" or "topic" could be a better option. How about: "A plot summary is appropriate as part of that coverage, but should not become the main aspect of our coverage." I've made three changes from the established version: "never" → "not", "dominant" → "main", and "an article" → "our coverage". –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
So you are extending this to lists? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't considered that possible side-effect. Then again, I didn't think that using "an article" excluded lists. Perhaps Masem is correct that we should for now focus on a replacement for "dominate" (or determine whether a replacement is needed)... –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is probably semantics, but I don't think we get there by swapping "dominate" with "main". Rather than saying "plot should not dominate", how about saying "plot summary should not be presented without slight/some/significant/proportional/large (take your pick) coverage of development or reception"? Randomran (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Much of this discussion is concerning details of just how much to write and what depth to write it--all good questions, where we need reasonable guidelines, because the quality of what's here needs a lot of improvement. Much of what's been suggested here is good advice towards this. But details certainly don't belong in this very general policy page. We're each trying to adjust the different wording is to orient it towards preferred more detailed interpretation, but that can go in circles indefinitely, just like the last few years. Rather, we want something neutral that is not restrictive or prescriptive, one way or another, and that can be interpreted flexibly, as we may decide to for different situations and different media. "Wikipedia coverage of fiction should not consist only of plot summary. " I think we all agree on this. How much more we want to say, we can say elsewhere, but this very basic policy should be something no reasonable person is likely to dispute. DGG (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with DGG. WP:NOT#PLOT can't proscribe what is appropriate, it can only say what is not. I have amended the wording to
A summary of the plot may be appropriate as part of that coverage, but plot summary alone is not encyclopedic.
I hope this version meets everyone's requirements. . --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with DGG, but there may be a consensus for more than that. I think virtually everyone would agree that an article should not solely be a summary of a plot. But I think most people would agree that an article should not be "dominated" by plot summary -- not in the 50%+1 sense, but in the "where's everything else?" sense. I'm hoping we can find an agreeable wording, because obviously "dominant" is too vague, and open to WP:WIKILAWYERing. Randomran (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I see my version has been reverted again, but I don't think the issue of proscription is being taken seriously, so I will make my view more explicit. WP:NOT describes what is not allowable in Wikipedia, and I think we are all agreed that plot summary alone is not. However, I don't think we will ever agree on a proportion, as this is a matter of opinion, not fact. Whether plot summary is the dominant or subserviant is not really our concern - the proportion (99.9% or 50.1%) can only be agreed upon by consensus. WP:NOT#PLOT can't proscribe what proportion of plot is appropriate, since this is something that needs to be worked out on the article talk page or in peer review in Good Article or Deletion discusions. Even if we follow Deckill suggestion, how is he going to enforce it? Tag every article which he feels plot is too dominant? Sounds like a bit kinky to me. Lets get back to the more simple, less subjective wording[70]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A plot summary "may" be appropriate?

A plot summary "may" be appropriate? Could someone provide examples where a plot summary is inappropriate in an article covering fiction? — Deckiller 22:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In aspects of a fictional work that don't have to do with plot, like Corrupted Blood incident. Or works of fiction without a plot, such as Geometry Wars. In these cases, though, they'd simply be irrelevant. I'd be okay with changing the wording "a concise plot summary is appropriate, where relevant" -- or something to that effect. Randomran (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In that case, it's simply redundant. If there is no plot, then there it is impossible to have a plot summary in the first place. "May" implies that we are being subjective regarding works with plots. It's like saying "a shade of green should be featured in green objects, if appropriate". If the article is about a nonfiction aspect of the work, then it's nonfiction in the first place and not coverage of fiction. Intentionally or not, it strikes me as a phrase included by the minority that disapproves the idea of covering fiction on Wikipedia. — Deckiller 22:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd try to assume good faith that the word "may" was there for a good reason. I've seen people add information for the sake of pushing as much of their favorite topic as possible. I've seen someone go into a sophisticated discussion of greek myths in an article about video game units, to try to prove it wasn't a game guide. I've seen people adding short plot summaries to articles about political figures and countries, with extensive links to television episodes and characters. If that kind of absurdity means we have to throw in a "... where relevant" statement as common sense, then we should. In my experience, there is no common sense, and we should be clear in our policies without being paranoid or complex. "May" is probably too vague, but I would be reluctant to give a complete and total pass. Randomran (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you went ahead and changed it. Care to add some kind of brief qualifier, to address some of those good faith concerns? Randomran (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
My length of time away from Wikipedia shows that I've been out of touch with the newcomers; you're right in that there is no common sense when it comes to the constant influx of new editors. My problem is that "where relevant" is a bit too vague, as some may interpret it to believe that five paragraphs on McCain's cameo character on 24 is "relevant and appropriate". My problems with "may" still hold, so I think another option may be best. Perhaps we can spell it out flatly:
"Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. A plot summary is appropriate in articles about fiction, but should never become the dominant/main/etc aspect of an article/topic/etc."
"Articles about fiction" makes it clear that we can't have an entire synopsis of the role of Mythological Reference 38694 in the latest Star Ocean spinoff. I think it also covers DreamGuy's universal concern about trivia being given undue weight in articles on real-world subjects. — Deckiller 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's exactly my concern. We only really need two or three words to tackle that kind of thing, and I'm not picky about what they are. Randomran (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
If anyone can think of a tighter compromise WRT wording, please be bold. — Deckiller 23:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • A plot summary may not be appropriate when it breaches copyright, is confusing and so on and so forth. Are you suggesting we mandate the use of plot summary on all articles concerning fiction, or should it be editor choice? Is it something we allow or something we mandate? "May" is used repeatedly on this page and in almost all Wikipedia policies and guidance, from WP:V to Wikipedia:Words to avoid. It simply means there is "permission or the opportunity" or "the possibility is open" for plot summaries to be used. The other useful word in this situation is "can", but that has just as many issues, because it leads to wiki-lawyering of the, but this page says "I can". Since Wikipedia is governed by consensus, everything may be possible. It doesn't mean you can do everything possible, or that everything can be possible. But once again, we're reduced to arguing over a word. I love Wikipedia. Proposals can fail over a comma, policies get bogged down in disputes over shortcuts, and 30 000 unsourced articles about living people are allowed to merrily inform or misinform people in the meantime. Hiding T 11:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • How about "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work, but plot summary alone is not encyclopedic." There just might be exceptions (I can't think of one), but if we use the phase "may be appropriate", then I think there would have be a list of exceptions where plot summary may not be appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, Gavin. We're discussing word use now because we're trying to prevent Wikilawyering later, which could be far more widespread than a single talkpage. The problem is that "may", in this case, implies that some articles about fictional works with plots simply don't "deserve" summaries. — Deckiller 13:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we please keep the status quo until a consensus develops for how and whether to change the section on plots? Regarding this proposed change[71] I think that whereas "may" was too wishy-washy, "is" is too definite. I would consider a qualifier like "generally", "usually", etc. I also don't like pre-judging appropriateness. How do we know in advance what is appropriate to every article? Better to sidestep the issue and say that a plot summary may be included if appropriate to the broader scope of an article about a work. I don't like the current version's use of "never" - never say never. I could envision editors agreeing as an organizational matter that a particular child article should consist primarily of one or more plot summaries. "Plot summary alone is not encyclopedic" raises that too, but also misses the point I think. Wikidemon (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the best way to state this is "Plot summaries or synopses are acceptable parts in the coverage of a topic about a narrative work (this may include both fiction and non-fiction!) along with reception, development, influence, and legacy, but plot summarizes should be the dominating/primary/concentrated/(whatever word) aspect of that coverage." Plot summaries through this are not considered "bad" and in fact encouraged, but at the same time, they're not the sole aspect we want in such articles. (And note this also applies to non-fiction, e.g. our coverage of reality TV shows or shows like Mythbusters should fall in the same lines) --MASEM (t) 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to stand in the way of removing may as it seems like you're all leaning towards agreement. Hiding T 14:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with Masem's wording: "they are acceptable". I'm also okay with what Wikidemon has proposed, with "usually" or "generally". If people don't like those, I'm even okay with the vagueness of "may", which isn't vague so much as it means "it's allowed". The only thing I'm not comfortable with is a definitive "is". Most of this policy uses may: "may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive", or "less well-known people may be mentioned". All this means is that we determine this by consensus and common sense, and it's never a guarantee. Randomran (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • When are they not acceptable? Surely it is this policy to say "What is not". Instead of listing all of the instances of when plot is or is not acceptable, why not make it simple and say "Plot summary alone is not encyclopedic" or ""Plot summary by itself is not encyclopedic"?
    Anthing less definite is probably best left to discussion elsewhere, as proscribing what may and may not acceptable levels of plot summary is too subjective, and there too many formulas for expressing this for us even to embark of trying to list them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd shudder to try and shut the "subjectivity" out of just WP:NOT, let alone every policy. There's a difference between subjectivity and just allowing for common sense discussion about how to meet our standards. Under WP:NOTDICTIONARY, when *may* a word or phrase be encyclopedic? Under WP:NOTDIR, when *may* a lesser known person be included as part of an article? Under WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, when *may* an example be used for informative purposes? We don't say exactly when these are acceptable, and for good reason. Same thing with plot. We allow editors to use common sense and build a consensus that "you know what, plot summary just isn't appropriate here". There's nothing terrible about "may", but there's far more risks associated with absolutes. Randomran (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine a work of fiction where a plot summary is not acceptable, though I can imagine that editors on a particular page or range of articles may decide to omit them where they add nothing. With nonfiction there are probably cases - for example, an article of a biography of George Washington should not recount the events of his life. Should an article about a travelogue include a comprehensive summary of the itinerary? Maybe some computer game articles should not describe the plot if the plot is unimportant, e.g. a first person shooter. You go to a big cave, then you go through the tunnel with the trolls... On the other hand, role playing games present an occasion where the plot may be the dominant part of the article. Kingdom Hearts, a featured article, has two excellent sub-articles: Universe of Kingdom Hearts and Characters of Kingdom Hearts (also a featured article). While not exactly plot summaries they are summaries of things in the world of a body of fiction. I'm not sure that proves my point though. Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it's nice to point out that the Category:Final Fantasy VIII concept is being followed throughout role playing topics. ;) — Deckiller 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about judging everything in advance, except where we know for sure. I've seen people add plot summaries from comedy shows that parody a public figure to an article about that public figure. I don't know what else people might do in the future. That's kind of the point. I'd be okay with what you proposed, with a word like "generally" or "usually". I'm pretty much okay with anything that can't be interpreted as "plot summaries are always okay everywhere". Randomran (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I could live with "usually", to be honest. It seems a bit more reasonable than "may". — Deckiller 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So, something like: Plot summaries. Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. A plot summary is usually appropriate within that coverage, but should never become the sole aspect of an article. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)? Hiding T 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. — Deckiller 01:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this is good. Although I think we also might want to keep something in there about the appropriate level of detail. (Previously, we said "concise", but we could say something like "not a scene by scene description".) Still, this is an improvement on what we have now, and what we had a week or so ago. Randomran (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In answer to Randomran, I agree that everything about WP:NOT is subjective, but I think you will agree that the prohibitions it need to be clear and definite - the use of the term "may", "could" or "might" should be left out if possible, because ambiguity will encourage yet more revisions and won't last a week. My advise is not to beat around the bush, just state the prohibition in a straightforward fashion:

Plot summaries. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of balanced coverage of a fictional work that includes commentary about its real-world reception, impact, and significance, but plot summary on its own is not.

If a lasting amendment can be written, I think it has to say (a) when plot summary is appropriate and (b) when it is not. Saying anything in between is unnecessary.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You've introduced subjectivity back with "concise". A plot summary, by definition is concise, because it is a summary. We've got guidance on writing a plot summary at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. How about we include a link to that instead of using a word that isn't clear or definite? Hiding T 09:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The word consise could be dropped, but that is the word used in Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. It could also be dropped to make the sentence shorter (not a bad thing). Using a link could be useful too, so I am with you on this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that "plot summary" is a subjective word - for some, this is "concise" while others see it as being a shorter retelling of the work. Some people feel it necessary that a plot summary cover every major point in a work even if this extends the work by 3 or 4 times over the core story when it is possible to skip over these and approach the plot from a different angle to simplify matters. (see, for example, Chrono Trigger, where the current plot summary is a significant trim of a very valid plot summary that covered every major detail, and it took a bit of discussion to make editors accept this). "Concise" implies that we're looking for short summaries, and this can be further exemplified in WAF. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
But like I say, concise is implicit in the word summary, and it is already guided at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and WP:WAF. I don;t think having the word concise in this brief statement is going to help, because it causes arguments over what concise actually means. Far better if we rely on the guidance at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and WP:WAF to determine how to write a plot summary, and let WP:NOT tell people they can't just write a plot summary. Hiding T 14:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure I can understand that, I think as long as it's clear that WAF provides that guidance for what is a plot summary. eg, if the language here was "A plot summary, as guided by Writing about Fiction, is appropriate as..." then it would be clear what we're expected from plot summary without spelling it out here. Just leaving "plot summary" in the text without further description of what we mean will cause confusion. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
My thought was to make plot summary a link to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, so something like "Wikipedia's coverage of a fictional work includes commentary about its real-world reception, impact, and significance. A plot summary is typically appropriate as part of that coverage, but should never become the sole basis of an article. For further guidance see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)". Are we getting any closer? Hiding T 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As you can see, it's never possible to eliminate the need for interpretation. It's not like we can have a bot that rolls around applying these policies. But if it really means that much to you, I can live with your revisions. I prefer Deckiller's above, though. Randomran (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't see where Deckiller's is. Can you point me to it? Hiding T 16:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, I missed your sig. So the one I prefer is yours. Randomran (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I missed it too, but it still doesn't let me know which one. There's about five suggested versions here. Can you narrow it down? :) Hiding T 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, this one, that you wrote:
"Plot summaries. Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. A plot summary is usually appropriate within that coverage, but should never become the sole aspect of an article. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)"
Although I do think we might want to say something about the level of detail, too. But we can work that out after. We have a consensus on this much, so we should move forward where we agree and take care of the rest later. Randomran (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to turn plot summary in "A plot summary is usually..." into a link to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary? As to detail, personally I think that's adequately covered in both Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), but it's certainly an area for discussion. Hiding T 18:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a separate discussion, and I don't have strong feelings either way. (But I do like some of the language there, such as "not a full recap", and "not scene by scene", which I think represent a consensus view of what an article about fiction is not.) Randomran (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this version is too vague. The term "sole aspect" is just to obtuse - it sounds like a matter of perspective or style rather than content. WP:NOT#PLOT prohibits articles that are comprised entirely of plot summary. To refer to this prohibition in terms of aspect, perspective or focus is too indirect. Lets not beat around the bush - can't simply we agree on wording that means exactly what it says? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Too detailed. This is not the page for notability requirements for fiction, nor is it the page for the contents of articles about fiction. its the page for ruling out some types of articles that might otherwise be thought acceptable. The only thing that need here is that "the coverage of a fictional work can not be a mere plot summary." Everything else goes elsewhere when we eventually agree on it. The other reason for a minimal statement here is that the less is said, the more like we are all to agree on saying it. DGG (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
With respect, this is exactly the right page to detail what content we expect in an article, as can be seen in other entries on the page. Hiding T 21:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No its not. We can't proscribe in detail what we expect, we have to say what we don't want and keep it to a minimum so we don't overstep the mark. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, you're talking past me. It is exactly the right page to detail what content we expect in an article, per WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:SPECULATION, WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:NOT#STATS. All of those both make clear what we do not want and what we do want, and that's the basis for the original proposal for WP:PLOT and later proposals, including one of your own, Gavin. I don't think it is enough to say "the coverage of a fictional work can not be a mere plot summary." I think we also need to add, to borrow from the section on lyrics, something like "has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc." which would leave us with:
Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work can not be a mere plot summary but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc.
How many versions does that make? Can we not just pick one? This works for lyrics, can we make it work for us? Hiding T 11:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
While I'm still processing what I just read (so perhaps I'm misunderstanding something), what Hiding just said (about using the existing text/guidelines) sounds rather great to me. - jc37 11:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Hiding, I think you are on the right track, which is to be more direct. Modifying your version to incorporate the original text results in:
Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work cannot be a mere plot summary but has to include real-world content about its reception, impact, and significance.
Is this what you are driving towards? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think these two are some of the best yet. Just that "reception", "impact", and "significance" all mean the same thing, and we should probably replace one with "development". And we might want to say "substantial real-world content", so people are clear that we don't just mean "it's a book in the real world written by a real author". Randomran (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the weakness of the word "include". It could lend itself to people putting in just a line or two as justification. What about something like "focus on". Or rewording the whole thing slightly to read:
Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate coverage of real-world content about the work's reception, impact, and significance.
Locke9k (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that looks even better. The word "facilitate" is a bit too open, when something simpler like "provide" might is clearer. How about
Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should be used to provide context for substantial real-world coverage of the work's development, reception, and significance.
--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually in favor of being pretty open when it comes to the question of how the plot summary should help coverage of the work's development, reception, and significance. Its not clear to me that providing context is the only way; it seems to me that we should just make the purpose of plot summaries clear and then leave it up to editors to decide how exactly the summary should be used to help; whether for context, clarification, or something else that we haven't thought of here. As long as it is being used to further the overall coverage and not just for the sole purpose of having a summary. I am therefore in favor of keeping the word "facilitate" or something else similarly broad on this point. On the other hand, I think the other changes you have made are really great. Locke9k (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How about "A summary should facilitate coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance"? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. Locke9k (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So is everyone comfortable with

Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance.

If there are no objections, I'll make the edit as it seems like we have reached a reasonable consensus. Locke9k (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My only real concern is that I don't want people to think they can just add "the fiction comes from author_x on date_y" and assume that's real-world coverage. I'd like to throw in "substantial coverage", but I'd be open to any other wording that accomplishes the same thing. Randomran (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed.
Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance.
Locke9k (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Great work. That said, can we wikify one instance of plot summary to link to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary? I'd like to give that prominence to show that we do want plot summary, and offer advice on how to write it. Also, Masem has a point below, what do people think about changing "fictional" in "coverage of a fictional work" to "narrative"? Would that address concerns that this doesn't touch on reality tv, or does it muddy the water? Another way is to amend it to "coverage of a fictional or narrative driven work", or something. Hiding T 09:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I like this version. Let's put it up for now, because I think it has consensus. Then let's discuss the other issues. (For the record, I agree with Hiding on both issues.) Randomran (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
All right, I have implemented this version, with the wikified plot summary link as Hiding suggested. We can deal with the 'non-fictional works' issue separately now that this is implemented at least. Locke9k (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanding past fictional works

I would like to urge that if we are rewriting this that we consider that this is more than just fictional works that this is geared towards but any type of work that's a narrative - with the best examples being shows like "Mythbusters" or any reality TV show. It's still possible for these shows to create plot summaries even if they aren't scripted, and while I know what our coverage of shows like Survivor and the like are maybe a tad heavy, we don't want coverage of a reality show being simply about what happened and not describing how the show or season or whatever was recieved or details behind it. This also would be the same for works like The Bible or any other religious text, narrative tales of fact with some possible fiction thrown in, and so forth. It's the same idea: we're not here to cover what happened in these narrative but instead to establish the context of that narrative with the common reader, with a summary of the narrative being an acceptable part of that coverage. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We've made some progress. We finally have something well-worded that says plot summary alone isn't okay. I think the next step is to deal with this other stuff. Perhaps we only need to change "fictional work" to "fiction and narrative", or "fiction and entertainment"? Randomran (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the Bible either "fiction" or "entertainment" (that's a very very very very bad problem waiting to happen), but it does need to be covered under this idea. That's why I like the word "narrative". And I would list it as "narrative work, both fiction and non-fiction" as a replacement of "fictional work". And change "plot summary" to "narrative summary". --MASEM (t) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that I agree with the use of the word 'narrative'. Suppose there is a very reliable source on WWII that is structured as a narrative of the war. Is the only acceptable use of a summary of this content then to "facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance"? I don't think so. The narrative now has actual content value that is not simply an aid in establishing real world fact about that specific work. A summary of the 'WWII narrative' is something of value in and of itself (although it would likely draw from multiple sources. So we may need to think more carefully about what sorts of non-fiction works we wish to really address, and also try to think of a better word than 'narrative' in my opinion. Locke9k (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it would help if someone could link to an article which they feel has a problem with excessive 'non-fiction plot summary'. Right now its not clear to me that there is an actual problem that the suggested change would address. Locke9k (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Survivor: Tocantins? Hiding T 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Which was the example I was going to offer up even though I'm semi-invested in the article. That is, this is fine for a start, but we know that we can write an article on a Survivor season better.
The other factor that I consider is that when those like Pixelface that assert Plot shouldn't be here, it is that part of their argument is that it does discriminate against fictional works. In reality, any TV show, any book, etc., we don't fully detail its contents (WP's not a replacement for reading the real thing), whether it's fiction or not. Thus, expanding it (IMO naturally) to go to any narrative work just helps to make this less an issue about fiction, and more about how we cover any narrative work. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you are talking about now. It would be good to expand the wording to cover this sort of thing. However, I am still concerned with accidentally covering informative non-fiction, such as my example of a non-fictional WWII narrative above. I can't think of a succinct wording to parse the difference right now, so maybe someone else can. Locke9k (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The content of a non-fiction narrative like the WWII is good for using as sources in other articles, but on the article about that work, it is not necessary to go into detail about the contents of the narrative. Or, as a different example, Call of Duty: World at War describes the war as "realistically" as the video game can, and there's fictional characters in it, but the plot in the WP article does not dwell on the historical aspects in any depth and relies on wikilinks to help the reader fill in the blanks. So I don't think expanding past fiction is going to impact what you are looking to do. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
My objection is not to expanding past fiction, but to simply replacing the word "fiction" in the present version with "narrative". I think we need a bit more thought out change than just that, in order to make clear that this is only meant to apply to articles about the work of fiction/nonfiction. Locke9k (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The other problem is that there could conceivably be non-narrative fiction, and I wouldn't want to create a loophole for that.Locke9k (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How about this wording:

Plot summaries. Articles about narrative works, whether fictional or nonfictional and regardless of medium, should not consist of mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance.

Locke9k (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that this proposal to extend WP:NOT#PLOT is misguided and not needed. In terms of non-ficitonal topics, any commentary is going to be real-world based, and strictly speaking is not the same as plot summary, which is written from an in universe perspective. It is perfectly acceptable to have an coverage that contains only real-world commentary; the only prohibitions are that it can't be product placement. We can't expand WP:NOT#PLOT in this way, because real-world commentary must contain the context, criticism, and analysis which is required to write an encyclopedic article. I think we need to work this proposal through a few more times using example articles to illustrate its application before continuing this discussion further. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Real-world commentary is not what this is about, nor an attempt to limit it. We're talking about the actual content of non-fiction works - what's printed in The Bible, what's shown during Survivor, what the meerkats do in Meerkat Manor. Just like with the content of fiction works, we shouldn't be focused on just reiterating the content - WP is not a replacement for the work in question, but instead want commentary and analysis of the work, with the summary of the content as part of the WP article. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought the same thing, and then someone linked this article, which is on a non-fictional topic:Survivor: Tocantins.Locke9k (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the difference between real-world and fantasy-world narrative is an important cut-off. Real-world coverage is the stuff encyclopedic articles are made of, so we can't prohbit it. The real problem with the article Survivor: Tocantins is that the subject matter of the article is not notable, as all of the source cited are either TV listings or the show itself, and if a topic fails WP:N then it is almost sure to fail one or more of Wikipedia's content policies as well (Masem: note bene).
For example, a topic that is sourced soley from the primary sources is always at risk failing WP:NPOV because it is over reliant on one source. This is not so obvious in this example, but is important for non-fiction works like Mein Kampf. Going back to the example of the article Survivor: Tocantins, it is fairly neutral in tone, but since the topic fails WP:N, then this is probably indicates that it fails WP:NPOV by virtue of the fact that it is a content fork from the over-arching topic Survivor (U.S. TV series).
The points I am making here are quite subtle, but if I spell out my reservations more clearly, then it will become more obvious. WP:NNC states that notability does not give guidance on the content of articles; but if an article fails WP:N then it is like to fail one or more of the content polices, which ever one is the most obvious. Topics that fail WP:N are almost always content forks, which is almost always a reason why articles without reliable secondary sources are merged into article that do in deletion discussions.
If you really want to prohibit the excessive narrative of the type in the article Survivor: Tocantins, then I would suggest you read my proposal Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide which covers this issue in full, but without straying over the boundry with real-world content that involves entangling this proposal with WP:NNC. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You're still missing the point; it is not about notability (PLOT is never about notability). Take The Bible. We don't have to worry about talking about its legacy , its importance to Christianity, etc. That's fine. But, what we don't do, just as with fiction, is to go into details about what is stated within The Bible on the coverage of the Bible, and leave it at that. Even a concept that comes from the Bible, like Noah's Ark, does not simply consist of the coverage of the Bible's narrative of the story, but is more about its legacy and the like. Yes, most non-fiction works can be notable because they're talking about real-world events, and the additional information about its impact and the like will usually be easy to find, but the key is that coverage of the non-fiction work should not focus on the narrative - the narrative summary should be short and sweet just like we encourage with plot summaries for fiction works and part of the larger coverage of the work. That's it. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Should plot summary be the subject of this policy?

[Unindent] I disagree: A plot summary is one of the basic details about a fictional work, and almost every encyclopedic article on fiction should have one. In order to make our point that it shouldn't be the only thing covered, we need to avoid making it appear that plot summaries are disfavoured.

Frankly, if I had my way, I'd just yank the whole plot summary thing from this page: Why should a stub with a plot summary be deleted, but one that has some other basic content not be? If anything, a stub on a book that briefly detailed the plot is more useful and encyclopedic than one that concentrated on other coverage. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, every article on WP should be helping to put into context of why that topic may be of interest to the average reader in its goal of being an encyclopedia; a work that just presents facts without analysis is doing little good for anyone that is unaware of the topic to start with. A article that is plot summary alone or dominated by one will be of use to the reader that is aware of the work (eg a Star Trek fan looking up an episode) but not the someone who had never read the work before. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? I've occasionally gone around Wikipedia reading about film plots, because I know that as rarely as I watch films, I'll never actually get a chance to see them, but would like to know more. Just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean others don't. Another example: Many, many people like to read a plot summary of an opera before eeing it, so that they don't need to be too distracted by the subtitles. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
In fairness to Masem, I don't think he is saying that plot summary is not useful nor interesting to read. However, just because a plot summary is useful or interesting does not make it encyclopedic, which is why 'What Wikipedia is not' exists.
Plot summary appears as flap copy on the back of books and DVDs, and is a very common form of product description common to virtually every sort of product you can imagine that comes in packaging (from AA batteries to Xbox). You will find these product descriptions are broadcast everywhere, reproduced in newspapers, websites, advertising and press releases, but whether we choose to read them or not is a matter of personal preference. In Wikipedia, we are not allowed to express personal preference about partiular topics that we would like to read (see WP:ILIKEIT), so we use inclusion criteria to identify those topics that provide sufficient coverage for an encyclopedic article (such as WP:NOT).
I think what Masem is saying is that plot summary alone does not provide sufficient context outside of the product description itself to indicate that a topic is encyclopedic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(de-dent) If inclusion of plot summaries are (as suggested above) something to follow spcific rules for inclusion, and are to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, I strongly suspect that they probably should therefore not be listed at WP:NOT. - jc37 09:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOT#NEWS, but that doesn't mean that articles cannot contain dictionary definitions and news coverage. The point that comes up more often than not is that articles shouldn't consist exclusively of a dictdef, news or plot, and it gets particularly hard to justify the existance of articles from an encyclopedic point of view when they cannot be improved/expanded beyond those NOT points. Therefore, the inclusion of PLOT in NOT seems quite right here. – sgeureka t•c 10:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think most editors agree that Wikipedia articles should not merely be dictionary definitions, plot summaries, or the like. This isn't to say that they're not part of a balanced, well-written article. Randomran (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


I've tried a few tweaks to make things clearer. See what everyone thinks. For the record, I've included my version below. The changes are mainly:

  • Separating out the FAQ discussion, so we don't start with a "Should never include", when everything else is a "should not solely include" - very different things!
  • Bolding "solely"
  • Clarified some wording so we say more precisely what what we mean, and do not unintentionally give the impression that things are forbidden which are not.


Thoughts? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to sound overly conservative... but I think we should try to sort out one thing at a time. This is going to spark a much larger debate that will be nearly impossible to pin down. Trust me that it hasn't been easy to get this far, and we shouldn't push our luck. Randomran (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If it's reverted, that's fine, though I hope it isn't =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem here is that historically, plot summaries was listed here specifically because they were NOT what Wikipedia is about. Now we've had people weaken that, and then flip it around to go from saying we don't do plot summaries to insisting that any encyclopedia has to have them -- in which case I guess some people haven't looked at a lot of real world encyclopedias.

I'm certainly willing to agree that there should be no total ban on plot summaries, but they certainly do not need to be there at all (if they did they'd be listed on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia needs to have instead), and they should be concise. Saying they shouldn't be the "sole" part of an article implies that they should be the major part of the article, which, again, is NOT what Wikipedia is for and not why it was ever brought up on this page in the first place. I would agree with language saying that a concise plot summary can be helpful, but if we mention length compared to rest of the article we need to suggest either "not the major part of the article" or "a minor aspect of the overall encyclopedic coverage" or something along those lines. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why linking to WAF and WP:How to write a plot summary is critical as those spell out length and the like. However, I do agree that people will infer a article can be mostly plot summary as long as it is not "sole", which is why I'd rather see a word like "dominating" or "focused" or whatever in regards to the plot summary vs the rest of the article. It's not a numbers game, it's basically how the article is written; if the plot section is more glorified than the real-world aspects, its a problem per NOT. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
May I remind everyone that my proposed text reads. "Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. A plot summary should only be part of that coverage." Because I rather thought that dealt with the mentioned objections, and you're referring to language that doesn't appear. If you're referring to the lead in to the discussion, that has to cover plot summaries, statistics, news reports, and lyrics. Too strong there, and we start discriminating against statistics way too much. (The old version read "Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:") Perhaps the simplest way is just to change the order: Put statistics first, then plot summaries, news reports, and then lyrics, and they're more-or-less in decreasing order of value. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There is, however, one other aspect that worries me a little: It's all well and good to say that plot summaries should not be the focus of a developed article, but we shouldn't be coming down too hard on stubs and start class articles. (Though lyrics are evil in any circumstance) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?

Why are we using the word "encyclopedic" like it's some badge of honor? That word is subjective to whomever uses it. An encylopedia is a compendium of knowledge and information; why is a plot summary not encyclopedic? Because it gives information on a book or film? Please stop using the word to justify your own feelings on plot summary. Angryapathy (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary on its own is not encyclopedic because it does not contain any real-world context, commentary, criticisim or analysis that you would expect from balanced coverage of a fictional topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
That who would expect? --Pixelface (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Encyclopedic means is relies on secondary sources, which these works of fiction themselves are not. They are primary sources. Resurr Section (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

...for three days. Please work out the issue on the talk page before edit warring. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

amazing. I just saw this. Two wordings which essentially mean the same thing, and we edit war over them. The actual effect of this policy will, just as always, be the way its interpreted. I could perfectly well argue from either wording to either conclusion on any particular article--and for that matter, so could those arguing about them. Julian did absolutely right to protect. We had a reasonable discussion converging on two reasonable alternatives, until people trying to prematurely judge the result. I'd tend to wonder if the intent were to block any consensus, except that all of the edit warriors were being very helpful on the talk page. Let's treat it as an aberration, encouraged, IMHO, by the possibility of rapid reverting inherent to our editing mechanism. It's wildly inappropriate on a key policy page. DGG (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure what the rush is. It's needed clarification for a while. Why not discuss first? The discussion is going well. Randomran (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for new category: Wikipedia is not a publicist's tool

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

There is an ongoing discussion in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons about using the names of private, living individuals who have received wide media coverage, which raised this question: "Is it feasible to argue that someone is not notable despite wide media coverage." The answer we came up with was this: "Yes. For example, the child of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes is not notable despite wide media coverage." This has been the subject of some ongoing edit wars, and part of the problem is that the standard talks about private individual, but people argue that, since they're well known, they're not private. This misses the point, but that's because the word "private" is a bit ambiguous here.

The problem seems to come from the fact that friends and relatives of celebrities will find their names in print in both tabloids and somewhat more respectable magazines like People. I'd like to illustrate why this doesn't make them notable. However, the primary criterion for notability is "significant coverage." The definition of notability instructs people to check out What Wikipedia is not for exceptions to this criterion, and I'd like to outline a clear exception here. None of this is new. It's all contained in other policy statements, but I think it would be clearer with a new entry. So here's what I propose:

Wikipedia is not a publicist's tool.

Publicists and the Public Relations industry often generate a great deal of news coverage of people who are not notable, in order to improve the image of their clients, who usually are notable. Consequently, we learn the names and details of the private lives of the children, parents, spouses and lovers (current and former), and friends of notable people. But people aren't notable just because they get media coverage through their relationship with someone who is notable. Publicists may work to inform the public about the lives of friends and relatives of some celebrity, but Wikipedia does not assist them in their work by further disseminating these personal details.

—MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I find this to be an interesting post; well thought out and very well explained. First I know that our WP:COI guideline does cover the bulk of what you're addressing in the "Publicists" area. That's not to say that it couldn't be reiterated here as long as caution was taken in regards to possible conflicting principles between the policy and the guideline. On the second note, well actually the first chronologically, I can imagine that the BLP discussion is quite enlightening, I'll have to pop over and read it. I'm sure that the phrases "Notability is not inherited" and things like "Famous does not mean notable" have been bandied about quite a bit. I think some of the wording in your suggestion is quite good, and I hope there's some good feedback on it. ;) — Ched :  ?  01:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Per the proposed NOT guideline, there's always the possibility that some people would come here and post a spitload of praise about some not notable person or object then try to post some refs that don't quite hold. Editors masquerading as some person's spokesman or spokeswoman fall into this category.--Eaglestorm (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You raise a good point that the Conflict of Interest guidelines cover much of what I'm addressing, but what I'm raising here is a parallel issue. The problem doesn't just arise when a publicist edits a page, it arises when a well-meaning editor with no COI includes material that a publicist has disseminated through the news and entertainment media, inadvertently aiding the publicist. So, on reflection, maybe the word tool is wrong, since that suggests it's a warning to publicists. Maybe it should say "...not a publicist's aide," or something like that. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
What about "Wikipedia is not a publicist"? While it might lend itself to a more OR-ish interpretation on first glance, it might be more inclusive as well. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
We do not need this, since we have WP:CSDcategory G11. But why should it matter where information comes from, if its suitable for inclusion? And why should it matter where it comes from, if it isn't? I remove contact details (other than the proper single external link to the website) from articles, no matter who puts them in. DGG (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
That's not what I'm talking about. WP:CSDcategory G11 is about removing entire articles. I'm talking about personal details in existing, valid articles about notable people. For example, there's no need for an article about a notable actor to include his or her children's names. That kind of material gets released to the press by publicists, and my point is that Wikipedia should not help the publicist disseminate that information, even inadvertently. I want the guideline to clarify what kind of material isn't suitable for inclusion, even though it's out there in the news media. I'm not talking about contact information, either, although I agree it should be removed. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a very good idea. I like "Wikipedia is not a publicist" more. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not comfortable with my original name or any of the proposed names. Some of the comments here suggest that people are reading this as a warning to publicists, which narrows its scope too much. Now I'm thinking along the lines of "Wikipedia does not duplicate a publicist's work." —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

At the RFC at Talk:Autofellatio on putting the photograph there in a togglebox defaulting to Hide, WP:NOTCENSORED was widely cited. The RFC has about concluded, and the consensus seems to be that WP:NOTCENSORED means that the method of displaying image content should not be affected by their nature. Since in its current form NOTCENSORED only refers to the removal of content, this suggests it needs amending appropriately, since experience shows that the issue can and will crop again and again in different places. It might only need a sentence but making the consensus explicit policy would save a lot strife. Comments, suggestions? Rd232 talk 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it occurs to me that NOTCENSORED doesn't really fit into WP:NOT; certainly it's the only NOT which is an adjective - the others are all nouns. It would be more logical to separate it out; and it would also permit some more explanation of and guidance on the issues. Rd232 talk 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
So there's no comparable noun form in the English language for this adjective -- so what? That doesn't mean you get to censor a line that says we don't censor things. DreamGuy (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
WTF? Giving NOTCENSORED its own page would constitute censoring? Rd232 talk 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Removing from the list because it's the only entry that is not a noun? Not a real reason for removal. Of course, no problem with suggesting alternative wordings, my own suggestion is WP:NOTACENSOREDWORK. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
That would fix the grammatical issue, which is trivial, but leave the qualitative difference with the other WP:NOTs. Censored is a quality, the other items are things; and "a censored work" is merely a thing ascribed a quality (compare: newspaper). However, it occurs to me that the reason it fits here is because WP:NOT is basically a messy Wikipedia:Inclusion policy, and obviously censorship fits into that topic. I suspect as a policy it would be better restructured as an Inclusion Policy rather than a series of NOTs, but given the battles of tiny parts of it I'd suspect it wouldn't be feasible to achieve agreement on the detail of such a rewrite, even the principle was accepted. Rd232 talk 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The real problem with WP:NOTCENSORED is of course that a lot of people think it justifies adding close-up photos of human turd production to defecation and forbids putting an autofellatio photo anywhere but in the most prominent position of the article where it appears. This is not what it says, but if moved to a separate page there is a chance that it will eventually say this. This problem would be corrected sooner or later, but only after much unnecessary disruption. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Almanac or not?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have come across quite a lot of Wikipedia pages that are written more like almanac than encyclopedia entries. They have nothing but a chart, and serve just one purpose. Common examples are that they list things like statistics or the date when a particular holiday or event will occur in upcoming years. I have looked to see if they were previously proposed for deletion, and many times, they were, but they overwhelmingly survived the afds.

I have looked, but found no sister project called "WikiAlmanac," a place where this would make better sense to be.

What is Wikipedia's view on being an almanac? Sebwite (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Our first pillar says that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Thus, almanac type information is appropriate. However, it should be treated more than just a list of data. A list of upcoming days that a holiday will be observed alone makes no sense, but in context of discussion about the holiday itself is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tweak needed for IINFO

Latest comment: 15 years ago29 comments12 people in discussion

The section "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" needs to be tweaked, as it comes to my attention that people are looking to the examples of "indiscriminate information" given under this section as an exhaustive list of disallowed types of "indiscriminate information". We need a little more in the introduction to make it a more broadly construed guideline. The problem is that there are lots of stuff which is "indiscriminate" and we need to make it clear that information must not merely be added to Wikipedia merely because it can be. The current way it is written makes it almost useless as a means of guidance for people knowing what should or shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. Any ideas of how to expand or reword this section to make it more useful? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to know what kinds of information you're talking about. I think I know what you're talking about. But I don't want to be overly broad either, so maybe it would help to think of a recent discussion you had. Randomran (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It has come up a few times, but one that springs to mind recently is the "international relations stubs" which have been a source of contention. People have been creating articles like "Gabon-Canada relations" and "Vietnam-Brazil relations" under the idea that, since articles like "Canada – United States relations" exist, we must have a complete set of relations articles for all nations in the world. Of course, the problem with creating that set of articles is that it is indiscriminate, that is the articles are created without regard for whether or not any relevent information can be added to them. That seems to me to be the exact definition of indiscriminate in the context of WP:IINFO; the idea that relevence and potential can be ignored in creating things. "Trivia" sections in articles are a different kind of problem, but still related to IINFO. They represent a lack of "discrimination" in deciding when some nugget of information needs to be added to an article or not. By definition, these sections are places to indiscriminately collect random information about the subject of the article. I agree we don't want to be too broad, but we also want to avoid giving the illusion that enumerating examples of indiscriminate information excludes all others from consideration. It seems to me to be more important to clearly explain the principle rather than to list a few places where it can be applied. To me, that would provide better guidance than the way it does now. The problem is that as long as we only consider this a "list of bad ideas" and don't actually provide guidance in how to recognize "indiscriminate information" in a more broad way, we will always miss a situation. Its impossible to predict all the ways this guideline could be violated in the future, so it is best to come up with a useful guideline in the present. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's a good point. I'm not sure how to phrase it. If you could throw out a straw man, we could refine it, poke holes in it... a concern is that while we want to show IINFO is broad, we don't want it to be an excuse to remove anything that a few people don't like -- let alone start an argument over it. Randomran (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The WP:IINFO section has pretty much become the "Trivia" section of this policy. People couldn't find another place for various sections so they threw them into the drawer labeled miscellaneous. Personally, I think the word "indiscriminate" is thrown around too much. It's better to explain why you think something shouldn't be added to Wikipedia than to use the word "indiscriminate" in your reason. And since evaluating specific articles requires human judgement, I don't think making the section broader will really help anyone.

Regarding -relations articles, has there been consensus to delete many of them? Category:Bilateral relations has 81,234 articles in it. That's more than I expected, since there are 203 sovereign states (which, I think, makes 40,803 combinations of two unique countries). I see 955 AFDs with the word "relations" in it.[72] 140 of those have "relations" in the title of the article. And about 118 of them appear to be about countries. 46 of those articles (39%) are currently redlinks and 72 of them are currently bluelinks (61%). Without checking for redirects, it appears that 3 out of 5 times such articles are kept at AFD. The category may warrant further discussion, but I don't think WT:NOT is the right venue. It looks like there are already discussions about the topic at the village pump and also a centralized discussion (as well as an ANI thread from last month). --Pixelface (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewording VERY ROUGH DRAFT

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. When deciding when to add information to Wikipedia, either as a new article, or as an addition to an existing article, one should carefully consider how the new information fits. While it is hard to define every possible way an addition can be an indiscriminate addition, the following general guidelines should help. Please note that the existance of these guidelines does not automatically preclude the existance of other ways in which indiscriminate information can be added, and care should be taken when applying these. Still, consensus has determined that these sorts of additions may be fit the definition of indiscriminate:

  • The creation of a complete set of articles based on the existance of some articles from the set.
    • Example 1) The Rolling Stones are a notable band. There are articles on some of their songs, like (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction and Start Me Up. However, one should not create new articles for every single song the Rolling Stones have ever recorded. There are reasons why some songs have their own articles, and others don't, and creating articles about every song the Rolling Stones ever sung without regard for why an article should exist about that song is indiscriminate.
    • Example 2) Canada – United States relations are notable in the fact that there are large amounts of reliable sources that report on, discuss, and analyze these relations. So also are France–United Kingdom relations and a large number of other articles discussing international relationships. There are likely hundreds of these articles for which large amounts of reliable information can be found. However, the complete set of all possible articles about bilateral relations between two nations would be indiscriminate insofar as it is done without regard for whether or not there exists source material to build an article from.
  • The addition of a verifiable fact to an article without regard for whether or not the fact is relevent to the article in question.
    • Example 1) The article on Jack Dempsey makes note of his height. However the article on Barack Obama does not. That is because the height of a boxer, like Dempsey, is considered a relevent fact about him, as he is an athlete, and his physical statistics provide a means by which to place him into context with his peers. Such information has no relevence for a politician, however, and so its inclusion in the Barack Obama article would be indiscriminate because it does not attempt to be relevent to the article into which the fact is added.
    • Example 2) Many articles have sections titled "Trivia" or "Miscellaneous" or some such. These often provide a place to collect random facts which have no other place to go in the article. However, if they have no other place to go in the article then they probably aren't really relevent facts to begin with. If Peter Griffin sings a line from the B-52s song Rock Lobster in an episode of Family Guy, its not really all that relevent to understanding the song itself, and such esoteric stand alone facts, while verifiable and true, probably do not belong in the article. Such facts are indiscriminate because they add little to no value to the understanding of the subject matter of the article.

*The addition of long passages from public domain texts to articles merely because they are public domain.

    • Example 1) Amazing Grace, whose lyrics were written in 1779, is a song whose lyrics are in the public domain, so there are no problems with including the entire song in the article from a legal standpoint; the actual words are no longer covered by copyright law. However, for stylistic reasons, one does not necessarily need to add the lyrics to the article just because one can. If parts of the lyrics are discussed in the article, it may be appropriate to quote certain passages. However, doing something because one can do it legally, but without regard for whether or not it should be done for improvement of the article is indiscriminate.
  • The addition of exhaustive plot summaries to articles about works of fiction.
    • Example 1) A brief overview of the plot of a work of fiction, giving the general story arc and highlighting key plot points which are discussed elsewhere in the article is useful, but giving a complete, scene-by-scene retelling of every point of the story, including every action of every character from the entire work is indiscriminate because it does not give regard for the relevence of every minutae of the plot to the quality of the article.
  • The creation of a new article about a person or event that is in the news right now.
    • Example 1) John Doe commits a murder. The trial is covered on Nancy Grace. So we create an article about it. However, three years after the trial, no books have been written about John Doe. No follow up stories are done. No analysis of the case is ever completed. Once the trial ends, the entire situation only exists in the archives of the news reports which were filed at the time of the trial. Such additions are indiscriminate because they give no regard for the significance of the event outside of the news cycle.

Well, this is a start. Go ahead and tear it apart, I don't intend for this to be ANYTHING like a final version, but I think it does a better job of capturing the idea I was going for than the current version does. The important thing I think is that it emphasizes the the general sorts of actions that qualify as indiscriminate without focusing so much on specific examples, except for illustrative puposes only. Also, I think explaining why each illustrative example is indiscriminate is more helpful than even the example itself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • That's actually halfway specific, which is a decent place to start. That said, I think you could add the last one to Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS, and the third last one to WP:NOT#LYRICS. The first two are the ones we should work with, IMO. Namely: keeping irrelevant information off, and keeping people from aiming for a complete directory of all X's when we really just cover the X's that have had some kind of impact or significance. Randomran (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There's way too much here for a policy page, and even to that extent, there's a lot of duplication of other policies. This is potentially a good start for a guideline on IINFO, but these really are already covered:
  • The creation of a complete set of articles based on the existance of some articles from the set. comes from "Notability is not inherited" and advice from WP:SS and WP:SPINOUT.
  • The addition of a verifiable fact to an article without regard for whether or not the fact is relevent to the article in question. is mostly WP:TRIVIA and WP:UNDUE.
  • The addition of long passages from public domain texts to articles merely because they are public domain. is probably the only one not really covered from others that I know of, but makes sense.
  • The creation of a new article about a person or event that is in the news right now. Already in WP:NOT#NEWS.
I think the subtly missed here is that "indiscriminate information" is information that is added to WP that is not given appropriate content/reduction/resolution to the general reader or otherwise cannot be resolved to that. Trivia fits this well, but also includes the NOTDIR and NOTGUIDE advices. (Let's ignore PLOT for the moment). This doesn't mean directories or guides are forbidden, but they have to be presented in a way to make them discriminate, uually reducing the amount of material given in these. -MASEM (t) 03:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I struck through the redundancies and left this as the two that seem to have the most relevence to the idea of indiscriminate. I think that these two capture the spirit of IINFO best anyways, but that is just my opinion. Any other ideas out there? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the first two are worth focusing on. One at a time? I dunno, whatever makes the discussion easier, and makes it easier to work towards a consensus. I think the idea that articles should stay on topic is relatively uncontroversial, and it would be useful to have a residual statement. Maybe not its own clause, but as part of the introduction to IINFO, right after the part that "being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Something to the effect of, "Beyond describing the main topic, articles should not degenerate into loosely related details." Really, just "not off topic" would be nice. Randomran (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any of it as an improvement. You've claimed a consensus exists ("consensus has determined...") and provided zero evidence. Articles frequently are created to complete a "set." Wikipedia may not need articles about every song by The Rolling Stones, but I bet Wikipedia has articles about nearly all of their singles. And you're trying to make a policy about Bilateral relations when the consensus about the topic is not yet apparent. I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations instead. And you're trying to make a policy about "relevance", which is totally subjective. Putting Barack Obama's height in the article about him would be "indiscriminate?" No, it wouldn't. And there is no policy against "trivia" since it's also entirely subjective. Is the DYK section on the Main Page trivia? Is Barack Obama's date of birth trivia? The word "indiscriminate" is a horrible word to be using in policy, and people should really stop using it. The public domain paragraph you struck out applies to all articles that transclude {{1911}}, the plot summary paragraph you struck out is again an attempt to sneak in "relevance", and the news paragraph is also poor. The AFD and DRV of Susan Boyle is a strong indication that WP:BLP1E needs to be rewritten (or moved back to WP:BIO1E). --Pixelface (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to be fair, given that the phrase "indiscriminate collection of information" is in the Five pillars, it should be reflected in policy. That's not to say that what Jayron's put in would qualify under what that implies (WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#GUIDE are better examples), but the word is appropriate in policy. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
"Indiscriminate" has a real definition. Sometimes people just use it to describe "too much information", but that's not what it means. It's really when you start getting into a topic that has no clear scope, that can easily get dragged off topic, or eventually be cluttered with so many details or examples that it loses all informative value. An example from video games might be "list of comedic games". What's a comedic game? How funny does it have to be to be considered comedic? How many of the thousands of games would qualify? Most people think these kinds of categories are virtually useless (despite their good intent) because they're WP:OR magnets and even some level of verification still doesn't change the vague scope of the article. I think we should clarify what we mean by indiscriminate. Not just so we can do a better job of dealing with indiscriminate information, but so people don't abuse it to simply say "enh, I don't really care about this information, so it's indiscriminate to me". That's not what it means. Randomran (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree to the proposed rewite. Just because an editor thinks a topic "fits" does not mean that it passes WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This proposal is similar to WP:NOTINHERITED - the same argument is being applied: if a topic is related to another, then it passes. I don't believe this argument is defensible unless it is supportedwith verifiable evidence, such as evidence that the topic is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The question is, are enough other people totally sure about this to make it a fundamental policy--in essence, your're promoting WP:N from a guideline to a policy, and that approach has been just as much rejected as making it an essay. The only hope of agreement here is to keep this from being obver-specific and capable of multiple interpretations DGG (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Excessive detail for a policy. Examples belong elsewhere. I see one of the key example (bilateral relations) is one where we are still trying to develop a guideline. Putting it into policy first, while well meant as providing something of current interest, and while I have no objections to what wa said, probably is not the best idea. This should be kept as general as possible. DGG (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I concur with DGG on this one. Trying to insert too many specifics leads to instruction creep. You run the risk of one policy or guideline conflicting with another, and that's going to lead to more debate, and less article building.
    • +rules >> disagreements = less article building. — Ched :  ?  16:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Ahhh. I'm not so sure. We have to be convinced that editor actions are zero-sum or at least that editors left with no burning WP space issues to argue over will sally forth and copyedit the biography of a late 18th century French poet. I'm of the mind that there is some substitution, but that preferences and ease of contribution tend to dictate outcomes. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

question

WHY should not Wikipedia coverage of a fictional topic not be mainly on the plot and characters? Not based on other rules, but based on what we want to accomplish. Agreed, it should not be on only them, but the rule the ought to be --as for anything else--that the overall coverage of a topic covers all aspects. In the case of most fiction, I would normally expect it be mainly the plot as being the most important and interesting aspects, and that in demand by the users. DGG (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To whoever said this, I don't think anyone is against covering plot, or even covering mainly the plot. Really, the rule is supposed to avoid only them, exactly as you said. Obviously, we need some kind of real-world context, and we need to be able to have an independent statement about their significance and impact. I think a lot of people are just worried that WP:PLOT might be abused to go after any and all plot. Randomran (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No, historically that's not what the rule was for... it was to point out that only very brief plot summaries were ever acceptable and even then only as a small part of overall coverage. The whole "only" thing (aka "it can be 99% plot, I swear") is something somebody thought up later to try to justify crap content that the rules explicitly forbid. DreamGuy (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Any article that is primarily plot has difficulty with WP:RS, which states Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An article that is 99% plot and 1% analysis can't claim to rely on third-party sourcing, as the article would be essentially unchanged if all the material derived from third-party sourcing was removed. I'm not a fan of counting words to make that determination, and can see arguments for an occasional article that has a bit more plot than analysis, but never "mainly the plot."—Kww(talk) 12:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to sign, sorry. I hope you are right that people don't object to covering mainly the plot. If so, we could rewrite WP:PLOT to make it clear it applies to WP coverage as a whole, not each article taken individually.
The total Wikipedia coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary, but include substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance.
OK? DGG (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
NO, not OK. It does apply to each article individually. Plot summaries in and of themselves are not encyclopedic. Articles should be be why things are important, what they mean, their impact and so forth, not just a long list of what happened here and there and then later. The whole concept is generally opposed to the entire concept of an encyclopedia. For extremely influential works, some sort of plot summary could be appropriate, but, like anything else, it should come about because there are reliable third party sources discussing it that we can cite, not just have our people think up a way to explain what they think happened based upon watching it (synthesis/original research). Wikipedia is not Cliffs Notes and was never intended to be anything like it. DreamGuy (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, we disagree on general approaches: I think that's just a surrogate for notability when nothing else applies. But that's isn't the question here. What I said does not imply we must or should have a separate article about anything. It just says there can be a separate article about fiction. But i don;t think you've thought out the implications. If you take the current wording as applicable to separate articles there can never be regardless of sources or regardless of what the work is, because WP:NOT is policy and policy controls the notability guidelines and all other guidelines . Are you then prepared to accept an article entirely about plot if the plot is discussed in two books or academic articles or book reviews about the fiction, no matter how unimportant the fiction? DGG (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Long standing guidance on fiction is Articles about fictional topics should not read like book reports; instead, they should explain the topic's significance to the work. After reading the article, the reader should be able to understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work. Is that enough for everyone? If it is, we don't need to be here. That's been the standard near enough since 2003. Hiding T 08:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a good start. And the problem is that many of the articles, especially on children's fiction, do read like book reports, because that's what children are taught to write first, DGG (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_25&oldid=1088306043"