Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

→

Current RfC

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Okay, so, we had an Rfc, with widespread participation, saying that WP:NOT#PLOT should not be in plot. Eventually, a compromoiise was reached to allow it in.

So they start a new RfC, lie about what's going to be restored (does it say that Plot-only summation of fictional works will become Plot summaries if the original wording is voted on, despite this not being mentioned in the old wording option as described? What do you want to bet it will be changed to that if the RfC closes that way? What do you want to bet there'll be edit-wars over this?) So, with this RfC - with maybe half or a third the participation of the old one - is probably going to destroy the compromise version, and overrule the must better participated RfC.

Congratulations. You wore people down so that only the hard-liners are still participating. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your justifiable frustration, and I agree Shoemaker.

I have seen it time and again, long after other editors quit out of frustration, and lose interest, the most tenacious editor(s) win(s) out in the end.

Maybe the only solution is a Arbcom. Actually, it is probably the only real solution which will placate all sides. Otherwise this will just be a prolonged "war of attrition" lasting years-- with the more tenacious group of editors eventually "winning".

Issues like this have gone to arbcom before (character and episodes to name one). As long as it is framed as a user issue. It is a "legal fiction" that arbcom does not vote on content disputes, they do. Ikip (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Who writes this stuff and makes up the rules

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

It looks like I can edit sections on this page so what is to stop me from tinkering with the rules? Ajayvius (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

These rules come about through consensus reached after long discussions (the NOTPLOT discussion above has been going on for months). Many people are watching this page, and if you "tinker with the rules" without having gained consensus then your edits will be immediately undone. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Who writes this stuff? Mostly the people listed on User:Pixelface/Unique editors of policies and guidelines. These are the current stats for this particular policy page. You can also check WikiBlame to see who wrote what on any page. You can edit sections on this page and nothing is stopping you from "tinkering" with the "rules." Other people may quickly revert you though. But who knows Ajayvius? You may just get away with something yourself — at least for a while. Your best bet is to propose a change on this talkpage first. "Anyone can edit" applies to Wikipedia:-space just like it does to articles. Does that change your opinion of how much authority the "rules" have? That other people just like you are making it up as they go?

But Rjanag, the belief that everything on Wikipedia's all 300+ policies and guidelines (let alone this page) came about through consensus reached after long discussions is false. And discussions about NOTPLOT have been going on for years, almost ever since one editor proposed NOTPLOT and then added it to this policy page 10 days later, even though there was no consensus for it[1]. Throwing things up on policy pages in order to see if they stick can turn out to be controversial. Although people who begin editing after a policy edit is made may tend to support it because in their mind it's "always" been that way. --Pixelface (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done less research on whether policies and guidelines than Pixelface, but my impression is that Pixelface is right. As far as I can see WP:NOTPLOT and some parts of WP:MOS appeared out of nowhere with zero or minimal public discussion, and represent faits accomplis rather than consensus. --Philcha (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? I'm not here to argue with you guys about the rules come from, I was just leaving a message to turn away a disruptive editor who was trying to game the system. Look at the bottom of Ajayvius' talk page and you'll see why. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, your discussion tactics are equally dubious, and an admin should know better - making assertions that are questionable is not an acceptable way of achieving your objectives. In fact it's a borderline infraction of Wikipedia:CIVIL#Engaging_in_incivility, which includes "... deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page ...". --Philcha (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Achieving my objectives?" What is this, a big conspiracy? I was responding to an idiot who was asking for permission to change the rules to "win" an AfD, not trying to achieve some sinister objectives. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ajayvius, don't "tinker" (your words, 11:46, 22 July 2009) without previous discussion. Although the history of some policies and guidelines makes it doubful whether there was consensus about them, the standard assumption is that they are consensus unless you provide specific evidence against that. In other words you have to research their history and be prepared for detailed discussion of the evidence before you go tinkering. --Philcha (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ajayvius, I have a different view of how many of these rules come about, which is starkly different from the official "consensus" assumption.

Usually a tiny group of influencial veteran editors make these pages policies and guidelines. In many cases there are editors who disagree about making these rules guidelines or policies, but they are not as tenacious or well organized as the supporters of these rules.

Noting that policies and guidelines are susceptible to long-standing errors

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

In regards to [2] and [3], two specific examples come to mind. A clause in WP:FRINGE which seemingly contradicted WP:EL and was poorly written and poorly contextualized regardless had remained for 2.5 years. See Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Sources_and_External_links. In another case, on WP:AGF two related but distinct ideas became garbled together into a sentence which made no sense whatsoever but which stood for some time. See Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith#AGF_and_newcomers. In other cases incoherence or inconsistency have been a bit less obvious, but still present in long-standing wording of policies and guidelines. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much of a problem, the policies and guidelines are not the final word. See, WP:NOTLAW and Wikipedia:IAR?. Taemyr (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTLAW was actually the section I tried to note this in. I think this should be noted because, in both instances linked above, removing the long-standing error was somewhat of a problem. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be something of a problem. You do have to convince us that the policies as written are wrong. Taemyr (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. But I still don't see the problem with noting that policies are susceptible to errors. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My latest attempt, lost among reverts, was "Like articles, such pages are not immune to errors." Which is definitely true, and seems like a neutral way to say it. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a forum

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

Why doesn't Wikipedia have a forum? It would be nice if there was a single place where Wikipedians could discuss the issues behind a Wikipedia entry. If Wikipedia doesn't want to create a forum, then why not allow someone else to create one and add links to discussions to Wikipedia articles?

If Wikipedia had a forum, it would probably be the single largest forum on the planet. Please! Consider this simple request. Cousert (talk)

Discussing the issues behind a Wikipedia entry is the purpose of talk pages. Why would we want "the single largest forum on the planet", anyway? Powers ^T 15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to participate in a forum, there are plenty of other websites you can visit. Wikipedia was not built to be a forum, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. There are tons of online forums, but none of them are linked to Wikipedia. Why can't Wikipedia have its own forum? Talk pages are limited to improving the articles, not for discussing the subject. There should be some place where Wikipedians can go to discuss the subject. Even Encyclopedia Britannica (the world's largest encyclopedia) has it's own online forum - for discussing encyclopedia topics! Why can't Wikipedia do the same? Cousert (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Because no one wants to run one. We're all busy writing encyclopedia articles here. Powers ^T 21:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Then allow someone else to run a forum and place links on articles. I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers to do this. Is anyone from Wikipedia reading this thread? Cousert (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

I think you may be fundamentally misunderstanding what Wikipedia is. Yes, many of us "from Wikipedia" are reading this. Wikipedians are volunteers working on the encyclopedia. I think you meant to ask if anyone from the WikiMedia Foundation is reading this page. The answer to that would almost certainly be no. You might get their attention at the Village Pump but not likely on tactical pages such as this.
To your original question, I for one would oppose the inclusion of a forum feature within Wikipedia for several reasons.

It would be a distraction. As LtPowers already said, none of us want to run a forum. If we did, we'd probably be volunteering at some other project. We're here because we want to write encyclopedia articles.
It would be a huge drain on resources. The best forums are well-moderated. (Unmoderated forums rapidly fill with spam, flamewars and other counter-productive content and end up hurting rather than helping their parent entities' reputations.) Yes, we could probably find some volunteers but if I understand your proposal correctly, you're talking about a separate forum built in to every one of our almost 3 million articles. Each would have to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. We have trouble finding editors for that many encyclopedia articles and articles are far more static than forums. (An experienced editor here can watchlist and maintain several hundred pages simultaneously. Forum moderation needs are closer to 1-to-1.)
It would become an active disruption. In writing encyclopedia articles, we strive to present verifiable facts as neutrally and completely as possible. Where there is controversy, we report on it - we don't (or at least, we shouldn't) participate in it. Forums, on the other hand, are largely about opinion and personal experience. Forums tend to polarize opinions. To the extent that participants cross over between the encyclopedia and the forum or, worse, forget where they are, the very nature of a forum would make consensus-seeking here more difficult.
It is unnecessary. Forums are added to traditional outlets such as Britannica in a (largely unsuccessful) attempt to generate interactivity and raise google rankings. We are already one of the most highly ranked resources and we are incredibly interactive by the very nature of being a wiki. We don't need to boost our rankings.

That's my take on the question, anyway. But I'm an unrepentant encyclopedia-writer so maybe I'm biased. If you think you really have a case, I'd go to the Foundation and suggest a new sister project. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, on a purely pragmatic level, the only forum pages that would get any action are those related to articles about very popular or very contentious topics (Miley Cyrus, Barack Obama, Cold fusion, …), and there are already tons of online forums devoted to the discussion of those topics. Who is going to be attracted to a venue for expressing their personal opinions about Cavaglia or George Henry Horn or Maximianus? Deor (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia's material is considered open source, maybe someone should clone it and include a forum of their own. If the Wikipedia foundation is unwilling to cooperate, the users will find another way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Any legal issues aside, the technical issues and expense would be daunting. Meanwhile, you clearly understand it's not a forum, which is good. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not understand and I do not accept. If Wikipedia is unwilling to bend, then the only solution is to remove the board and install a new one. That's the risk of becoming a registered non-profit organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this discussion. If you want to make a forum using your own webserver and a copy of wikipedia, go right ahead. Protonk (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"descriptive, not prescriptive", "descriptive as well as prescriptive", or "more descriptive than prescriptive"?

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

First of all, it should be noted that SlimVirgin changed the meaning of WP:NOTLAW in changing "descriptive, not prescriptive" (long-standing, but in fairness it could be one of those errors I've been trying to warn about) to "descriptive as well as prescriptive". I then tried to compromise, saying policies and guidelines were "more descriptive than prescriptive", and ended up making a few other related changes to the wording of the section, but in my judgment not altering its meaning other than bringing the "descriptive/prescriptive" clause closer to what it was before SlimVirgin changed it. I was then reverted on grounds that there was "no rationale given for major change". Apparently what SlimVirgin had just done, also with no edit summary, wasn't noticed by the reverter. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted back the the last version before today, which should eliminate any possible confusion about which version is which.

You are talking about this edit of yours [4]. I don't think that "errors" is the right word (although it is trivially correct), because it doesn't add much understanding of how or why there might be errors. I am trying to think whether there is some way to say something meaningful in a way that should go on this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Descriptive, not prescriptive. That's pretty old school. Slimvirgin has been trying to change it since forever. :-P

Never gonna happen. Prescriptive sort of subverts consensus, so we probably don't want to do that ;-)

Otoh, I have seen a strong push for prescriptivism lately. I think because a lot of the original crew has gone on to greener pastures. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

PSWG's wording was actually pretty cool. Feel free to reinstate or expand.

It might be wise to check some of Slimvirgin's other recent edits, and/or places she has visited? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim, please quit it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be a very bad idea, Slimvirgin. If one states that policy is prescriptive, there are three issues

It's a lie, people can end up blocked if they adhere to it.
If it is somehow not a lie, but instead actually prescribes things, it means that wikipedia is now a bureaucracy, almost per definition.
Bureaucratic systems do not last long on the internet. Some of our "competition" (other top-100 websites) might be bureaucratic (though I doubt it) , but they have multi-billion dollar budgets to compensate. We do not.

Our aim is to be and remain as flexible as possible. If we do not do that, we WILL fail at our mission. To use your favorite words: "that is not negotiable". Not because anyone says so, but because that's the way the world works. And no the world is not intuitive. :-P

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked up the discussion from 2008 when the word "descriptive" was added: [5]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Descriptive not prescriptive --> descriptive as well as prescriptive

Latest comment: 15 years ago71 comments18 people in discussion

If you're coming here from the RfC, the question is whether this page should say (disputed phrase in bold):

1. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, or

2. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive as well as prescriptive.

Discussion (descriptive not prescriptive)

I would like to change that policy is "descriptive not prescriptive" in the Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy section, to policy is "descriptive as well as prescriptive." This is the edit I made but was reverted by CBM.

The "descriptive not prescriptive" edit was added on July 5 last year by Scolaire in this edit. The discussion about adding that new section is here, but I see no consensus to add that particular phrase.

The phrase "descriptive not prescriptive" has become something of a meme, but it's false, a simple misuse of language. The intention behind it is to signal that policy doesn't come from on high, isn't imposed on the community, but that it evolves out of community consensus and describes best practice. That's correct. Policies and guidelines are descriptive in that sense. But they also recommend that editors adopt that best practice. That's what it means for something to be "prescriptive," or normative. That's what it means to refer to "best practice." Indeed, that's what it means for something to be a policy or a guideline. The phrase "descriptive not prescriptive" in the context of describing policy or guidelines reduces to a contradiction: guidelines that don't guide, policies that imply no value.

The "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" section that Scolaire added last year contradicts itself internally: on the one hand, policies are not prescriptive, it says, but on the other, they are a "standard that all users should follow." The latter = prescriptive.

As I was reverted, other input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines that don't guide, policies that imply no value. Yes, and that is policy.

Your proposed wording says: "Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy, oh but wait, policy is quite prescriptive; so we just lied: wikipedia actually IS a bureaucracy. have a nice day!". That does not compute. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a common error. If imperatives or exportations are used, then the language is prescriptive. So if the words "should", "must", "are expected to", "are advised", "common practice suggests", appear in a policy or guideline, then that guideline is prescriptive. The major issue here, that policy is enabled by what words are written rather than what the community thinks is simply incorrect, but that's a question of origin of authority.
There was a recent RfC on this issue, it used the two terms in the incorrect sense of 'bindingness'. See the initial statement arguing for the distinction and descriptivity (5 support) and DGG's lengthy reply (26 support). The summary is that the prescriptivity (bindingness) of a policy page is derived from community's attitude towards the policy - so if WP:CIVIL states that you Should play nice, this is simply an accurate reflection of the community's widespread belief that editors Should play nice. It verified that the general community consensus was that policies were prescriptive (in the stronger/incorrect sense of bindingness); the practical result being that the CSD and caveats are binding on administrators. The RfC received about 2 months of community exposure, this was one of its main topics. This means that you don't need another RfC on this topic, especially so soon after the last one. Your proposed wording, both prescriptive and descriptive, already has demonstrated widespread consensus support. You should probably close this RfC and make the change - if somebody objects, direct them here and to that RfC. M 10:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's why I used to keep removing or at least campaigning against words like "should" and "must" , and "are expected to", and etc... They're a fundamentally bad idea. I think people thought I was a bit silly, but here we are...

Incidentally, I don't accept a consensus to undermine consensus. This is not the weimar republic. ;-)

If somehow the prescriptive concept manages to get pushed through, I think we can see that as a strong indicator of the community and policy systems becoming more rigid.

To make an analogy: Flexible materials tend to bend, while hard materials tend to break, or even shatter. We need to work hard towards becoming and remaining flexible, or our wiki will ossify and fail.

Somewhat more general: early during the internet bubble, the cluetrain manifesto was published. It explained which organizations would succeed, and which would fail, and why.

We seem to be moving away from the manifesto at an accelerating rate, and our productivity seems to be declining at the same rate.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO both Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy and the phrase "descriptive not prescriptive" are confused and likely to create confusion. The difference between policies and guidelines is that all policies must be followed while all guidelines have a banner that says "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions" or something very similar.
Some policies are prescriptive in the strongest sense of the term, and no amount of consensus can change them. The obvious examples are those that aim to avoid trouble with real-life laws, for example Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, where any consensus-based change that made them significantly less stringent would almost certainly be over-ruled by the Wikimedia Foundation. Other policies, such as the content policy sections of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can probably be modified enormously by consensus. I suspect some policies lie in a middle ground that may be unclear. For example the intent of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research is clear and probably not up for negotiation, but both provide exemptions for what is considered "obvious". What is "obvious" is not obvious, as it makes assumptions about the reader's cultural background, intelligence and aptitudes, level of education and prior knowledge of the topic.
IMO the only parts of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy worth keeping are "rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided" and "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Wikipedia's guideline on gaming the system)." --Philcha (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - the banner at the top has absolutely no authority. The WP:POLICY policy describes a lot of this in better detail, though it's undergoing discussion. As for the parts worth keeping, that might be a different RfC. (I think I agree with pretty much everything else, though.) M 12:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURO was not added by Scolaire last year; it was added by Radiant in 2005 [6]. Only the part about descriptive/prescriptive was added last year. On to the main point: the general sense that people will take from "policy is prescriptive" is that "you must follow policy at all times". But this is simply not correct:

We do not draft policy with that goal in mind. If we were going to pass policy in the same way laws are passed, we would not allow people to edit them once they were made (we would have to pass some sort of amendment instead). And we would be much more careful about what the policy pages actually said, if we intended them to be enforced like laws.
Our first and main policy is that anyone can ignore any policy whenever it gets in the way. So even if a policy page says, "you must do this", it's not strictly true. There is no requirement that editors must follow what is written in policy pages.

Why do we even write policies with the words "must" in them? That seems to be the underlying source of confusion here. One point of WP:BURO is to remind people that, regardless of what other policy pages say, you do not have to follow them at all times. The policy pages describe what others usually do, and in this sense are descriptive instead of prescriptive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was covered at a recent RfC (see my comment above). The widespread consensus is that the community thinks that you must be civil, and that this is encoded in prescriptive policies using the word must - and this is perfectly fine. Of course you can change consensus, but you're bound by it until you do so (see WP:CONSENSUS for statements to this effect). I don't think 'you must follow policy at all times' is the message, I think the message is 'policy always applies/applies to all editors', as per WP:POLICY. Policies are prescriptive, but of course not in your sense of "policy is looking over your shoulder" M 12:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the portion of the community that commented in that case made a major error. Like I pointed out before, I don't think we need to accept a consensus to undermine consensus. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I reinstated the wording, which was the subject of a recent RfC, as described above. The RfC received about 2 months of community exposure, this was one of its main topics. Another RfC on the very same topic less than a month after that one closed would be a waste of resources, in my opinion. The proposed wording, 'both prescriptive and descriptive', already has demonstrated widespread consensus support. People are of course free to comment, but given that the RfC hit roughly 5:25 in favor, involved a lot of discussion, and took two months, I think it's going to be a while yet before discussion here will overturn it. Until then, the reinstated wording is backed by consensus and should not be removed. M 12:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording here was not the subject of any other RFC. It's unfortunate that you have started edit warring while there is an open RFC here on exactly this topic. The wording from 2008 was established by discussion and is also "backed by consensus". Moreover, many of the regulars at WP:CSD have a particularly firm view about policy, stronger than the general site-wide viewpoint. So it's particularly dodgy to use discussions about CSD as if they were discussions about policy in general. The same would be true of discussions about BLP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as WP:IAR, no policy can be prescriptive. There are only cases where there is prescriptive policy: WP:BLP and WP:NFC, both based on mandates from the Foundation. Everything else is community driven, and thus there will always be reasonable exceptions. Thus, the best we can scope policy is descriptiveness. I will also note I see little connection between the RFC on CSD and the phrasing here - it's just one example of a policy as opposed to our overall general approach on policies. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also one comment on the original point. If we say policy is prescriptive and that we expect that all editors conform to it, then that means people are going to find ways to automate conformity, which in the past has led to edit wars and dispute resolution (cases in point: date delinking, alt text on images, etc.) Policy is a reflection of community consensus and thus, save for the cases I've IDd above, nothing can be considered set in stone and thus cannot be treated as prescriptive. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should not be saying that policy is prescriptive without clarifying that we don't mean it's imposed from on high, and that consensus can change that prescription. Powers ^T 14:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is why we would need to clarify that, because the word doesn't mean that at all. We have to be allowed to use English words in the normal way. Prescriptive simply means "we think this is good," or "you should do it this way," or "we are going to sanction you if you ignore this advice." And these are all true of the policies. Try ignoring NPA and see how long you last. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps prescriptivist and descriptivist, as concepts, have some bearing. I've always drawn the analogy to grammar rules (and assumed others did as well) when I have said "our policies are descriptive, not prescriptive". This is a very important point, in my view, to have firmly fixed... policy here comes as a codification of what we do, not as a mandate set by a policy making body. Now, personally, I think a policy making body might be a very good idea, but that's not an accurate description of how things actually get done. So changing the wording to say that policy is prescriptivist ... would be wrong. There is no body prescribing what we must do. That is not to say that we should not all adhere to policy, we should. It is merely a statement about where policy comes from. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There often are groups of people who more or less dictate policy. Issues surrounding copyright, for example, and libel, are not issues the community could change. That we seriously limit fair-use images is something that large sections of the community railed against for a long time, and were simply overruled. BLP came from the community, but with very strong Foundation-level approval, which is why it became policy so easily. The neutrality policy is another one that's so fundamental to Wikipedia that no community group could ever overturn it. It's true that there's no "policy group" per se that can dictate, but it's also true that some policies are handed down, in effect. The process by which standards come to be accepted is incredibly complex, not reducible to "descriptive not prescriptive." That phrase is not in itself descriptive of what actually goes on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't take Lar's point there. Yes, the prescriptivist/descriptivist distinction is more helpful. What you're saying is that policy is more like the evolution of language, and yes, I do agree. I'd need to think about that some more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your first para prompted me to remember that there are a few sections of policy that are in fact prescriptive, that is, imposed from on high, as it were, and theoretically not subject to being changed by community consensus or accepted practive (and thus not descriptive). Some of these are the pillars (NPOV, verifiability, not truth, and the like) and some of these are things the Foundation has mandated (for example, that the project will either not allow fair use images at all, or will have a fair use policy that conforms to foundation mandate and will enforce that policy). I could see the merit in clarifying "descriptive, not prescriptive" to include "except where it isn't" examples like the above. Note that if I'm not mistaken, NPA, the example you were using, is one of our prescriptive policies, it's a pillar. But policy, regardless of whether it is descriptive or prescriptive in origin, is required to be followed, one flouts policy at one's own peril. ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The 5 pillars are a summary of policy, and can certainly change (and ought to, anytime policy changes). The founding principles are actually quite negotiable; but since you're negotiating between something like 700 communities, they just tend to move slower than molasses on a cold day. But while slow, they're certainly not frozen.

The fair use policy was not dictated by the foundation. It was a written summary of consensus across multiple communities.

No personal attacks, and also assume good faith are pretty much documented best practices. Maybe the wording got pushed a little too far into the prescriptive zone, but there you go. Interestingly, NPA used to be proposed as a bright line policy in 2002, but around 2004 it evolved into a more friendly form. Apparently Mav was doing something with policies and guidelines in 2004, but for the most part, the current policy/guideline/essay system was introduced in 2005, afaict.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about the free image and fair use policy. It's the exception that proves the rule, since it's something the foundation mandated. There's a board resolution requiring all wikis to have a policy: Resolution:Licensing_policy, so that's prescriptive, imposed by an outside source, the WMF board. Most other things are not, but not that one. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ask Eloquence and Mindspillage! --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I gave you a link to a board resolution that mandates certain things. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be, really. That's a prescriptive policy, unlike most. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure you have access to the board members who wrote the resolution. Ask them and see what they say. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should I? You're missing my point. YOU ask them if they consider that resolution to be one that is binding on the wikis or not. How or why they decided to impose it is irrelevant. The WMF board is not the en:wp community, it is an external power structure, and thus it is a source of prescriptive rules, proving my point that we do have some prescriptive rules. QED. You may have forgotten the significant discussion at the time about whether wikis had to comply even if the local community didn't want to. (they do.. hence, prescriptive... hence QED again)++Lar: t/c 00:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to ask 'em. I helped proof-read a bit. AFAIK it's a codification of existing practice. You're choosing not to believe me, so there's not many places left for you to go to ask! :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has convinced me that "descriptive/prescriptive" would best be removed entirely as they have great potential to confuse no matter how they are used. I would suggest something like this, without the parenthetical statement. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But you left the phrase in. The problem with it is that it's a meme that is quite false, based on a misuse of the word "prescriptive." People say, "Oh, but what we really mean is the policies aren't dictated from on high." Okay, agreed, but that's not what "prescriptive" means. And saying policies can change is neither here nor there. Laws can change, but that doesn't mean we're free to ignore them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing "prescriptive" with "required". Our policies are descriptive, in that they describe what we do rather than being handed down from a formal body, but it is required that we follow them. (except in very very limited exception cases). ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that I said "without the parenthetical statement". I had marginalized the phrase by putting it in parenthesis. If "prescriptive" is being misused, all the more reason to remove or marginalize it. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you at least agree that "do not themselves dictate accepted practice, but rather exist to explain what is already accepted or rejected by community consensus" is better in context than either "are descriptive, not prescriptive" or "are descriptive as well as prescriptive"? PSWG1920 (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, I suppose my feeling is that we're encyclopaedists. Our art is words, precision. We really ought not to have to ditch a word like "prescriptive" because it's being misunderstood. Having said that, I'd rather we said nothing than "descriptive not prescriptive," but it's a pity we can't simply make clear that the policies emerge out of community consensus about best practice, which makes them both descriptive and prescriptive.

Re your second point, the policies do dictate accepted practice (or best practice) once a consensus about it has emerged. It's an evolutionary process: people do things, other people see those things working, someone writes them down, people say "we like that," it gets called policy, which means others are told "this is what you're expected to do from now on." As I suggested above, if you doubt that, please conduct an experiment: start violating NPA, and we can watch to see how quickly the supposedly non-prescriptive policy is enforced. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Product, process, policy gets at what I think you're driving at, quite well, especially the lead sentences of the "Policy" section. I think we're more in agreement than disagreement about how things actually work, the issue is around the wording in this area to describe it succinctly, accurately, and in a way that's not confusing to newcomers. I think "descriptive, not prescriptive" is an accurate zeroeth order approximation, but there are exceptions. Are there enough of them to change it to "descriptive AND prescriptive"? I do not think so, that dilutes the key point that mandates are an exception, not the norm, but a parenthetical clarification following "D not P" might be a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "descriptive not prescriptive" is simply wrong. I don't think anyone has disagreed that WP:BLP and WP:NFC are clearly prescriptive. That alone makes the phrase incorrect. However, I wouldn't accept including the phrase with a caveat for those exceptions. While there are many policies that have their roots in description, and some, in light of WP:IAR are arguably still best characterized as description, many policies are clearly prescriptive. Consider WP:CIVIL. Frankly, to say that it is descriptive is empirically false :). But more seriously, if the intention is to claim it is descriptive, that literally means an outside observer would agree that civility exists, lack of civility is either absent, or at least rare, but civility is maintained solely via consensus, not enforced in any way. This is clearly not true, as the very words of the policy state. "A pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks..." This is squarely prescriptive.

I'm sympathetic to those who want to distinguish the source of the prescription from the usual source in a bureaucracy, but the solution is a discussion of how policies come into being, not a pretense that the polices have no prescriptive element to them.--SPhilbrick T 16:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The counter argument here is simple... if you say that a policy is prescriptive (and not merely required to be adhered to, as the civility policy is required to be adhered to) you should be able to point to the outside body or internal power that mandated it. For most policy, including that one, there is no such outside body or regulatory authority, there is only practice and consensus. Flout it at your peril, but it's nevertheless a descriptive policy. You are confusing prescriptive with required. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

When you say I confuse "prescriptive" with "required" you imply that "prescriptive" does not mean required. It does. Look at prescriptive which leans on prescribe:

"To specify as a required procedure or ritual. (emphasis added).

In contrast, "prescriptive" does not imply an "outside body or internal power". Policies can be grassroots. They are here.--SPhilbrick T 17:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I make no such implication, I believe you are confusing the difference between implication and superset. Our descriptive policies are just as required as our prescriptive ones, they all are required to be adhered to, and thus the prescriptive ones are a subset of the total set of policies. You have the wrong emphasis. From the same source

"To specify as a required procedure or ritual. (different emphasis added).

WHO specifies most of our policy? No one. That is, no particular person. They are accepted practice, not because some outside body prescribed them, but because that's just what we do and everyone goes along. As you say, most policies here are grassroots. That's why they're called descriptive. Read descriptivism again. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Describing policy as descriptive is not "an outside observer would agree that civility exists... but ... not enforced in any way". It is "an outside observer would agree that if you are uncivil, admins will block you." Powers ^T 17:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Prescriptive simply means normative—recommended, advised, good. A descriptive statement would be, "I am sitting at my desk." A prescriptive or normative statement would be, "It is good that I am sitting at my desk; I should be sitting at my desk." It doesn't mean being mandated by an outside body. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If we really can't agree on what the words mean, then I'm inclined to go with PSWG's suggestion and leave the phrase out entirely. We could then find some other way to say what we mean. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The other way to put it is that "WP's policies and guidelines are recommended to be followed, but are not required to be followed save for those stipulated by the Mediawiki Foundation." (those strictly limited to BLP and NFC). Recommended/required is easier to understand than "descriptive/prescriptive" and says exactly what they are to mean. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a fun discussion on BLP a while ago, where I pointed out that the policy was not being followed, using quantitative arguments. Had I succeeded on that day, we would now be on our way to a kind of open-content equivalent of Capability Maturity Model level 4. Sadly, I failed. (note how CMM pushes for flexibility and changing process, by the way)

In other news, the foundation document behind NFC was specifically designed to describe the view of the communities about how to proceed with non free content. I proof-read the document, and told the writers that it did do that! --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that wording is too soft. Civility is more than just recommended. Users may get away with some incivility, but if they go over a line, they cannot declare that civility is "not required". They will be blocked. A person blocked for incivility, or because they are a sockpuppet, or for a variety of other reasons is blocked because we have a prescriptive policy - thou shall not do certain things, or you will suffer the consequences. There's nothing wrong with this, this place couldn't function otherwise. I get a sense that some people think the concept of "prescriptive" is inconsistent with the desire of a community-driven, largely grassroots endeavor. I don't see the inconsistency. Rules are needed - it is good that we collectively set the rules, rather than some autonomous outside force, but that doesn't mean they aren't rules.--SPhilbrick T 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Compliance with policy is required, not recommended, unless you are prepared to explain why and defend your action. Yes, we have IAR, but IAR is not a license to do as you like, it's a statement that you can ignore a rule, but that in so doing, you are staking your judgment against the community... if you are called on it, you are expected to be able to show why the rule needed to be disregarded in that case, for the good of the wiki. Further, the outcome of IAR often is (because our rules are, for the most part, descriptivist) a change in the rules, as practice moves to conform to the newly discovered norm or exceptional case. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Compliance with consensus is (somewhat) required, but even that isn't 100% mandatory. Name one or more people who know all of policy by heart and follow it religiously. For each of those people, I shall name two who do not. (Also, you know I will quiz the people you name. I assume good faith, but I do check! ;-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should I name anyone? That's irrelevant... we expect compliance regardless of whether one knows policy or not. When we find non-compliance, we explain policy and then expect compliance going forward. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I expect people to participate in the consensus process instead. Must be me? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I would expect you to expect that, so it is you! What's weird here is that you're arguing with me even though we're on the same side of the argument, except that I can see the exceptions that prove the rule. Ok, actually, it's not weird, it's endearing. I miss you when you're not around.

Less facetiously, if someone's repeatedly vandalizing, and won't stop after being patiently warned several times, I'm not going to participate in a consensus process with him or her, I'm going to cite commonly accepted policy about vandalizing, and block him, and move on. I expect his or her compliance with the policy about vandalizing. ++Lar: t/c 00:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Aww, I miss you too. If someone vandalizes 2-3 times, and they're not talking with me, they're obviously not participating in the consensus process, so I'd block them much the same; even for pretty much the same reasons, except that the reasoning starts on the ground floor and works up from there. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC) as you might recall, I don't actually follow policy, per-se ;-)

Wikipedia policies most certainly *do* dictate practice. To claim otherwise is just completely at odds with how the site operates and has always operated. In fact doing so seems somewhat delusional, as I can't imagine how anyone could have ever gotten confused on that point. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as WP:IAR exists, there are always exceptions. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, community consensus is what dictates practice. Policies and guidelines aim to document the community consensus. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither should be used. Each sentence uses jargon. It comes across as "overwriting" – trying to give the statements more gravity by using $10 words. Overblown writing doesn't equal smart. Policies and guidelines that are for everyone must not use language that is hard to understand for the average reader. We're not trying to impress people; we're trying to help and inform them. –Whitehorse1 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Whitehorse here; don't you all have anything better to do? No matter how you change the wording of this, Wikipedia is going to go on working just the same way as it does. You're not even arguing over a policy, you're arguing over how to describe a policy... I'm sure there are more constructive areas that are more in need of your energies. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you just say what I thought you said? ;-) If we can condense it down, that would make a good description of how policy works (or doesn't, if you will ;-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Now this I can agree with. The current wording is fine, and not in need of smithing, it's accurate enough. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Descriptive, not prescriptive" is as zen as IAR. We actually work with a feedback loop of descriptive/prescriptive action. It makes sense to me. (And the addition discussion in archive 20 had a consensus of 5 people agreeing with the changes, no opposition.) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The point being made is that policy should describe what happens rather than what the author would like to happen. This point should remain until a better wording is found. Removal would not be an improvement as it will encourage editors to write wishful thinking and/or their pet peeves as policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Hans Adler 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lar has basically said it above, but I am not sure he was widely understood, so I will try to say it in different words: Most of our policies are descriptive, not prescriptive, in the same sense that scientifically written grammars of a language are descriptive, not prescriptive. If a descriptive grammar of English says you can't split an infinitive, then it's simply wrong and needs to be fixed, because the fact that people do it all the time proves it's a normal feature of the language. Even if the grammar is not fixed, it's still OK to split infinitives. The authority of a descriptive grammar comes from the rules of the language itself, which it attempts to describe as correctly and completely as is feasible. When you learn a foreign language, you can use a grammar up to the moment when your command of it is so good that you begin to run into the grammar's limitations: When you realise that some constructions described in the grammar are not as generally applicable as the grammar seems to imply, or conversely that certain constructions not described in the grammar are grammatical, then it's time to stop using it, or even to help improving it. The real, authoritative, grammar is the unwritten one that exists only in the minds of the speakers, collectively.

Similarly, in the case of discrepancies between our practice and most of our policies, it is a priori the policy that needs to be adjusted, not our practice. Only a prescriptive policy such as BLP is an exception. It functions like a prescriptive work such as Strunk & White, or like a legal text. It is allowed to give instructions that differ from our general practice, even when there is no clear consensus to follow them. E.g.: "There is precedent from the fourteenth century down for interposing an adverb between to and the infinitive it governs, but the construction should be avoided unless the writer wishes to place unusual stress on the adverb." Hans Adler 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But when an uncivil individual differs with our policies, we expect him to conform, not the policy. Maybe it should say policy is descriptive not prescriptive when it is first written. When rules are first written down, at that moment it does make sense to call them descriptive not prescriptive, because they will continue to be enforced in the same way as they were before they were written down. But once the rules are written down, both governors and the governed will start reading them, and therefore they are prescribing.
Are our policies prescriptive? The relevant definition from dictionary.com is "that prescribes; giving directions or injunctions: a prescriptive letter from an anxious father." It doesn't specify whether the prescriber is "on high" or a "formal body". So of course policies are prescriptive; they prescribe expected behavior, while acknowledging that there will always be exceptions. The prescribers are theoretically everyone, and in practice the Wikipedia nobility class one encounters on pages like this one; but in any case, things like civility are prescribed. If you ignore the prescription, you (theoretically) won't have that privilege very long, so it's as much a prescription as any other. It's hard to describe how IAR affects this issue as long as that sensible policy has such a completely misleading name; if we really Ignore All Rules we could start by deleting this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art LaPella (talk • contribs) 00:07, 7 August 2009
- I think we agree, but we use the same words, especially "prescriptive" and "policy", in slightly different ways. Hans Adler 09:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It is impossible to make a hard-and-fast distinction between the prescriptive and the descriptive, and futile to announce that WP does one and not the other. I cannot see that NOR is involved here. Tony (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary breather

Some serious TLDR going on here. Perhaps we should consider switching this to "statement/endorse/discussion" format on a new page, getting the statements ready and copyedited, and then opening up endorsements/discussion? Also, just because an RfC did not specifically address the exact wording of this policy doesn't invalidate the consensus established there. Yes, overturn it, fine - in the meantime, widespread, not local, consensus reigns. It is simply true that a widespread consensus process has determined that there exists at least one process, namely CSD, that is prescriptive, upon administrators, in the strong (binding) sense of prescriptive (as well as the general case). Two months, 26 vs 5 endorsements on this specific issue. But if editors here want to start the exact same issue up all over again and spend a month or so on the drama, let's try to do this in a more organized way. Also, let's please consider whether there are any pressing issues that require this wording to be the way it is. Perhaps a solution is to just remove mention of prescriptive and descriptive. M 00:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be strongly against such a process. No control of scope. Let's first sort out the mess we have now, before we try anything new.

I would also suggest that CSD is a very local and specialized portion of wikipedia, while WP:NOT is the more general case.

The prescriptive vs descriptive discussion is fairly old. The problem with a prescriptive, self-modifying system, is that it can be described as a kind of nomic. While such systems can sometimes self-perpetuate for a long time; they can also often be crashed easily by people who do not mean well, especially when folks are naive and not aware of the possibility. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC) violations of WP:BEANS left to your own imaginations here ;-)

I thought carefully writing and re-writing statements in clear opposition to each other is a good way of sorting the mess out - what do you mean by control of scope? While CSD is indeed local, the discussion was not. And like holding up a white egg to disprove the assertion that all eggs are blue, showing that CSD is indeed thought authoritative ("prescriptive") disproves the assertion that our policies are not. While I understand the problems with policy pages being used as a sort of nomic, I'd argue that you can't play nomic with actual policy, which is (imperfectly, but most accurately) described in our policy pages. The other half of this discussion is a confusion of terms: policy pages are of course not authoritative ("prescriptive"), though they are plainly prescriptive (written in an imperative style). But still, a plea for more organization and much clearer use of terms. M 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Because our general practice is that policies are not binding (which is set out via WP:IAR), the CSD policy is not authoritative, and administrators are not required to follow it. This is why I have always found the discussions that happen at WT:CSD somewhat ironic. The first rule of Wikipedia is, "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business."

The statement that was discussed at the CSD RFC was whether the CSD page should be written as if it was authoritative (to encourage people to follow it with fewer questions) or written in a purely descriptive way (which would encourage more exceptions). No discussion at WT:CSD can actually change the fact that CSD is not truly authoritative, just the style in which is it written.

One point of WP:BURO is to convey the message: "even if a policy page claims it is authoritative, it actually isn't." — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Break

Support "descriptive as well as prescriptive" &emdash; This overarching policy should not be useful for limiting the development of other policies or guidelines. Requiring that all other policies and guidelines should only be descriptive, as the "descriptive not prescriptive" wording suggests, seems arbitrarily constrictive to me (ironically, it's overly perscriptive...).
— Ω (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that other policies, and this one, can only be descriptive, because our policy documents are not actually binding (IAR, etc.). The text "descriptive, not prescriptive" is, itself, a description of how our policy documents are. The limitation that policies cannot be prescriptive does not come from WP:NOT, it is simply a fundamental property of policies in the wikipedia model. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom motion

I just wanted to mention that when I looked how often "descriptive not prescriptive" occurs in Wikipedia's non-article space (96 times), I found that a motion regarding this principle is currently being voted on in an Arbcom case and looks like it's going to pass: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop#Policy descriptive not prescriptive - policy may not be up to date.

Overall, given the number and quality of references to this principle under this name, but also the fact that it is easily misunderstood, I think what we need is a clearer way to express the same principle, and then the old phrase should still appear at least in a footnote, with an explanation that this was the old style of referring to the principle. Hans Adler 13:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That would work. Alternately, we create an essay page describing what the principle actually means (or meant). Or we can do both (and still use the phrase as shorthand). I'm still pondering on how to formulate things though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the essay idea (maybe even a short guideline to make it appear less editorial?), as long as it's reasonably neutral, and then we can leave the term but link to that essay or guideline without any change. Alternatively, consider a section to be added to WP:CON or WP:IAR to avoid guideline/policy bloat. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:IINFO

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

There seems to be a misconception that lists of information with clear inclusion criteria do not fall under the "indiscriminate information" section of this policy. In deletion discussions on such lists (example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who have played animated characters), someone often says "This isn't indiscriminate information, because the items on the list are finite and well-defined." But that's not what IINFO says. It says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", not "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information." It means that Wikipedia should not include any and all lists just because they're useful and well-defined. Certainly an indiscriminate list is also worthy of deletion, but even a good list may be unsuitable for inclusion because Wikipedia must discriminate when it comes to what information to include. Should some clarification be added to the IINFO section of this policy? Powers ^T 12:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a longstanding thing with no solution. I asked about this a few years ago, and that was the answer then. Maybe it's been cleared up since then, I don't know. Maybe someone else knows? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you. You're basically saying that people don't agree on what to discriminate again? That's been standard practise on Wikipedia for ages. I don't think rewriting policy to favour one position over another would help in any way. There are very few instances where we are positive as to what we discriminate against, and they are already codified in the policy. There is no consensus as to whether "lists of information with clear inclusion criteria" should be deleted or retained except as is gathered on an individual basis. Are you saying that when such a list is nominated for deletion as failing WP:IINFO because <insert reason>, people are arguing against WP:IINFO being invoked rather than with the <insert reason>? If so, I'd just point out that they're making a redundant argument, and I'd also stop referring to WP:IINFO and simply nominate because <insert reason>. A deletion debate should always concentrate on flaws with the article rather than adherence to a shortcut. Consensus builds around a strong position people can agree with or compromise on. Avoid splitting a debate and instead look for common ground, and work out what the best solution to the <insert reason> is. Guide the discussion so it focuses on the matter at hand, the article, rather than the process or the bureaucracy, and sideline discussions that fester on those points. If we could all work towards that end, debates and consensus would operate more smoothly. Hiding T 10:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Let me restate. IINFO currently says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Some people interpret the adjective "indiscriminate" as applying to the content of a particular article, rather than to Wikipedia as a whole. This leads said people to argue that so long as a list is not indiscriminate, IINFO is not a valid reason to delete the article. My contention is that this is a misinterpretation of the IINFO rule. When someone recommends that a list be deleted by referring to IINFO, they are indicating that Wikipedia should be more discriminating by excluding that particular list, not that the list is too poorly defined. Powers ^T 23:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  - Funny, I've always understood it working both ways. Wikipedia should not contain incoherent lists (e.g. Trivia) and Wikipedia should not contain unencyclopedic lists (e.g. New York phone book). --Cybercobra (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    - Yes, an indiscriminate list would violate the guideline because it is part of Wikipedia and Wikipedia is not to indiscriminately include information. However, my point is that people are stopping there and not taking it to the full extent described. Powers ^T 13:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, WP:IINFO is probably the most misunderstood and misquoted rule in deletion discussions on wikipedia. I seriously question whether many editors have taken the time to read it in full.

in response to this discussion, a sentence was added by one of the editors above:

The above list, like all lists of examples here, is not exhaustive, merely illustrative.[7]

Can we all discuss this first? Ikip (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed here, and given that this is repeating the general statement at the top of the content section (that for all sections, what's listed is not meant to be completely inclusive). I don't know if it needs to be restated in IINFO, but its clear these are just specific and commonly occurring examples. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish it was as clear as you think. I'm constantly pressed to explain to which of the four examples a particular article corresponds. Powers ^T 12:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Either we state that for all factors under Content, or none. The fact that we're picking out IINFO (which is usually the most contested ones) is a factor of systematic bias. I'd rather KISS, and have to point to the fact that the general disclaimer under Content says this point. -MASEM (t) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

KISS it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what is going on here, but I get the impression that there is some sort of proposal to create inclusion crtieria for random stuff based on subjective importance. Is this what you are proposing? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In the example AfD for List of actors who have played animated characters, I first argued it should be deleted and then changed my mind based on proper sourcing being found. I can tell you that the people arguing to keep based on the fact that they could find sources showing that actor X played formerly animated character Y, and therefore the list was discriminate could not comprehend that metasources were needed. Even if the language was made clearer on this they won't get it. Abductive (reasoning) 09:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me as a difference in opinion as to what should e included. I personally feel that wikipedia has transcended the level of information provided in more traditional tertiary sources. Like most discussions on what should be included or removed, this is a case were what has been determined as original core concepts of Wikipeida in guidelines does not match reality. Maybe earlier standards need to be modified or maybe a massive crackdown on available information needs to occur.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Explicit lead images

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

In articles which contain both sexually explicit or open genitalia images, as well as non-sexually explicit/non-genitalia images, is there any reason to demand that the explicit ones be in the lead, or is it appropriate to ask that they be placed at least one "page-down" in the article. Wikipedia is not censored, of course, and no one is suggesting that the images be removed. The question is one of placement, keeping in mind that many people access the articles from work or public terminals, and having an image of genitalia as the top image, sometimes without warning, may provide some difficulty. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If people are looking up the Wikipedia articles on penis, vagina, doggy-style, circumcision, or whatever else from a library or a place of work, I think they have already thrown caution to the wind. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is specifically regarding Circumcision, which in my opinion is more the process than the penis. Some would like an image of a circumcised penis in the lead; I would prefer that lower down. I agree that eponymous images to sexual acts or body parts themselves are not a problem and should be the lead image. -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The current lead image of that article is a 'black & white'/'sepia' pic of men, in central Asian dress, sat cross-legged in a circle around what looks like a pile of rocks—even after peering closely. There's an old adage a picture speaks a thousand words. Maybe when you click through to the file (if you're a reader that knows you can do so) that lead pic has something to say. A picture of circumcized male genitalia with a brief caption immediately explains and educates as to the article topic. Providing information is the goal; we accomplish that using the tools available to us: words and pictures. Irrespective of any inherent explicitness that might be present, the second example is surely more appropriate in informing the reader effectively. –Whitehorse1 04:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The picture is not even a picture of the process that circumcision refers to; it's a picture of the ceremony that has been attached to that (a bris, or whatever it was called at the time that picture was created). A true picture of the process of circumcision would be quite a bit grosser. In any case, circumcision is really about the effect of the process, which is what is illustrated by a big ol' penis photo. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been a closely related debate at Rorschach test where the question is whether a test image itself should be on the page and if so where. The community consensus in that case has very strongly and very consistently been that 1) the issue needs to be decided on the article's Talk page because every situation is a little bit different - you can advertise a debate and request commentary here but forum-shopping is strongly discouraged - and 2) Wikipedia's primary mission is to educate - the educational mission takes precedence over allegations of indirect harm. (BLP-violations would be an example of direct harm and are prohibitable despite our educational mission.) Rossami (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that one possible response, on an alternative tack to the above, is "Go and play with resizable windows on graphical user interfaces, use the content resizing capabilities and font selection capabilities of some WWW browsers, read some WWW and paper Wikipedia mirrors, come back with a workable definition of what a 'page down' even is, and then we can discuss the question of whether something should be put there. Without such a definition, the question is meaningless.".
Or one could just read where people debunk the "above the fold" myth. ☺ Note the statements that whatever point one picks, it's going to be the wrong one for 90% or more of all readers. Uncle G (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I hold very strongly and literally to Uncensored, but that is compatible with good editorial judgment. We want to inform, not shock. We do not want to scare people away. We want to encourage those who would otherwise ask for censorship that sensitive topics can be handled without sensationalism. There is usually no reason for putting an explicit picture first. Sometimes there is, but even so it should usually be a drawing not a photograph. DGG (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Although staying uncensored is important, some editors choose to use this as a vehicle to make a point. Having "motherfucker" in the first image of Protest is not needed but it is OK per the guidelines. Some people (on and off Wikipedia) will take any opportunity to rebel against taboo.Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    - Yes, we must be careful not to hide information just for the sake of hiding it, but neither need we be gratuitous about it. Powers ^T 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking to lyrics

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the site linked to clearly has the right to quote the work, such as being owned by the band itself.

I believe the sentence above would be more accurate if it used the words "songwriter or publisher" instead of "band itself" Craig Hicks (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that songwriters and publishers rarely have their own webpages containing lyrics. Bands more often do. If we made the change you suggest, the clause would seem to become so limited that it would not help the readers of this page.
By the way, it is an assumption on our part that the band has the right to distribute the lyrics they use. I would hope that is a defensible assumption. Rossami (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in many if not all cases, the copyright to song lyrics is owned by a third party (if only a corporation owned by the lyricist). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a defensible supposition at all. As Orangemike indicates, the vast majority of bands don't own the rights to their lyrics, either. The people that do own them don't give them away. Simplest rule: don't quote them except for small excerpts, and don't link to them either.—Kww(talk) 16:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not replace "band" with "copyright holder"? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Because very few Wikipedia editors understand that the band doesn't hold copyright. The cases where it's legitimate to include lyrics or link to them are so few and far between that it's best to just say "don't", and cover the odd exception under IAR.—Kww(talk) 18:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so. I bet a number of band sites publish the lyrics with an OK from the studio.[8] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to cut down the instruction to; Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the site linked to clearly has the right to quote the work. This avoids instruction creep and requires editors to use their brains. Abductive (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This makes the most sense to me, too. Rossami (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this solution. It's simple and it's clear and it doesn't diminish the intent of the original guidance. I'll be bold and make this change to the text. Craig Hicks (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the title because it is almost certain that someone will use this as a title or subtitle before the thread gets archived and it might as well have a descriptive title now. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The outcome of this discussion is fine, reading "Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the site linked to clearly has the right to quote the work."

I've deleted scores (pun intended) of external links to lyrics. I confess that I do not delete lyric links when they are on a group's official site. I understand and agree with the letter of the law — that a group may not own their own lyrics. But...being realistic...in most cases the group and the song owner will be equally interested in having more traffic to their site. Moreover, both would rather have visitors to an official site than one of the popular lyric ripoff sites. In terms of both the spirit of the law, and the practical positive financial effect, I just can't bring myself to remove lyric links to official sites. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics should be fine on a band's offical site, because the band clearly has a business relationship with the songwriters, and lawyers would get involved if they used IP inappropriately. Also don't forget lots of rock bands write their own lyrics, unlike pop and disco which tend to have the songwriters, performers, and musicians separate. Lyrics on a fansite or a page full of lyrics to different songs should however not be linked to, because it's highly unlikely they have permission to publish them. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Tour dates

Latest comment: 15 years ago27 comments10 people in discussion

If I understand this correctly, doesn't this mean that tour dates of future concerts (<6 months) are allowed? I noticed a bunch of tour dates being removed because of this. If there is little to no speculation and it is soon to come, shouldn't it be allowed? ^TheWeak_Willed 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A little background on the above? I deleted upcoming tour dates, for example in Viva la Vida Tour. I may not have been clear that WP:CRYSTAL wasn't necessarily a sufficient reason but that WP:NOT was. Wikipedia articles are not, quote "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events...." This seems to be blatant advertising and promotion. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Future tour dates, in this case, are perfectly fine if the upcoming scheduled events are known and reliably sourced. This would fall into the second part of the clause that you're stating. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You're referring to "promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable". 1) Tour dates don't seem to me to have historical significance, they are a one time event of which there are thousands every year, 2) It reads "may be acceptable", not that they are always allowed. 3) In the case in point, the dates I removed from a few articles were added by the same anon IP, who has no other Wikipedia edits.

I wanted to add, more up-to-date and more exact tour information is sure to be available online -- on a group's official page, and from the box office. At best, Wiki is poorly reproducing information that properly belongs elsewhere. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the first point, I'd say that depends on the tour. If it's Uncle Joe's Garage Band going around a couple of clubs in their hometown, it's obviously not historically significant. However, a tour by a major artist such as U2, Coldplay, or (dare I say it) Madonna does have significance since they are often groundbreaking and influential in regards to the set-up of subsequent tours by artists in the time that follows. Case in point, Zoo TV Tour. In regards to the second, it may be acceptable or it may not be; that's up to us to decide through this discussion. A listing of programmes on CBC during the week of 14 March 2008 is clearly not; however, if you look at the economic impact and stimulus that comes through a major event such as Viva la Vida Tour or U2 360° Tour, I think we can say that they are. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly a tour as a whole may have cultural significance. But concerts within a tour are largely copies of one another. There's no historical significance to the concerts individually. If something historically interesting happens at a particular concert, that might be worth mentioning (say, it's the live concert that the album was made from).

Howsoever, the concept of deciding what group is allowed to add tour dates based on how much money they make seems arbitrary. This is a trap that movie articles also fall into. They usually don't consider inflation, or how widely movies are distributed. Inflation and global distribution makes movies look artistically successful that are merely financially successful. The early Elvis, Beatles and Stones concerts weren't historically significant because they only earned a few hundred dollars a pop? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My point was not about the tour being successful for the artist, it was about the economic stimulus for the city which hosts it. Take, for instance, a U2 concert in Dublin. The money that comes into it from the fans who travel to it from around the world is staggering; if I recall the reports correctly, the recent three concerts in Croke Park were the financial equivalent of Ireland hosting the World Cup. It's a similar situation in other locations. If that isn't significant, I don't know what it is. Perhaps the problem is that we are viewing it differently; I see the tour dates as being a collective part of the tour, and you seem them as being an individual part. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If financially significant, then it belongs in the Wiki article for the city. And only if it can be demonstrated it had some special financial impact on that city. A couple million of taxed income are nothing to NYC.Piano non troppo (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL says "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." We have verification for tour dates. And stated tours/artists are very notable, and there are plenty of sources at our disposal to use in the articles. Suede67 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, the issue is not WP:CRYSTAL. I've renamed the section. The editor thought that was the reason I made my edit. It wasn't. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But CRYSTAL is also applicable to this; it provides a justification for keeping the dates which counter-acts the first-part of the statement in NOT. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That section gives as examples single, unique, historically significant events such as an election or an Olympics game. The WP:NOT quote is equally specific as to what is disallowed "an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules".

Frankly, I don't see the argument. Tour information is accurate and up-to-date on official sites and booking sites. Why include duplicate, possibly stale information in Wikipedia? I'm bowing out for the moment to let other voices chime in. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, future tour dates are not encyclopedic. Exceptions would be things like attempts to play X concerts in 24 hours or some other reason the dates themselves are significant. Rd232 ^talk 05:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can not think of a single instance where tour dates are encyclopedic, whether verified or not. Rd232 offers an interesting hypothetical but I can't think of any actual examples of such. A particular performance may have historical significance and the paragraph about it may include the performance date but a laundry list of places and dates played fails the "indiscriminate information" clause. It is more news-like than encyclopedic material. As others have already said, there are other, better sources for that information. A link to the tour's official site may be appropriate. Regurgitating the tour listing in an encyclopedia article is not. Rossami (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, would it be permissible to remove future games in season schedule from say 2009_Dallas_Cowboys_season or 2009_New_York_Yankees_season? Because both articles include games played (and to be played) for this season. Seems a bit odd that future concert dates are "indiscriminate" whereas future games to be played (in baseball's case a a 162 games season no less) is acceptable. --Madchester (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Heck, the same argument can be applied to any regular season, already-played game for any professional team. No, not every game, just like every tour date, is notable. But they are factual information and not indiscriminate -passing the primary hurdles for inclusion on WP. Now, it is the case that not every concert date by every band is notable, just as every game between organized teams at any level is notable. That's why most of these tour dates are only for named and notable tours that get reviews and commentary as opposed to just a collection of shows an artist may do. This almost points back to the recent question about "indiscriminate lists of discriminate info" vs "discriminate lists of indiscriminate info", but tour dates, as done presently, falls into neither. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good analogy with the sports. In addition, excluding future dates would most likely confuse people as well, possibly making some think that a baseball season has just ended when there is still 2+ months left. ^TheWeak_Willed 03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Madchester, there is generally no reason for Wiki to have the forthcoming season schedule for sports events. That information is already available online -- on authoritative and up-to-date Web sites. Wiki is a more or less stale copy, without adding any value, and potentially decreasing it. The same applies to music tours. Why have this information in Wiki, when better sources are available elsewhere?

However, Masem, the notion that a game in season sports event is the same as a music concert is inexact. Concert tours work from play lists. They are largely cookie-cutter events -- intended to be highly similar -- to the extent that those such as Britney Spears don't sing, they mime to prerecorded music. A sport event a unique occurrence, where the individual players may not be known, and the outcome is largely unpredicted. There is some limited value to knowing that Team A will play Team B, at night, at Stadium X, in a doubleheader. But again, I wouldn't come to Wiki for that information.

TheWeakWilled, at the end of the table for a tour that's still running, simply place the words "Tour in progress". Piano non troppo (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is a future event that is known to be occurring (readily sourced as to complete avoid CRYSTAL) and that we would otherwise document that event, then we include it, plain and simple. Otherwise we wouldn't have articles on upcoming movies until they are actually out in theaters, or on upcoming elections, or the like.

And yes, you may not come to Wiki for that information, but both concern dates and the date and results of sporting games have been identified as data that we compile in WP. We're not paper, so there's no size concern, neither is indiscriminate (documenting every regular season baseball game is about as "indiscriminate" as documenting every concern stop) so there's no problem with including both as long as we're not engaging WP:OR. --MASEM (t) 12:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

When we already have an article such as Viva la Vida Tour, it makes sense to include future dates as well as past dates. The language in WP:NOT is not meant to limit that, it's meant to limit an entire article of nothing but future tour dates (e.g. List of South American live concerts scheduled for 2010). Once an individual article has been established, there is no reason not to include scheduled dates, just as we include scheduled dates for upcoming episodes of television shows once they have been announced. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Look. The issues are not being answered, here. The idea that some groups should be allowed to add tour dates, but others not, is ridiculous. Either we allow every group to advertise ALL their upcoming gigs, no matter how hypothetical or far distant, or we disallow them all.

It isn't just that there is no purpose in advertising the future dates of concerts which are by-and-large reruns of material. It's not just that. It's that Wikipedia editors have nothing to add to the content. Nothing to contribute. This is a sterile marketing exercise to advertise some commercial group as widely as possible. The definitive information can be depended upon to be OUTSIDE Wikipedia. That makes Wikipedia always the "second most reliable" source. The information is not encyclopedic. It is guesswork that is open to critical changes. Changes that very well might be misleading to numbers of readers. Future music tour information should never be in Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. There is no way I would trust Wikipedia to be up-to-date on tour information and plan ahead to go to a concert (and pay all that money) based on Wikipedia. I would of course go to the external link to ascertain the dates. In fact, I'll wager that nobody has ever taken Wikipedia's word for it when buying a ticket. Abductive (reasoning) 02:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There's two points to make here.

First, on the variability of concert dates: yes, these change due to numerous issues, but they are planned out well in advance to secure the venue, plan travel, allow people to purchase tickets, etc., and for the most part, they happen as scheduled. There may be more changes than compared to , say, a pro sport event, but certain isn't random. As long as a reliable source has published the future tour dates, and we do change them when changes are made, this is no different from future sporting event schedules or the like.
Second, only a select number of tours are given these, and these are dictated by Notability. If a tour isn't notable, we don't have a page on it, and we won't have tour dates. If it is notable, then the tour dates are a common sense addition. They are not marketing tours, because to be notable, it has to be secondary sources and not the band or its publishing group itself. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Except it violates Wikipedia is NOT a DIRECTORY and Wikipedia is NOT a CRYSTAL BALL. Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Then lets get rid of all the upcoming and past sports schedules for the same reason. Let's remove all upcoming release dates for movies, video games, and books for the same reason. I very much you'll find it easy to do this. There is nothing CRYSTAL about reporting the expected concert dates that are published by a source with the understanding that they will change. CRYSTAL comes into play in saying that "Well, this group is playing New York on the 2nd, Pittsburg on the 4th, and Cleveland on the 6th, and therefore I can assume they will be in Detroit on the 8th", but this is not what these lists assert. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Future sporting events? Do we list the whole baseball schedule? Yes we say that the 2010 Winter Olympics will be in Vancouver, February 12-28, but ~~we don't list the whole event schedule~~. Abductive (reasoning) 03:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, bad example. Let's take it on a case by case notability argument then. Abductive (reasoning) 03:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Say yes to how-to guides

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments8 people in discussion

I think Wikipedia is being closed-minded when it comes to barring the articles that present information in a how-to format. Sometimes, certain kinds of information regarding a certain topic (in this case, flow cytometry) - information necessary to make the entry complete - can only be presented in the form of a how-to, primarily because the sequential aspect is so important. While it is possible to rewrite preparation for flow cytometry into an "encyclopedia article", it would also reduce the usability of that page. I know that various users on this site want Wikipedia to remain an encyclopedia, but I would like for the decision-makers on this site to be more tolerant to allowing other, less common yet still traditional, forms of information to be presented on this site. Removing preparation for flow cytometry from Wikipedia would make the article on flow cytometry considerably less useful and informative. Aelindor (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we need to think outside the box we've built. IAR doesn't cut it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It is reasonable to summarize that information, describing on a very generic basis the steps that would be necessary as to have the average reader - who may never step in the lab to do this procedure - to understand the basics behind it. The details of each step is beyond the purview of "summary info" that an encyclopedia is to provide; we are not meant to be useful for the specific researcher. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- And don't forget, we have Wikibooks which 1) this information is perfect for and 2) can be linked to cleanly from the WP article. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  - I know this is going nowhere, but we could do both. It would help the reader, which isn't a consideration. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe a primary reason Wikipedia is discredited by the academic community (after it being editable by anyone) is that it's too general - it's an encyclopedia. It gives readers the illusion that they've learned something whereas they actually haven't. For example, if you were to read flow cytometry you wouldn't have a clue just how to actually do it. And as any molecular biologist can tell you, flow cytometry is a big deal. Wikipedia is topping 3 million pages. The vast majority of that is irrelevant to or not understandable to the average reader - just cycle through them with the random page function. At 3 million pages, this is bound to happen. The question now, is whether we want to limit ourselves to just an encyclopedia or if we want to further expand the boundaries of human knowledge. After all, human knowledge isn't confined by what is defined to be "encyclopedic articles". Aelindor (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  - I imagine a disagreement started this. You're not going to get NOT changed, but you can explain as much as possible in the various articles and hope it doesn't get reverted. Most parts of NOT are what we actually are, but policy hounds wish we weren't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  - For example, if you were to read flow cytometry you wouldn't have a clue just how to actually do it. Precisely correct. Our task is to inform, not to instruct. It is enough if the reader gains an understanding of how something is done; he need not be provided with the ability to do it himself. For example, it is enough to say "the tissue is teased apart, often using the frosted side of a microscope slide"; it is unnecessary to go into details like "You won't be able to fully separate all the cells; neither do you need to. The process should only take a few seconds of careful rubbing." Powers ^T 12:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with moving this to Wikibooks is that this "how-to guide" doesn't seem like the makings of a book to me. For a book you need to have a body of lots of related information, something that can be divided into chapters reasonably. There's nothing like that here. If this were moved to Wikibooks it would probably end up as a 1-page book. That's not good on a site where the books and bookshelves are prime real estate. Besides, such a move would irreparably sever the connection between the two articles, which are definitely linked in content. Aelindor (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not strictly books, though the content organization should approach it. So for example, flow cytometry may fall under a book about biological laboratory tests, but you need not have the whole book there to start that. And again, you can wikilink cleanly between WP and Wikibooks without any concerns. See the FAQ for Wikibooks to get an idea why this type of information is well suited there. --MASEM (t) 03:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Can we move non-notable fiction stuff to wikibooks? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  - No. Wikibooks is for textbooks. Uncle G (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Look at the very first of the five pillars, Aelindor. If you want to convince Wikipedians to abandon one of the fundamental premises on which this project is based, I think you'll have a very hard row to hoe. (Indeed, I doubt that the five pillars can be abandoned even by consensus; by the very terms of WP's foundation, it's limited to being "just an encyclopedia.") If you want to work on something other than an encyclopedia, you've come to the wrong place. You might try WikiHow, though. Deor (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Or just put it in paragraph form with lots of refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That still wouldn't make it other than how-to content. Deor (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it will prevent it from being removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe WP:NOT#HOWTO is primarily about formulations, and then also about the level of detail. Compare Pancake and wikibooks:Cookbook:Pancake. The Wikipedia article has a lot of information, but no recipe. Instead there are hints such as "runny batter". Ideally one would be able to assemble a recipe from the hints at various articles. (It's not the case, currently, because batter doesn't tell us the proportions of ingredients for a runny batter.) OTOH the cookbook goes into excruciating detail, including many non-essential or arbitrary decisions. It also makes implicit assumptions about ingredients such as flour (which differs a lot even within Europe) and eggs (which can have huge size differences between countries).

I have myself once hidden a recipe in an article, see Nasal irrigation#Solutions used for nasal irrigation. Some important things to consider are: be brief, stress the important things, describe the major variations, formulate it as a description rather than as instructions what to do. Then it's quite unlikely that someone will complain.

I disagree about Preparation for flow cytometry. It shouldn't be hard to rewrite this properly. Hans Adler 09:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Do it in your userspace, then. Abductive (reasoning) 03:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The reality as I see it

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion

Wikipedia should be a crystal ball etc. Too many people are caught up in rules which don't really create any positive benefit to what the site offers. As far as I can grasp. everyone on the site seems to be under the 'WP Spell' whereby they care more about Wikipedia itself than the actual subjects which they choose to edit/take control of/vandalise as I've seen them do. Officially Mr X (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well put. So long as the "rumors" or inpending upcoming releases are backed up by reliable sources, there is no real negative in not covering them. We cover content that appeals to a broad audience, not only that which seems relevant to some of our community. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course. We have thousands of articles on future ventures, albums, movies and TV shows. We have articles on future elections, future car concepts, future aircraft. No policy on wikipedia prevents these. I am, however, hesitant to engage in discussion someone who has assumed that everyone on the other 'side' is "under a spell" or is vandalizing articles. Please assume good faith and treat people with respect. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"whereby they care more about Wikipedia itself than the actual subjects" sounds good to me - people who can't separate out their passion for a subject from their role here as an editor are a menace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

sounds good to me as well. We who work here do not have the responsibility to provide all the possible public benefits needed in the world. We are here to provide one specific thing: a comprehensive free encyclopedia. That it be an encyclopedia worth using requires some degree of limit on total imaginable comprehensiveness. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions vary. NOT is what we are, but may not want to be, mostly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not a crystal ball because we can only comment on information that has already been commented on. As an encyclopedia, we focus on the past, not the present (WP:NOT#NEWS) or the future (WP:CRYSTAL). That doesn't mean we can't comment on current events (taken in the broad sense, such as the War in Iraq) or future events, but the information we write must already be "out there", so to speak. Generally speaking, it is much harder to write about topics which are rapidly changing or are up in the air, and I don't think it is our place to do so until there is a degree of reliable certainty about the topic. Them From Space 19:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am misreading but doesn't A Nobody's argument, taken only one or two logical steps further, allow wikipedia to essentially turn into a blog? Surfer83 (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- They said use reliable sources, which is not a requirement of a blog. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Those people who want an online encyclopedia to be a crystal ball or to have TV schedules or random trivia or whatever else nonsense they think up are free to go off and make their own online site and pretend its an encyclopedia and operate it with whatever rules they come up with. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia you need to follow the founding rules it was built upon. If you don't like those rules, why are you even here? DreamGuy (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You're stating opinions as facts. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one could equally argue that the people who want to limit it should do the split. For one thing, its a lot easier. Just select the material you want, and offer it on a site. We've even done such selections themselves, and published them. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Accidental rollback

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My sincerest apologies; that's what I get for trying to navigate my watchlist on the iPhone. Complete accident, and I really hope it won't happen again! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 08:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested clarification of meaning of Not:Memorial

Latest comment: 15 years ago25 comments14 people in discussion

WP:NotMemorial states:

Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Note that this policy does not apply outside of the main article space. Whilst using user space to create a memorial is generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died. At a minimum it is expected that they were regular contributors, and that more than one tenured Wikipedian will have used the deceased user's page (or an appropriate sub-page) to add comments in the event, and after verification of, their death.

This is understood by some editors to mean that the names of victims of atrocities, such as Warrenpoint ambush or Omagh bomb, where the victims all died at the same time, should not be included in the relevant articles, but that it is appropriate to include the names of victims of atrocities where they died at different times, e.g. Ballymurphy massacre or Bloody Sunday (1972).
Others believe that it is appropriate to include names in relation to both types of atrocity, but that if it is not deemed appropriate in one, then it should not be appropriate in the other.
Some editors believe that WP:NPOV is being breached in the former position as the position is a means of excluding the names of those killed by Irish republican groupings, while including the names of those killed by British armed forces.
Other editors disagree that WP:NPOV is relevant.

A discussion began here but failed to reach consensus. Can we get clarification on the meaning of Not-Memorial? Mooretwin (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest starting with the edit that introduced it to policy, and the background to that. Uncle G (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There are problems other than partisanship here. The base is that from an objective perspective the names and most other attributes of the victims are generally not too relevant to the event - however news padding and "human interest" mean that a lot is reported, and the names even become bywords. The War of Jenkins' Ear may be an early case in point: although we are sorry for Jenkins we would be just as sorry if his name was Walbeck - nonetheless he is defiantly notable. Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

Jenkins is notable not because his ear was cut off, but because of the propaganda campaign he then engaged in. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

He's notable, but his name is not? Hair splitting, and impractical besides. How else is he, and other people in lists, to be described? Anarchangel (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We should do whatever the sources do. It works for other NPOV stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

We can find sources that list the names, and ones that don't, so how is this helpful? DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could list them or not based on whether most RSs on the subject list them. Kind of like conflicting views, I guess. I'll admit I've never really seen a great way to judge this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this really comes down to understanding if the names are critic to know or reveal if they describe the how of the event. Something like the Zodiak Killer, where each of the individual murders led to more and more information on the case. On the hand, several civilians killed from plane crash or bombing or the like do not contribute to the "how" of understanding what happened, only the effects of it. In either case, we're avoiding talking about the victims as victims per NOTMEMORIAL. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it is nice to have a good reason to include a list. I agree that is a good reason. But let us not confuse a good reason with a good idea. There are other good reasons for including names, like allowing researchers to follow up on stories. Being able to Google a name from such a list allows users to find the 'how' of an event that editors have not added yet, or perhaps will not ever. Anarchangel (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is normal pactice on aircraft accidents not to include victims names unless notable (normally measured by having a article on the subject). Just removed a list of victims (in a box at the bottom of the article) of 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident under WP:NOTMEMORIAL and have been reverted using the Featured Article 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident as a good example (this also names all the victims in a box at the bottom of the article). It appears this was an exception added during the FA review because of the many nationalties involved!! Not sure were that leaves us but I see a memorial creep appearing! I would suggest that we need some clarity on the the subject probably close to Masem's comments. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's going to be creep in any event. If we establish the policy that all the names are suitable content, we will then be asked to include all the deaths during, say the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima. If we establish that none are, we're going to have problems with people removing the names of murder victims from articles on murderers, or removing the individual names from the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. We have now the counterintuitive result that the worse the even, the less important the victims--but that may in fact represent the public reaction. Let me give an example: we would not list all those killed in the Holocaust. But if from a particular village 4 people died, should the article on the town list them? DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me come back around to my point, because I think the key difference between where it seems appropriate to list victims and where it is not has to do when 1) it is a relatively small number of victims and that 2) they died at different times, likely by different means and for different reasons. That is, if a reader is reading the sources that support the event, names of the victims should be included when it helps to allow the reader to clearly understand the sources and the progression of the event. Things like Ballymurphy massacre or Bloody Sunday (1972), or even the Columbine High School massacre would be logically places where it is necessary to identify the victims because they are critical to a comprehensive reading of the sources as opposed to replacing their names with "Victim 1" , "Victim 2", etc. (which is both difficult and slightly OR if it's not clear who died first). But again, we're listing the victims - and any noteworthy memorial services made for those people, but we're not memorializing them. When the numbers are larger, or by the same single event, there's no "path" to track through these people - they all just died due to someone else's actions. We can still talk about notable memorial services for these events, but we should not be including such long lists of names with them.

Basically, we should only include the names of victims if it reasonably necessary to know those names to fully comprehend the article and its sources. That's not memorializing them, that's just fact-reporting. --MASEM (t) 06:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Not a memorial" is a great policy, one that seems harsh, but which is a necessity on an online encyclopedia. It bars, in advance, articles whose purpose is to list the names of persons who perished in a disaster, a massacre, or a battle. It does so without saying that some people's deaths are more important than those of others; it's a way of saying, yes, the victims of 9/11 should be remembered, but this is something that is reserved for websites other than Wikipedia (in other words, add a link to the article). I think that we sometimes have zealots who see this as a license to erase information from an article about, say, Jack the Ripper; and I think that we often see administrators cave to the majority vote when it comes to articles called "reaction to the death of" Michael Jackson, Tim Russert, or some other beloved person for whom an exception is expected. By and large, however, the policy is well-enforced. No reason at all to change it. Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How bad can it be? If PoV material surrounds such a list, remove it. The list itself is neutral. Names, dates, place of birth. Are we not supposed to be assuming good faith? What proof do you have that someone is including a list for a particular reason anyway? And ultimately, who cares why the person wrote it? If there is PoV in there, take it out, because it is PoV. Not because of some assumption, which additionally seems to be impractical to define. 13:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm (or anyone else) is arguing for change, but just some clarification to defuzzy the line between when something is and isn't a memorial, to some extent. The policy aspect is perfectly fair to have, but when there's disagreements as to why a list of names of victims is ok to have in one place and not in another, some clarification is needed. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have always had my doubts about not listing names - from the point of view that if someone is researching Fred Bloggs, finding out how they died maybe very important, and may not be apparent from other sources. Nonetheless the maintenance on the 9/11 wiki was sufficiently difficult to discourage me from pressing this point. I have always seen the point of NOT:MEMORIAL as: Just because some one died (even in a particularly tragic or horrendous way) they do not automatically either become notable or exempt from NPOV. They will however in the tragic/unusual cases become more notable - someone being hit and killed by a piece of falling space ship for example would become notable enough to name. Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

How about List of people killed by crocodiles? :) Heh, I actually recall seeing something like List of people struck by lightning as well. :P -- œ ^™ 04:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the point differently: If something falls from a plane and kills one or two people, it is probably essential to name the people to avoid the risk of looking like a "did you hear about the ufo..." rumor page (specific details are needed for an encyclopedic article). But if a whole plane falls and kills a lot of people, the verifiability issue will be satisfied from other evidence, and issues more important than the names of the deceased should be discussed. Such an article may comment about specific people like the pilot or (if verifiable and relevant to the incident) some passerby. But listing any specific information about the incidental 100 dead does not help the article. I might want to include my dead uncle's name as a memorial, but Wikipedia is not the right place. Furthermore, perhaps my dead uncle would not have wanted his name listed for some reason. It just serves no purpose. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Even the plane crash example would allow someone to hunt up forensics reports on the crash (more about this above). Facts are never purposeless.

Remember, articles are only a maximum of 100Kb. The storage from a list the length of a whole article is not as much storage as we use up with the storage of diffs for this AfD. All the complexity and duplications of edit histories makes them 20Kb apiece. So if you are worried about taking up storage space, you can contribute more by making your edits all in one go. Anarchangel (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) From the strong emotions and assertions of political bias at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime I can see one strong reason for not allowing these lists of victims: starting with the best intentions, they will be used to make partisan points, contrary to WP:SOAPBOX, and we will soon have competitive lists of dead Catholics/Protestants in Northern Ireland, Armenians/Azeris, Palestinians/Israelis, Hutus/Tutsis, Serbs/Bosnians/Kosovans... JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The way I have seen this issue ever since I joined Wikipedia over three years ago, and the position I have always argued for in these debates is as follows:

1) There is nothing in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that states that lists of people killed in specific incidents with articles about those incidents is not allowed (n.b. this is not to imply that they therefore are allowed, simply to point out that as it stands there is nothing in these guidelines to exclude them and thus they are constantly misquoted when used for such).
2) Lists of the names and other relevant details of people killed in incidents, particularly violent acts, can have intrinsic encyclopedic information: this extends beyond the examples given above where people died in the same event but at different times and places. For example, the ranks or positions of persons killed give some idea of their relative importance in the event: such as those killed in the Brighton bombing, several of whom were notable in their own right. Their ages and nationalities give useful demographic information that can be expressed most neatly and completely in a properly formatted list and a list like this allows the addition of other relevant information, such as people who died later of injuries or those who may have placed themselves in harms way to save others. In theory this can all be written out in the text, but I cannot see a viable reason for forbidding a list when it can do the job much more simply.
3) Such lists must always be properly sourced.
4) In addition, lists should not subsume the article (in which case a sub-article ("Casualties of . . .") may be appropriate) and must always conform to NPOV to ensure they don't act as a pseudo-memorial, but as a piece of information like any other.
5) To counter the suggestion above that these will become the victim of WP:SOAPBOXers - they already are! That is the sole reason why this issue is being raised here once again. What is important is to codify the rules so that there is something solid on which to develop sensible debate about this problem, rather than endless circular discussion due to the vague nature of the rule at the moment.
6) As long as reliable sources give such lists, I don't understand why wikipedia editors should seek to exclude (or to put it another way, censor) them provided the conditions above are met - they are useful additional information for researchers and have a definate role to play in developing an event for a reader.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

that these lists will make partisan points is not a problem, because there are such lists available to suit every possible partisanship, political, religious, or whatever. Quite apart from natural disasters, the infliction of human ones on each other is not distinctive to any group. We have for example, List of veterans of World War I who died in 1999 (and subsequent ones). It includes many nationalities.

but that list shows the objections--we could carry in backwards to 1918 and include millions of people. If we went back to 1914 for those who died during the war, there would be millions more. We could in principle handle even this--if we needed something neutral to divide them by, we could go by day. And so on back --and forwards. The NYT carried lists of everyone from the city drafted at each draft call during WW I and II, and so I imagine must other papers for their areas. They did not all die in those wars, but if the NYT thought it worthwhile to record the names.... The NYT published the entire casualty list, day by day, during the Korean War.... DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought not a memorial got added way back when, before we had notability guidance, and was added to stop people writing quick obits for their nearest and dearest. It's not a bar to any of the sorts of disputes listed above, which seem to be content disputes. You know, at some point we'll realise that policies can be mis-interpreted and that when two sides disagree on an interpretation it is pretty clear there is a content dispute which can't be solved by referring to policy but rather by reaching consensus. By the way, anyone who thinks NPOV is not relevant probably needs to be editing at a different project. Hiding T 09:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to DGG) - What you are saying is really just another version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I am not suggesting that all lists of everyone are included everywhere, I am pointing out that in some circumstances such lists can be an informative and valuable addition to an article providing it is properly sourced and presented in an NPOV way. What must stop however is the idea, claimed at Talk:Warrenpoint ambush and elsewhere, that WP:NOT (as it now stands) in any way provides prohibitions on including these lists anywhere on wikipedia - it doesn't. What I am suggesting (as others have done), is that this discrepancy be dealt as soon as possible with to provide clear guidance for editors in the future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

not quite--I am saying if you accept this logic, you accept other highly inappropriate things that will come to exist--and that I'm not just raising a straw man argument, because some of them already do. (I certainly do intend to AfD those WWI lists when this discussion concludes, & I hope they won't be existing much longer. ) To me, NOT INDISCRIMINATE already unmistakably prohibits adding such lists as they are at Wikipedia, and NOT MEMORIAL prevents the others. But i agree that since people seem confused by it, a more definite statement is necessary. (or else a decision to accept them, in which case I will wait to return to the issue a little later on in the hope that consensus will change). DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Censorship clarification: Images

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

To clarify: An image on a Wikipedia article can be censorial in its usage on Wikipedia even if:

No user (including the one who added it) intends or desires that it be censorial — correct?
The image was created by a non-Wikipedian — correct?
The image is famous or noteworthy — correct?

For example, if we used a famous artist's pre-censored illustration of a penis at the top of our Penis article (i.e., to depict a penis, not merely to depict cultural ideas about the penis or to adorn the artist's own article), this could be a potential violation of WP:NOTCENSORED, yes? There is a tricky, but potentially serious, issue of Wikipedia censorship I am trying to alleviate, and it was suggested that these general questions be brought up at the relevant Policy page(s). - Silence (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In that particular case, why would you even use an artist's rendering? Surely a photo is better? Or is it a Gray's anatomy illustration or a similarly significant medical depiction? --Cybercobra (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but perhaps it will be simpler just to cite the example I was thinking of. Our Human article currently has as its primary, lead image a famous drawing, the Pioneer plaque, which happens to have the female primary sex organs (but not the male ones..) censored — according to the original creators of the plaque, this was out of concern about potential "puritanical" or "Victorian" sensibilities in NASA (or the broader public?) at the time. It has been argued that using a pre-censored, anatomically inaccurate image of humans as our main depiction of humans does not violate WP:NOTCENSORED, on the grounds that (a) it was added to the article in good faith; (b) it wasn't originally made by Wikipedians; and (c) it is a noteworthy image. I do not see how any of these points are relevant in this case (since the article is about the human species, and not about artistic depictions of humans or about the Pioneer plaque), and I would echo Cybercobra's recommendation (in the hypothetical case) that we simply switch to a photograph here and ditch drawings, but I would be curious to know the opinion of editors more familiar with WP:NOT policy. -Silence (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Due to its iconicness, the plaque is probably worth including, but a photograph or uncensored significant drawing should be the lede image. Of course, the problem with photographs in that case is objectively and non-arbitrarily choosing which one(s); this is probably why a non-photograph like the plaque was chosen in the first place. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Or since the Pioneer plaque is public domain, you could get a wikiartist to uncensor it, but that has problems of its own... --Cybercobra (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. The best option is replacement with an uncensored photograph (like we use for all other species articles), but of course we need one that minimizes the potential for bias or abuse. On Talk:Human (and the in-the-works Talk:Human/FAQdraft, which I'd love to see edited if anyone here thinks it deviates from policy or convention) I've proposed File:Akha cropped.png, which, although far from a perfect image, I think does the job adequately and remedies the WP:NOTCENSORED issue, among other problems with the plaque's use here. What do you think? -Silence (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT to be edited when drunk

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

That should be obvious. Right? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRUNK --Cybercobra (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, one can edit after drinking, but one should not attempt to engage in any disputes or anything remotely controversial. Abductive (reasoning) 04:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone whose spelling or grammar improves after drinking, to say nothing of logic or or judgement. Possibly for some people imagination may improve, or free-association, or other forms of creative writing, but that's not exactly what we are looking for. I've even seen "excuse me for getting angry; I had too much to drink" accepted as an excuse, not seen as an aggravation. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. My editing improves the drunker I get. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I edit drunk all the time. If my contributions are an issue talk to me, but the drugs I choose to do are my own choice. Chillum 23:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that should be a rule in NOT. Not sure how it would be enforced, anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki breathalyzer? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense?

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

To me, WP:INDISCRIMINATE implies that no patent nonsense is allowed. But shouldn't that be stated more clearly here? Pcap ping 17:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems uncontroversial enough to me, so I've been bold and added it. Pcap ping 17:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

no this is a different sort of problem and not really appropriate here, certainly not in the section on content as opposed to behaviour. It's covered adequately elsewhere, and adding such obvious things detracts from the important points. I appreciate the concern, but I've reverted. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing what policy covers it, so I can give a pointer there instead? Pcap ping 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides WP:NONSENSE explains that patent nonsense is not necessarily vandalism (a behavioral issue). So, patent nonsense appears a content issue to me, thus the link seems appropriate in the context where I had inserted it. Pcap ping 12:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

suggest renaming of NOTCENSORED section

Latest comment: 15 years ago28 comments8 people in discussion

I suggest the section be renamed to "Wikipedia is not inoffensive." The current name gives the misleading impression that Wikipedia is not censored at the behest of various interest groups (which may include national governments), which is not the case. Ray^Talk 14:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How is that misleading? What alleged censorship are you referring to? DreamGuy (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to, among others Talk:Death of Baby P, Talk:David S. Rohde, Talk:Stephen Farrell (journalist). These are just the ones I have personal experience of over the last 3 months or so, but I'm under the impression they are not exceptional. Ray^Talk 19:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could clarify the policy (because true or false, there is the perception in the media that WP has gone along with news blackouts before) by adding:

Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. As such, Wikipedia does not participate in news blackouts when reliable sources are available. Joshdboz (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see any discussion of censorship on Talk:Death of Baby P despite reading through most of it. The other two seem to be anomalies that don't require changing anything and probably would have worked better if they had actually followed policy. DreamGuy (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The conversation seems to have been moved to the archive page. Regardless, I was more than moderately annoyed at being threatened with immediate blocking if I should have even mentioned the Name That Must Not Be on the Talk page, much less the main article page. Oversight went along with this. Ray^Talk 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I think the current name is perfect. Censored is exactly what we are not and exactly what people try to do to us every day. Contrary to what Ray has said, Wikipedia is not censored at the behest of various interest groups. See no reason to make specific mention of news blackouts, the issue does not seem to come up very often. Chillum 15:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Reversion, blocking, and oversight have all been employed to prevent publication of reliably sourced, relevant information of historical interest on Wikipedia in the very recent past, by editors, administrators, and oversighters who remain in good standing. A news blackout is censorship. You're free to argue that this isn't appropriate, but not that it doesn't happen. Whether tis a better idea to bring Wikipedia practice into line with stated policy, or to bring Wikipedia policy into line with accepted practice, is a valid argument to have. Ray^Talk 15:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And even if the debate Ray has outlined can be brushed away by asserting that what has happened on certain articles is not censorship but just following BLP, etc, the media (and hence public) perception is that it clearly is. An attempt was made to bring policy in line with apparent actions (Wikipedia:News suppression) but this never got anywhere. Joshdboz (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just get over the fact that certain policies result in us having our cake and eating it too. Meaning, where someone can make a persuasive personal appeal to a wikipedia administrator or co-founder, material will be censored and ex-post justified. But where someone cannot make such an appeal, we can point to our policies as sign of our implacable devotion to neutrality and freedom of information. Worrying over contradiction between policy and action in this case is only a recipe for an ulcer. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Basically, this policy is an ideal, rather than a law followed to the letter. As such, I don't think it needs to be changed because some perceive it as not always practical or practiced. There's WP:IAR for that. Pcap ping 16:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  - To the contrary, because it is an ideal, it should hold some normative weight in a discussion. But it seems that it routinely does not where the subject can be made a sympathetic figure. Editors have an alarming predilection for treating WP:CENSOR as the province of hackers or kids demanding that "information wants to be free" rather than seeing it for what it is: a core element in our quest to be a neutral, international ecnyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As an example, the discussion on censoring an article (Peter Tobin) at the behest of someone claiming to be the scottish police is instructive. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  - The following quote from Jimmy Wales, which appears in several of the links above, is instructive:

“

We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.

”

- - - Precisely. An ex post justification for an action taken privately to censor content where the request was made on behalf of a sympathetic figure. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that. We did the "right" think in the case of the kidnapped journalist. What I'm saying is that we can get right off our high horse when it comes to denying other requests to censor on behalf of less sympathetic figures. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wales quite, in all honesty, is misleading. Several of the sources originally used by editors on the Rohde kidnapping are used in dozens of other WP articles and would normally either pass muster or lead to a reasoned debate on the talk page. The same is true about the Farrell kidnapping. That is why WP policy needs to be brought in line with behavior (because IAR doesn't cut it if you're doing it on a regular basis) or behavior needs to change. As far as the media's concerned, we already censor, but we seem to be content with making up excuses (as you note) without seriously addressing the issue. Joshdboz (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I should be clear, I didn't add the wales quote, it was Pcap, but he didn't sign it. the threading just makes it look like I added it. Protonk (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to change our description of our ideals to match the media's mis-perception of them. Chillum 23:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that in this case the media perception is not so different from the perception of a number of editors. These are situations in which messages received through OTRS spurred edits that were defended on BLP grounds (despite the presence of arguably reliable sources), but also happened to coincide with media blackouts on the topics. If WP is going to allow media blackouts, gov requests, etc. to influence editing, fine, but it should be codified in writing and agreed upon. Joshdboz (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We also have several other ideals that we fail to accomplish 100% of the time. We have hosts of examples of articles that fail our notability criteria, yet the criteria is still valid. The same goes for not being censored, just because we fail at it once and a while does not mean it is not our standard. Chillum 03:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Our own Censorship article makes some useful distinctions on this point. I think that it is fair to say that, like almost all policies, this one is a 'useful slight-oversimplification'. The form of censorship that is really being prohibited and talked about in this section, for the most part, is what our Censorship page calls "moral censorship" (in a broad sense also encompassing religious censorship)—the censorship of obscenity in any form. On this issue, Wikipedia is completely, utterly, unapologetically, and without even the slightest exception uncensored. Only in other areas of censorship (typically where lives, rather than moral sensibilities, are at risk) is there even the tiniest bit of wiggle room, none of it "moral". But there probably isn't time to adequately treat this distinction on WP:NOT, and it's a generalization that's true so often that there's little point qualifying it here just for those .00001% of cases which constitute exceptions. Perhaps a Wiki-essay could be written to explore the finer details of implementing this policy. -Silence (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- That is a powerful argument, but I don't accept the dichotomy as that clear cut. The Rorschach test RfC included arguments appealing to mental harm caused by test subjects being able to avoid diagnosis. The Peter Tobin case isn't obviously a case of life or death. The two journalists are a good example, assuming that you accept the arguments the NYT makes. The Mohammed images often have arguments about physical harm or threats of violence associated with them. Some of the other censorship issues are very clearly 'moral'. I still think we have a problem whereby we respond sanctimoniously to requests to censor certain items, and then accept requests to censor other items. In some senses, we are basically telling the Muslims, the APA and the Mormons that we don't think their claims of harm are legit and we think that the claims of harm made by others are legit. That's a lot less powerful case than 'we don't censor ever'. I doubt that we are going to change policy to reflect this and I don't necessarily know that we need to. But I do accept your response as a clear defense of the de facto policy. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  - "The Mohammed images often have arguments about physical harm or threats of violence associated with them." - This supports my point precisely: In cases of moral censorship (i.e., censorship of obscene/taboo content), I know of no examples of Wikipedia ever having compromised, in even the smallest ways and for any reason whatsoever, the NOTCENSORED principle. Only in cases of non-'moral' censorship have I been able to find any examples of occasional, very rare compromise, usually for the aforementioned 'risk of life' reason (though obviously WP:LIVE is the most significant source of potential exceptions to WP:NOTCENSORED, again in the non-'moral' realm). -Silence (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    - That sidesteps the point that I raised. There isn't a clear delineation between 'moral' censorship and other reasons. Protonk (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      - Your point doesn't suggest that the delineation is unclear. It just suggests that some censorship proposals fall into multiple categories — someone might want to remove an entry because it's obscene, but also because it's dangerous in some way. In these cases, my claim above suggests that the "moral" dimension will keep the censorship from being permissible, even if the non-moral dimensions would otherwise allow the aforementioned miniscule amount of wiggle room. Does anyone know of any counter-examples to this claim? -Silence (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        Well sure the delineation is unclear. If it is because the lines are blurred or because actual situations contain multiple claims...isn't important to me. My point is more that we need to back off the all caps, bolded, never-ever kinda statements we make about censoring things because the answer is more nuanced. You argue that nuance falls wholly within 'harm to life' cases. I argue that it doesn't and won't in the future. Protonk (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you provide no evidence that it's unclear. A categorization system does not need to be exclusive (i.e., prohibitive of multi-categorizing things) to be clear. For example, dogs are both mammals and carnivores. One might say, "That's confusing! Can't you fit them into just one or the other?" But this would be to misunderstand how non-exclusive categories work. A situation can involve both moral and non-moral censorship without 'blurring the lines' between the two, just as an animal can be both a mammal and a carnivore without 'blurring' any lines whatsoever.
Now: I deliberately made a ridiculously overblown, bold, sweeping, totally easy to refute with even the slightest counter-example (what in philosophy would be called a maximally 'strong' argument) statement, because I am intensely curious to learn if there are any counter-examples. I honestly don't know; I haven't seen every Wikipedia article. All I know is that, in all the tens of thousands of ones I ever have seen, moral censorship has never been permitted — regardless of whether any non-moral form ever has been. So: I made my statement completely lacking in nuance as a challenge! I challenge every editor on Wikipedia to provide counter-examples! Prove me wrong! Nothing could possibly make me happier. :) I have deliberately given you the easiest possible target to knock down, because I want to see if there have ever been any exceptions to the 'Wikipedia doesn't censor things just for being taboo/obscene' rule. -Silence (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- "I want to see if there have ever been any exceptions to the 'Wikipedia doesn't censor things just for being taboo/obscene' rule" I don't care. I really don't. That kind of stuff is easy to avoid censorship. People always look stupid when they try to censor it and we usually appear noble if we keep it up on principle. What I'm interested in are cases like Peter Tobin, where some friendly person asserts that some grave consequence (but nowhere near life threatening) and we comply under that threat, though. It's totally irrelevant to ask for counter-examples to your claim that we don't censor obscene materials, those aren't the ones under threat. I have faith in the community to defend penis pictures or underage girls from prudes. Where that faith fades is when we have to deal with issues where someone can make some claim other than to obscenity, especially when those claims are both superficially convincing but fundamentally insufficient to climb the hill of censoring content. Protonk (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should explicitly say that we don't follow media blackouts. If Jimbo can keep something out of WP, that's fine, we just shouldn't make it a policy. If we deem Jimbo's actions to be against policy, we can talk about that then. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can people please join discussion to work out the nature of Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. It was tagged as a guideline for a year, and then a user changed it to a how to page. I thought it worked better as an Info-page, and now myself and Dreamguy are tag warring over whether it has consensus or not. I've set my stall out at Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary#Bizarre argument. Hiding T 10:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

My reasons for those changes are self-evident in the change log. User:AnmaFinotera mass reverted with summary "get consensus first", which generally is a bad idea unless you have some substantive objections to the changes. So, I wait to hear your objections. Pcap ping 14:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because you had reasons doesn't make them okay. You completely changed the wording and meaning of the areas you edited. [{WP:NOT]] is a policy page, not some personal essay or article like the one you are trying to point to as having any meaning or relevance. If you feel the meaning needs changing, get consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you made no substantive objections above, it appears to me you ignore a part of this very policy—WP:BURO. Some essays debating the finer points of your action are: Wikipedia:BRD misuse and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Having said that, I'll indulge you and formulate my edits as proposals, in the hope that you might actually comment on their substance:

Proposal 1

Edit: add "Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." to WP:BURO before the last sentence. The fact that consensus should be used to solve disputes raises the question whether policy itself may be changed that way. The sentence I proposed to explain that is short, to the point, links to relevant sections of other policies, and is not prescriptive.

This works for me to the point it appears a no-brainer. Hiding T 21:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Edits: point 7 of WP:NOT PAPERS "(not) Academic language" is redundant to point 5 "(not) Scientific journals and research papers". Furthermore, the rest of dictum 7 does not really prohibit academic language in articles, but discusses the naming convention of article titles essentially by deferring it to a guideline. In my edits, I've suggested how to merge point 5 and 7:

Move the sentence "Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible." to point 5, which says that Wikipedia is not an academic/scientific journal or collection of such papers. It follows from dictum 5 that the naming convention convention should be the guideline linked to (WP:UCN), so it makes sense to move that sentence from 7 to 5. After moving that sentence, 7 is left with no explanatory contents, so unless you want this wiki to become simple.wikipedia.org by a blanket prohibition of all academic language, it needs to be deleted. Do not worry, this is not going to become a blank cheque for jargon; see next bullet.
Make a direct reference to WP:MTAA at point 5 instead of being prescriptive here just about wiki links. Concretely, replace "While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text." with "See further recommendations on making technical articles accessible to a general audience." There are a bit too many "shoulds" in the sentence on wiki links to be part of a policy. The replacement I proposed should be the last one in dictum 5, i.e. after the one referring to WP:UCN proposed in the bullet above. If you need further arguments... We do not include in this policy, or attempt to prescribe in a few sentences, the entire contents of WP:UCN, so neither should we attempt to do that with WP:MTAA, but rather defer details to the guideline. WP:MTAA has considerably more recommendations that simply explaining jargon (what the current WP:NOT recommends), e.g. what the first sentence should look like to give the reader enough context, etc. It's rather unreasonable to reduce "not academic papers" to the issue of explaining every wikilink in text. If the issue of explaining terminology is considered paramount in this policy, WP:TTD, which is technically a detail of WP:MTAA, could be directly linked and emphasized instead of relying on WP:MTAA for that, but even in that case "not academic papers" should not be reduced to the issue of explaining jargon.

Since you asked me to "get consensus", I'm going to post notices as WP:WPM and WP:WPSCI because they should have a direct interest in this, and you apparently just insist on process. Pcap ping 16:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that your first edit is largely non-transformative. Your second edit is not, however. You are proposing to add prohibitions about naming conventions into a core content policy. I'm not happy with that mixture, especially given the politics surrounding naming conventions. I also don't see how MTAA is germane to NOTPAPER. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:UCN is already linked at dictum 7. I'm only proposing to move it to 5. Pcap ping 16:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh. It shouldn't be linked there either. Protonk (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

MTAA is germane because point 5 only explains what "not papers" means as: you should explain every advanced concept, even if you wiki link it. But there is more to "not papers" than pasting an entire (freely licensed) paper here and explaining every term. E.g. Optimization (Infrastructure & Application Platform) uses rather common words, but it doesn't read like a Wikipedia article because it lacks tons of context. There are no "advanced" concepts to explain there alongside wikilinks, but can you really say that article reads like a Wikipedia article, and not like a Microsoft whitepaper? Pcap ping 16:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is a settled enough dispute to place it in a core content policy. Protonk (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such dispute. Can you point me to it? Pcap ping 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There certainly exist academic reviews and instructional material that, if under a free license,, would be suitable for Wikipedia -- if rewritten a little to match the tone accepted of an encyclopedia. But most such papers have the intention not just of summarizing knowledge, but summarizing it as the opinions of the writer, for which he is personally and professionally responsible, and subject to the controls of peer-review and editing. This makes them intrinsically unsuitable for Wikipedia, because they necessarily are OR and SYNTHESIS. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of trouble finding it, but one of the VP's or one of the technical wikiprojects (I thought it was wkp:math, but it wasn't) had some knock-down drag-out fight about level of detail for mathematical articles that revolved heavily around the notion of MTAA. I spent about 45 minutes trying to find it 2 days ago and 30 minutes yesterday. I'll try again sometime today or tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There was one some time ago at WT:WPM; but it is now deeply archived. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The only discussion I was able to find is this one, which is over a year old, and it was about including hatnotes that warn the reader of the difficulty of the material. It was concluded that such hatnotes are prohibited by WP:No disclaimers in articles (except for hatnotes that point to introductory articles). I cannot find a discussion where MTAA itself was considered inadequate. Pcap ping 16:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Technically, Wikipedia is a democracy, since the people (contributors) determine how it is run. Perhaps we can reword the policy???--Edge3 (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the things in NOT are what we actually are. We just wish we weren't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically you haven't defined a democracy in that description. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Textbook definition: "Political authority is vested in the people." Wikipedians are the people, and Wikipedians have the authority to decide how this project runs. Therefore, Wikipedia is a democracy. --Edge3 (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh. What political authority is vested in people? Who is the demographic? I can assure you that you don't have much political power on wikipedia purely by virtue of creating an account. Far more channels of power exists bureaucratically or charismatically. And fundamentally, power to execute decisions here doesn't rise to the level of governance over function or scope. That's in the hands of the WMF. Protonk (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but as editors we have the power to write the articles. Policies and guidelines are created by the editors, and review processes such as FAC or GAN involve editors, not the WMF. I don't have much political power as a citizen of the United States either, but once I turn 18, I will have the right to vote. --Edge3 (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference between Wikipedia and a democracy is that Wikipedia doesn't really even provide the illusion of self-determination. If the WMF decided tomorrow to protect all the servers and only provide access to people with last names beginning with "Q", there's absolutely nothing you or any other Wikipedian could do about that.—Kww(talk) 01:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Except forking Wikipedia on your own dough, which the license allows. That's really the only freedom here. Pcap ping 05:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons are launched by citizens. That does not mean that they are launched democratically. Wikipedia's direction is primarily driven by the privileged; I would love to say that it is a meritocracy, but it isn't. The potential for the unprivileged to become privileged is not unique to democracies and does not make WP a democracy. The only inherently democratic process on WP is RFA, and it is far, far worse off for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree RFA is a mess, but suggest it can only be put right by implementing a quick, easy process for desysopping admins who have misused thier privileges. Until this happens, participants at RFA often try to make 200% sure that a candidate will not abuse the tools - and the "stick together" behaviour of admins when one is attacked make RFA participants even more paranoid. --Philcha (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I support that in principle (interestingly enough, I opposed a recall process before I was an admin and have since changed my mind), I disagree with the premise that RfA will be solved by the prospect of immediate and effective recall. The worst elements of RfA are not caused by an abundance of caution. Protonk (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Google news and ugly AfD tags

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Can we do something? I've been using Google news lately to search for AfDs. I go to their news home page, search the page for "wiki", and find a bunch of NOT#NEWS AfDs. I think I saw one that resulted in delete, or else they were all keeps. In any case, these are probably our highest profile aticles now. I'm using the new beta and cant' look at viewership numbers easily, but we're probably showing our wonderful AfD box to a million readers each week now. Can we do something about this? Please? Put flowers on all NOT#NEWS AfD boxes? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Um. Isn't there a rule that Google won't index the Wikipedia namespace? Has Google broken this rule, or have I misunderstood it? Ray^Talk 07:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I think what Peregrine means is that if you go to the google news front page, a large number of the Wikipedia articles google is linking to on that page are nominated for deletion because Wikipedia is not a news organisation. Pergerine is pointing out that we are likely receiving a lot of visitors through those links, and is asking people to consider the impression it makes on people that the first link they arrive at is a page listed for deletion. Hiding T 11:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask Google News to not index Wikipedia, because we are not a news organisation?—Kww(talk) 11:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Google News seems to have a "too refined" logic in picking articles to link. E.g. it currently links to Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009, which is AfD'd, but also to Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, Patrick Swayze, Darren Sutherland, which are not AfD'd. I don't think there's problem with Wikipedia or its policies here. There's a suggestion box for Google News somewhere, I'm sure... Pcap ping 15:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, most editors that !vote in that Obama speech AfD probably came here straight from Google News since they have little or no idea of the criteria for notability. E.g. "An incredibly notable event right now". (The link is mine.) Pcap ping 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We might be better off if we inserted a cautionary note about AFDing news articles that are currently in the news into some guideline. Those tend to cause more trouble than the principle is worth, in my experience. News articles w/o enduring historical significance can be quietly disposed of a month or two later. Ray^Talk 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's hard to tell their significance right of the bat. It even changes during the AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with showing the rest of the world our AfD process. And no, there is no rule that says google (or other search engines, lol) can't index the wikipedia namespace. Wikipedia:Search engine indexing was a stalled proposal to do so. Protonk (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Per station television schedules

Latest comment: 15 years ago317 comments70 people in discussion

Today, I began removing a bunch of scheduling information from a large number of TV stations. Examples: [9][10][11]. I did this based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY #4, "an article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules". This seems clear and unequivocal.

Prior to beginning the removals (knowing there'd be resistance) I checked for background discussions. I found one that had been cited previously that occurred at the Wikiproject Television here, that happened in 2007. My take on that was it was irrelevant, since our policy at Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Exceptions notes "The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right." and that never happened. I also found a discussion that occurred in the global forum of Village Pump (policy) here which showed a pretty strong consensus that the schedules had to go.

Despite this, I am starting to get reverted.

So, I ask the question of everyone else: Is the display of current scheduling information in station specific articles a violation of WP:NOT? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the cavaet on WP:NOTDIR#4 is important, that when the subject is a major national broadcaster, a historical summary of the schedule is reasonable, and so, for example, the upcoming fall season schedule (at the general weekly resolution, not a per-episode frame) for CBS or ABC would be fine, as these networks clearly fall into the realm of "historically significant". Now, the problem here is that I can't tell if the networks in the examples given would qualify the same way as "historically significant" that that we'd consider CBS/ABC in the States, or something like BBC in the UK. It would definitely need to be a national station (eg. something like the US's WGN would not count towards that even if WGN does get some national coverage), but that would be a starting point. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we immediately get into a granularity issue there. I suggest the line in the sand isn't if a station is a national network or not. I think the line in the sand is per-station/network. Articles such as 2009–2010 United States network television schedule are fine, as they offer an historical perspective to compare programming slots. Station/network articles that have schedules like this are not fine. Similarly, List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS#Current_schedule isn't an acceptable use either. A current schedule isn't encyclopedic. It turns us into a guide. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The key factor between being a TV guide and an encyclopedic coverage of what shows a network airs is the fact we do not break this down week-by-week, episode by episode or include one-time events. Now granted, the data on the network pages should technically be put with the data on the historical schedule comparison pages, because after the current season is over, that's where that information will live. But that information itself should be somewhere on WP. But this is again for the national, over-the-air networks. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think what medium it is broadcast in or how extensive the coverage of the station/network is should be a factor. If it's important enough for a network, it's important enough for a station. Plus, in smaller countries the definition of "network" and "station" is very much blurred. I concur with your statement below that response to Rossami and historical articles. I do not see how keeping track of current schedules on every station/network article is in any way encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We do need some level that designates a national station, otherwise, we'll have every tiny UHF station have their schedule posted. The US is easy, but probably more difficult for smaller countries, but also at smaller countries, you're less likely to have a large number of stations or stations that aren't national to begin with.
But I do think it's smart idea to discourage the schedule coverage on the station article and push it to national historical schedule pages - yes they are current, but in 3 months, they will be historical, so there's no problem with that information staying around after the fact. However, it will deemphasize the station-centric view that can occur on the individual station pages. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your removals of those sections were entirely appropriate and will make the stronger statement that sections like that would be equally inappropriate on the CBS or ABC pages. The whole United States network television schedule series should be reconsidered. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree that the historical comparisons are a problem. It's well established that one can look at the changing reception of a show, and in fact, how new programs are introduced and removed, based on what the competition was airing at the same time, at a level of high granularity, so these historical articles provide a key resource. The networks selected are discriminate: these are the major over-the-air broadcasters (even if a station like the CW doesn't get close to some cable networks). --MASEM (t) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! I have yet to see how such scheduling information continues to be "upheld" as an okay exception beyond a general fondness for it. Most are not historically significant, and current schedules certainly should be frowned upon. Wikipedia is not a TV guide nor is it a mirror for TV.com. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For major networks, I don't think its bad. What currently airs on a network can be an encyclopedic subject, though if we can do it better (with maybe a navbox style list divided by genre and stuff), that could be a good compromise. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Enforcement of no schedules must be merciless and heartless. Remove them all. Abductive (reasoning) 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am very happy to see such listings removed, although I think you (Hammersoft) should have sought this clarification first, rather than afterwards. If I understand you correctly, you believe that articles on historical schedules are acceptable, but articles on current schedules are only acceptable if phrased as historical ie "2009 season schedules". To clarify, would you accept someone going through the history of C4 (TV channel) (which you used as an example earlier) and extracting the 2008 season to create a separate article? Personally, I don't believe such an article would be acceptable and would not survive AFD, even though it could be reliably sourced to respectable publications such as the New Zealand Listener and any number of daily newspapers. Adding a series of sections to the C4 article as "2007 schedule", "2008 schedule" and "2009 schedule" would be equally unacceptable, but not testable via AFD. What makes 2009–2010 United States network television schedule different?-gadfium 23:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just giving you a heads-up, but Jon2guevarra (talk · contribs) has reinstated some of the schedules Hammersoft removed. It seems any communication with the guy seems to be futile because he reverted the edits despite the notes left behind on his talk page. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see why some editors would want these listings based on subjective importance, but as topics for inclusion as standalone articles or lists, their notability is unproven until such time they are the subject of commentary from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the schedules. However, belief in measures subjective importance, such as inherited notability, no matter how strongly held, do not provide evidence that the schedules are compliant with Wikipedia's content policies. I beleive most of these schedules are comprised of synthesis and are magnets for original research, and should be deleted. Some editors may have strong views about creating these type of article, but unless there is evidence to show that they are notable, they are not encyclopedic.Wikipedia is not Movie, Book or TV Guide. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with User:Rossami in that "The whole United States network television schedule series should be reconsidered." I fail to see how, what amounts to a nicely formatted TV schedule is encyclopaedic? Wikipedia is not a record of everything under the sun. In my opinion Hammersoft was right to go ahead and remove that listing and any other similar -- Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I will contact many of the editors involved in making these scheudules, there are 6 editors here, many veteran editors whose accounts overwhelming focus on attempting to delete other editors contributions, attempting to make policy for everyone else. Typical but not exactly overwhelming conseus. The overwhelming consensus is the hundreds of editors over several years, who have made and maintained these schedules.Ikip (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that User:Ikip has started canvassing on this issue (see here, here, and especially here. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Calton, why should a small group of veteran editors decide the policy for all wikipedians? Hammersoft was disrupting pages by deleting dozens of existing sections. When editors reverted these sections, he would write warnings on their pages. I was simply responding to these disruptions and Hammersoft warnings. If we all want to have an open, transparent discussion about deleting hundreds of editors thousands of edits, why didn't Hammersoft bother to invite these editors to discuss this on this page? True consensus will never be reached if we exclude those editors who are the most negatively effected by the dictated forced changes.

Also see WP:Don't template the regulars. Ikip (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community decided the policy, not a small group of 'elite editors' (I'm not an elite editor, and neither is anyone else here). The policy is quite clear. an "article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules". The stance against schedules has been in the WP:NOT policy for more than three years. For the record, I did invite people. See User_talk:Jon2guevarra#Program_Schedules. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Since editors are not familar with the study which called influential veteran editors elite, and it is being read in the wrong way, I removed the term "elite" and replaced it with "veteran". Sorry for any confusion. Ikip (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said! I agree. If you don't like it, then you don't have to go there. The large number of people who do go there for information, and have contributed to it over the years, are important. Is there any way to see just how many hits a particulate page gets? Bringing more people to the Wikipedia, for any reason, is always a good thing. Dream Focus 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The policy was already made, just unevenly enforced. It takes very little talent to imitate TVGuide. Abductive (reasoning) 00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a good number of editors strongly disagree about a rule which, if history is any guide, was formed by a handful of veteran editors with no larger community impute. It take very little talent or diplomacy to delete other editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually think it is appropriate to determine the fate of these articles via a discussion at WP:NOT. Obviously, we lack a centralized discussion system whereby changes across many articles can be agreed upon (in principle) but NOT isn't a good substitute. My suggestion is that you start another discussion at Wikiproject TV and close this discussion w/ a pointer there. Protonk (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please note Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Exceptions, third bullet point: a "WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right". A discussion based at a Wikiproject will be inherently biased. This talk page of the policy in question is a considerably more global forum. A pointer was placed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Discussion_regarding_per_station_TV_schedules_and_WP:NOT. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  - I'm well aware of that provision, thanks. Start an RfC or start a discussion at the village pump if you like. I just don't think discussing it here is productive. Protonk (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with contacting people who have participated in these articles previously, to tell them what is going on. That isn't canvasing, nor is it wrong in any way. Secretly deleting what others have spent a lot of time working on, without seeking their input, is however quite wrong. Let them have their say as well. And honestly, no one has ever article they have worked on or cared about on their watchlist, monitoring every little change constantly, that just not possible. Someone should contact all of them. Dream Focus 03:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why not just delete all of the policy-violating TVGuide stuff, and then see if they even notice? Abductive (reasoning) 03:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Remove. Not encyclopedic YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think ikip was within his rights to inform others of the situation, however, wikipedia is not a vote. If the members of a particular wikiproject want to make a change to policy (such us WP:NOT) then they need to convince the wikipedia community as a whole. I'm still in favour of removing and I haven't heard any, what I'd call "valid" reasons to keep them -- Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's more than just this policy that is relevant here. Our policies on verifiability and prohibiting original research are relevant, also. Here are some specific questions to answer, to see the underlying general point here: How do we know that this edit has made the article more accurate instead of less? How can we confirm that the article is correct? If the answer is "Check it against this week's published listings for the channel.", how is such information, that isn't generalized beyond the specific week of the edit where it was introduced, actually useful information for a reader in (say) three months' time? And how, in that case, is our presenting a single week's specific schedule as if it were the regular general schedule not a mis-representation of fact?
For extra credit, attempt to check for accuracy what the article says about the Monday schedule for the channel. Is it true for next week? Is it true for this week? Was it even true for last week? What can be said of the general Monday schedule? How do you know? It's interesting to see how many edits are being devoted to defending, and amassing support for defending, content that is a falsehood. Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is the reason why WP:NOT says not to include schedules; the sources for the schedules will always be better than Wikipedia because they are either the stations themselves, or corporations that make money providing the information, and can afford paid staff. So it would be appropriate to include a link to reliable sources for the schedules, since one would need to be provided anyway as a reference, and let users click on it, but not migrate the schedule to Wikipedia. Seriously, if I wanted to find out when something was airing, I would not trust Wikipedia, but I would expect it to link to the channel's program guide. Abductive (reasoning) 09:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I am now being reverted by User:Ikip who is citing this thread as support for including the schedules. See for yourself. In this thread, I see 9 people supporting the removals, with only 2 opposing. There's three others with possibly equivocal opinions not included. This isn't a vote, but after 5 days (inclusive) it's pretty clear where we stand. He's done this 11 times. I am reverting, but would appreciate some support. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain this inconsistency:

User:Gadfium reverted your deletions of other editors contributions:

citing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 5#Current primetime television schedules and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 23#NOTDIR and TV schedules [12]

You responded that:

"Please see our discussion on my talk page. There is consensus, and local Wikiproject consensus can not override policy"

You again deleted other editors contributions,

stating: rv re-inclusion of schedules against consensus at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules

Why does User:Dillmister quoting Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not not a good justification, but you citing Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not not is? Ikip (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two different types of tv schedules being talked about here. The present case is about a specific station's TV schedule embedded in the station's article. The Archive23 talk section is about the historical TV schedules that are generally not station specific. They are apples and oranges in terms of how we should approach them, with NOT presently advicing that the former are not appropriate while we're still ok with the latter -- though as some see it, even those should not belong despite NOT's current long-standing wording supporting it. That is, if there is to be discussions on the merits of the historical, non-station specific schedules, that needs more detailed discussion - but we've long-standing advice that current schedules on a station's page should not be included. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am crying "uncle", i give up. This is something I am not to interested about anyway. At least the information is still in the edit history. Ikip (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that this information is encyclopedic and should be removed.
FWIW, there have been AfDs on some dedicated TV schedule articles in the past, one I remember was WP:Articles for deletion/1991–1992 United States network television schedule (late night). Amalthea 20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't you mean un-encyclopedic? I'm sure everyone would be up in arms if encyclopedic material was removed ;) MuZemike 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Yep, thanks. Spellchecker gone wild I think. Amalthea 21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Hammersoft and Uncle G that the schedules for individual stations are not generally appropriate. The stations can do it better themselves. The work it would take us to do it correctly should be better spent on writing articles on topics we need to cover--or perhaps improving the plot sections of TV shows. (Networks and some national stations are another matter entirely and I would not support deleting them). DGG (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I cannot see any way in which tv or radio schedules for forthcoming programs belong in an encyclopedia - if we allow this, then we do become a directory. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Wrong venue Please start an RfC. Per Protonk this shouldn't be determined here. If for some reason we are going to determine this here, I think we should have major network schedules here, where "major" is unclear in many markets (to me at least). The schedule of a show has a lot to do with the success of the show and even what the show does (follow on to another show etc.) It is clearly an important part of many shows. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all the wrong venue. If an RfC started, the discussion would be right here. Further, it was announced at Village Pump (policy). The very large majority agree the schedules per station are inappropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

An RfC would get a wider bit of input, as would announcing it to the appropriate projects (if that hasn't already been done). [Posted link to here at the TV project discussion page.] Hobit (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never been and will never be a fan of informing projects of discussions they may have an interest in. Such notifications inherently bias a discussion. Further, projects do not have ownership of any article and are not capable of writing policy nor breaching it on articles within their areas of interest. AfD discussions are not held at the project level. Neither are policy discussions decided upon at the project level. We've had this discussion now for the better part of a week. It's blatantly clear what the policy is, and it is blatantly clear that per-station television schedules are not permitted under this policy. I am not and never will be opposed to the community as a whole having input, which is why I informed Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (see diff) which has been read by about 50 editors since it was posted there, in addition to the ~30 editors who saw it here. Nevertheless, since you insist, I've added the rfc tag to this section per your request. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to be equally dubious of "policy wonks" hiding discussions from those they actually impact. Thanks for the RfC tag! Hobit (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If notifying Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) of this discussion counts as being a "policy wonk" bent on hiding discussion, then THANK YOU for the compliment. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but the people who _read_ Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) are hugely more wonky than the average editor. I am very far on that extreme myself. I just think those that actually edit the articles in question are as important to hear from as those that live and breath policy (e.g. me). Hobit (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep all Sources discuss this stuff, and so should we. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm late to the party, but have to agree that some form of culling is in order. Some of the station articles have gotten completely out of hand, and the individual network schedule pages are certainly out of line and fall under the notion of TV Guide-ism (to coin a phrase). I would agree that the page that shows the broadcast network schedule for all the broadcast networks by year is encyclopedic, and gives a historic context, but the individual information (and specific times) does not. I've had this discussion on WP:TVS in the past, and have told folks that listing full blown times and dates certainly fails this test, and should be deleted. (bottom line: yes, do the culling; it's okay as far as I'm concerned) --mhking (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
RfC comment. It's not exactly clear where the discussion stops and the RfC starts, but I came here via the RfC. I think it is very clear that the primetime schedules violate NOTDIRECTORY, and should be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion Instead of having the schedules as part of the page, why not link to the stations' schedules in the External Links section? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Support removal Go to TV Guide, not an encyclopedia, if you want this information. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep network block schedules, remove specifics. The block schedule of an entire network for an entire season is encyclopedic. Ratings of various shows are discussed in RS'es, people can check what was on years ago, and so forth. This kind of schedule includes empty spaces set aside for local programming, and open-ended time on weekends for sports and movies. However, it is not encyclopedic to update a detailed schedule every week when things are moved around for specials, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep network and programming block schedules per Squidfryerchef. Powergate92Talk 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've said it before. The historic block schedules, consisting of prime time 1946 to present major U.S. network television schedules, must be kept: these block schedules are in use in television encyclopedias, and appear frequently in reliable sources (these are available upon request). These national schedules affected (and still effect) millions of viewers each year, and have a major impact on the television industry each fall, especially around Upfront time. Entire books have been written about these schedules: see Castleman's The TV Schedule Book: Four Decades of Network Programming from Sign-On to Sign-Off, for example. Local stations and minor (under ~100 affiliates) television networks probably don't warrant schedules: because of how the TV markets are set up in the U.S., networks with fewer than 100 affiliates in the U.S. can't or don't pull in Nielsen numbers higher than 1% of the viewing audience, and generally aren't the subject of extensive coverage in reliable sources. Sources exist, though, for ABC, NBC, CBS, DuMont, NTA, Fox, UPN, the WB, the CW, MNTV, PAX/i/ION, and a few others. Local station/cable channels don't average very many viewers. The gap is closing between broadcast and cable, but not that much that cable channels can attract giant audiences that would greatly affect the TV industry: NBC doesn't counter-program based on what Syfy is airing. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Since the schedules provide no evidence of notability, there is no rationale to keep them other than various editors views about their subjective importance. What seems to be missing is verfiable evidence that they should be kept - so far we have only various editors expressing strong view. The must be hundreds of different television networks in the US alone, but which one is more important than another is a matter of personal opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

TV schedules are printed in all sorts of 3rd party publications. They easily meet WP:N. The question is if they violate NOT#DIRECTORY. I think the historical versions certainly don't, but I can also see how one could reasonably conclude they do. But notability isn't at issue here. Hobit (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The national network schedules provide clear evidence of notability since many are clearly sourced to reliable third-party publications. Gavin, please go to your local library and check out some of the books listed as references on these pages. Also, there are not "hundreds of different television networks in the U.S. alone"; the number of broadcast networks is closer to fifty, and only a dozen or so are true nationally-viewed networks. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Third part sources don't provide any evidence of notability unless they contain some sort of commentary on their subject matter, othewise they are classed as tertiary sources. However, most of these schedules are not even sourced, so I think Hobit is speculating, which not getting us any closer to providing verifiable evidence for inclusion. Notability is an issue here, in the sense that all of the topics in WP:NOT are not likely to fail WP:N, and vice versa. If these schedules were notable, there would be no doubt that they would be entitled to their own own standalone articles. But as they stand, articles such as 1954–1955 United States network television schedule (late night) are just random stuff that provide no commentary, context, criticism or analysis that are the hallmarks of encyclopedic coverage, which is why they fail WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove 'em all. No matter which way you look at it, they're nearly inherently inappropriate for an encyclopedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Except, as I noted above, television encyclopedias use them. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Support removal of current lineups. Support retention of historical lineups with sourced notability. There's a reason why TV Guide is published every week, and we do not handle rapidly changing news, nor are we a crystal ball for future events. We only handle information after it has received significant discussion. Perhaps historical schedules, such as the 1955 schedule on NBC, could be considered encyclopedic (I have a manual in my library discussing such lineups) but current schedules are not encyclopedic at all. We are not a directory and we shouldn't be the place to turn if a user wants expansive tables of information without any discussion about them or significance in published media. Them From Space 16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Support retention of Major-network Schedules. Firsfron makes the very good point that entire books have been written about these network schedules, and that makes them notable. Per WP:5P, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." This is the sort of information that would be in a specialized encyclopedia, so we should keep it. It also serves a quite plausible navigational purpose, and so should be kept for that reason alone. — PyTom (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Support removal as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; subjective importance does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion. The schedules/lineups have no encyclopedic value unless they support commentary from reliable secondary sources in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies. I think Pytom knows that that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating notable elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. What is being missed by some editors is that these schedules come from the TV networks themselves and should be classed as primary sources, in the same way a railway timetable is a primary source. This does not change even if the schedules/lineups are reproduced in secondary sources; the schedules on their own cannot take the place of commentary, analysis or criticism that provide context for the reader and evidence of notability to justify their own standalone articles. No matter how many times these schedules are reproduced, without encyclopedic content of this nature these articles fail WP:NOTDIR because there is no rationale for inclusion, and the editors who are creating them should reevaluate their reasons for doing so. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a single thing you've said in the above post is accurate, Gavin. These schedules 'do not come from the networks themselves. They come from reliable sources:

McNeil, Alex (1996). Total Television (4th ed.). New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-024916-8
Castleman, H. (1984). The TV Schedule Book: Four Decades of Network Programming from Sign-On to Sign-Off, McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0070102775.
Bergmann, Ted; Skutch, Ira (2002). The DuMont Television Network: What Happened?. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8108-4270-X.
Brooks, Tim & Marsh, Earle (2007). The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows (9th ed.). New York: Ballantine. ISBN 0-345-31864-1.
Castleman, H. & Podrazik, W. (1982) Watching TV: Four Decades of American Television. New York: McGraw-Hill.

There are many others.

The schedules themselves are the subject of independent, extensive coverage in reliable sources. The people arguing for the deletion of these schedules clearly aren't checking out the references; such lack of basic scholarship continues to be a problem on Wikipedia, where someone who doesn't know anything about the subject can make the decision that something is "not notable" or "not encyclopedic" even if the subject is noted in multiple references already listed in the article, and the content already appears in encyclopedias. Editors who fail to note references should re-evaluate their reasons for doing so. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We have no way of telling if the schedules are discussed in any meaningful way at all in these publications, so your assertions are pure speculation. My guess is that the topics of these publications are either the netweorks themselves or the television programmes they produced, and that the network schedules are used merely the framework to discuss them. To back up your statements, you will have to come up with citations, not rumours of citations. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I have each and every one of these books in my collection. It's not "pure speculation", and when you say "my guess is..." it is you who is engaging in pure speculation. Check out these books yourself if you refuse to believe that I have these books. Also, can't you tell from the title what The TV Schedule Book might be about? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand then why you did not you cite some coverage from these publications that supports the notability of one or more schedule/lineup articles from the begining of this discussion. Can you add some citations now, so we can examine what you have in in your library? Evidence in support of your assertions would be most welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, these are already cited in the articles themselves. I presumed if you were seriously discussing deleting the articles that you would have taken a look at the articles themselves before vehemently calling for their deletion. That would only make sense. However, you missed the fact that the prime time U.S. network schedules have been sourced since I sourced them myself nearly two years ago. All primetime network series between 1946 and 1980 were sourced to Castleman and Podrazik (1982), Brooks and Marsh (1985), and McNeil (1996). Brooks and Marsh have a 62-page section covering network schedules. McNeil's is only 50 pages. In Castleman and Podrazik's book each chapter begins with a network schedule, followed by pages of text discussing said schedule (and in the early years, ABC's and DuMont's problems with their schedules), what hits resulted from each schedule, and what programs were doomed because of being scheduled against tougher competition (the obvious examples are the programs scheduled against Texaco Star Theater; only Life is Worth Living lasted long, according to David Weinstein). A fourth work, Bergmann and Skutch's (2002), was also referenced for the years 1946-1955. A great number of other references could also have been used, but I chose these four because I own them. In addition to these four, I can think of the various books by William Boddy, Michele Hilmes, James Roman, Leonard Goldenson, and David Weinstein which discuss early network schedules. Please see 1946–47_United_States_network_television_schedule#References, 1956–57_United_States_network_television_schedule#References, 1966–67_United_States_network_television_schedule#References, 1976–77_United_States_network_television_schedule#References etc., for a list of works you can use to verify the content in the schedules. As I said, these are already present in the articles, and have been for a very long time. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here. If the schedules are reproduced without any commentary, criticism, or analysis to provide context, then they are simply a regurgitation of the primary source (from the network itself). Without any commentary, these articles provide no evidence of notability. If these publications voice some sort of comment on the schedules themselves (not just a regurgitation) then you have knockout evidence of their notability. But if there is no commentary, then why on earth would you think they were encyclopedic when WP:NOT has various prohibitions (WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#GUIDE & WP:NOT#STATS) against listings of barebone information? As state earlier, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia: the schedules need to have been noted (i.e. commented upon, not just reproduced) to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a misunderstanding here, it is your own. I believe I already stated that the schedules in Castleman and Podrazik's 1982 book are reproduced with commentary, criticism, and analysis of the network schedule themselves; each chapter is a discussion of the network line-ups and what happened because of them. Each of Wikipedia's prime time network schedules from 1946 to 1980 are referenced to Castleman and Podrazic's 1982 book, but there are other books which also provide the level of detail that you require. However, do not quote WP:NOT and WP:DIR to me when WP:DIR specifically allows for the annual U.S. television network schedules. That clause was added specifically because the people who work with these articles, the people who study early TV history, the people who research early television in reliable sources, realized there was a problem with good-faith but misinformed editors quoting WP:NOT randomly. It's still happening, however. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there can be any misunderstanding. Unless there some clear evidence of notability, such as commentary from reliable secondary sources that are independent of schedules, then they should be removed. If the schedules are not notable, then they are no different from a railway timetable, and nothing you or any "expert" editor can say can change that unless it can be backed up with citations to demonstrate their notability as standalone article topics in accordance with WP:GNG.
If some of the publications contain commentary, then you should add it to the articles to provide some form of context for the reader, otherwise they are just not encylopedic. There can be no exceptions to these rules: just because your views on their subjective importance are stronger than mine, that is not a verifiable reason for keeping them; what is needed is verifiable evidence of notability in the form substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the schedules themselves. The way that WP:NOT#DIR is written to give an exemption to articles on schedules is, quite frankly, special pleading and is not in accordance with the spirit of this policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability is a guideline (and based on RFC earlier this year, will likely remain one for a long time) meaning there are common sense exceptions to it. Now, presuming Firsfron is accurate in his description of the books, then there is notability here, but that's not the point. Not every single page on WP needs to pass WP:N - WP:NOT, yes, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV yes, but WP:N is a guideline for a very good reason, as everything that we are by the five pillars, including works like almanacs, may mean that we include significant data that is completely appropriate per all other content policies but may fail WP:N. --MASEM (t) 12:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not possible to set aside the issue of the schedules' notability, because if they fail WP:N, then they fail WP:NOT and vice versa. I can see where you are coming from: you are arguing that these articles are encyclopedic because they are sourced, but are ignoring the point that merely being significant, true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You are trying to sidestep the issue that the verifable evidence of notability is required to demonstrate these articles' suitability as standalone articles. Evidence of notability comes in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the schedules themselves, and these articles contain none. Clearly reproducing the schedules on their own means these articles are verifable (this is not in question), but merely reproducing the schedules (the primary source) does not constitute evidence of notability. However, what is more obvious is the complete lack of commentary, criticism or analysis that is needed to provide context (significant coverage per WP:GNG). So when I say that these barebone schedules are not encyclopedic, I mean that they do not provide any context for the reader, which is a symptom of their lack of notabilty. You can continue to argue that they are encyclopedic in the same way a railway timetable could be argued to be useful and verifable, but without evidence of notability, there is nothing to support your assertion. In their current form, they are clearly prohibited by WP:NOT, because they do not contain balanced coverage of their subject matter, by which I mean they don't contain a mix of primary and secondary coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again Notability is not a policy, it is only a guideline and thus applied with common sense exceptions. This clearly seems to be one of those cases. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the only alternative to notability, subjective importance, is not accepted as a basis for article inclusion in Wikipedia. It is a matter of personal opinion to argue that these schedules are significant and important if you don't provide a shred of evidence to support your view point. Simply arguing that these schedules are "significant", "important", "informative", "worthy" or "valuable" does not carry any weight in Wikipedia. You have to provide verfiable evidence for a standalone article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, Masem. Gavin is never going to understand. This is the same editor who was still arguing for the deletion of Theba, Arizona after the discussion closed as keep, and after several inline citations had been added, including one from World Book Encyclopedia. Gavin was still claiming the article was "unencyclopedic", citing lack of notability: check the talk page. I feel that Gavin is so caught up in Wikipedia policies and guidelines ("There can be no exceptions to these rules") that he's missing the forest for the trees. While I know he's a good-faith editor, he doesn't seem to understand the premise that if something has already been included in other encyclopedias, calling it "unencyclopedic" and "not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" is silly, and only makes Wikipedia look less encyclopedic. Sadly, once Gavin has made up his mind about something being unsuitable for inclusion, it won't be changed: I know this is true based on the Theba, Arizona incident: even after the article went from one in-line citation to eight, he was still arguing for deletion. Above, Gavin is requesting that more "notability" be provided for the schedules (presumably citing more stuff). But I won't waste my time, knowing already from the Theba incident that my work won't make any difference. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We all know that the argument that places are inherently notable without evidence is questionable to say the least. I think the same principle applies here - the existence of these articles on television schedules is questionable too, and their subjective importance is a matter of opinion, not fact. If Firsfron can't add commentary to these articles which he passionately cares about, then I don't know who can. He may as well have supported deltion from the begining. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop repeatedly linking to that essay? I've already linked above to multiple books which verify the content, which are sourced, and which are presented from a neutral point of view. I've conceded that the local station schedules should go, and I just wish you could have met me halfway. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have missed a point, that even though the schedules are sourced from secondary sources, you are in actual fact repoducing the the primary source because no commentary, criticism or analysis accompanies accompanies the schedules. Without such commentary from reliable secondary sources there is no evidence of notability, and your arguments that they should have their standalone articles runs contrary to WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Support removal Wikipedia is not a tv guide. Garion96 (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

TV guide doesn't list annual national programming grids, Garion: it's a place to check local listings for the week. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, so Wikipedia is not an annual national programming guide. The information doesn't belong here per Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY. Garion96 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you even read the policy you've just quoted? Please read #4 all the way through. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to put words in Garion's mouth, but you seem to be overlooking the presence of the qualifier "historically significant" in #4. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Do you think Garion was talking about the historically significant national schedules or current station schedules? Firsfron of Ronchester 06:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it is clear that my request to move this to a better forum didn't find widespread agreement, I'll vote. I feel that we should include fewer, not more of per-station schedules. We aren't a directory and we aren't TV guide. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with removal; Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Support removal. Schedules are ephemeral and have no encyclopedic value, Wikipedia is not a directory. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe most are historically insignificant and should be removed (Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide). There are certainly some exceptions, such as those critiqued in the references given above, but generally speaking, these aren't encyclopedic. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the information should probably be removed, but having something that points out when a notable TV show or program comes on, in the article about that show, would be acceptable to my understanding of policy. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Endorse removal per WP:Fancruft. These schedules change almost on a weekly basis, and I would concur it is unencyclopaedic. If the basic structure of programming (ie of historical significance) is changed from one year to the next, there need to be an agreed way of presenting it, possibly juxtaposed with historical schedule or competitors' schedules. but these should be the exception rather than the rule. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Observation. Although it is difficult to follow the thread of this talk section, I would like to suggest that, among those editors who, like me, came here in response to the RfC (as opposed to some of those who are continuing an ongoing argument in this section), there is really a pretty strong trend towards consensus that the TV schedules should largely be removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Support removal and suggest strengthening policy. Past program schedules are of historic interest to lots of people, including those doing serious research, but I can think of no reason why WP should include current program schedules. We're not a one-stop reference for any and all info, we're an encyclopedia, and such info is readily available elsewhere on the Web, on TV, and in print. Rivertorch (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
100% support removal The ONLY time I would ever include schedule information is where the info is notable, such as for Must See TV, or in discussing how the timeslot pertains to a particular show (perhaps Firefly (TV series)#Broadcast history for example, IIRC Firefly got moved around in timeslots and that's thought to be one of the things that killed the show). Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep historic block schedules for major networks, remove current schedules and suggest week-by-week schedules for historic periods should not be created. It seems few contributors here recognise the (large) distinctions between the different types of article being discussed - hence comments like "the networks report this anyway" or "they're transient and will quickly get out of date", which are pretty good reasons not to list current schedules but are bizarre if applied to the historic block schedules. On the other hand "it's all fancruft" or "why reproduce what's in reliable sources updated by professional editors anyway, let's just link to them" are poor arguments all round - in the latter case, why would we bother writing Wikipedia at all? My take on this: nobody would claim this week's TV guide is a form of encyclopedia, and I don't think it belongs in this particular encyclopedia either. Nor does last week's TV guide (or one from three months, or twelve years ago) become encyclopedic by virtue of age. However, Firsfron has given a very clear explanation of why the historic block schedules pass the general notability requirements - multiple reliable sources have been published which document and discuss them. The only remaining issue for me is whether the format of article is suitable for Wikipedia. For comparison, there are multiple reliable sources on how to assemble bookshelves, but we disallow articles of the how-to guide format. I can't see anything as clear-cut to disallow block schedules, particularly given PyTom's excellent point that we allow content usually found in "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (and of course, the old block schedules can be found in the specialized encyclopedias that Firsfron pointed out). If anything, these articles most closely resemble lists in format - an area for which suitability for Wikipedia has always been contentious, and guidelines comparatively fuzzy. For what its worth, the old block schedules do not appear to me to contain "indiscriminate" information (an issue often debated when considering whether lists should be deleted), especially since they contain information systematically-arranged, context-rich and clearly valuable to readers researching old TV series. I was initially going to suggest transwiki to Wikisource for these articles on the grounds that few of them seem to contain editorial content (just a referenced, fixed table that has no need to be updated) but Firsfron has indicated that there is non-tabular information that could be added too (viz the schedule analysis contained in his specialized encyclopedias). That would clearly not be suitable for Wikisource, and moreover would make the articles more closely resemble other Wikipedia articles with substantial textual content. So we should view the articles that contain only tables of information of historic schedules as stubs and when considering whether they should be deleted, it's best to imagine what the articles should look like post-expansion - unlike the modern TV guide schedules that change week-by-week, I think it is clear that the historic block schedules would be kept. TheGrappler (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

But outside of the rare instance like Must See TV, what EV is provided through listed TV schedules? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough analysis, Grappler. Stax, what does "EV" mean (surely not WP:EV)? Above you mention Must See TV as an example of "The ONLY time [you] would ever include schedule information is where the info is notable". NBC's more recent line-ups are a very good example of noted schedules which were highly successful. However, NBC had earlier schedules which were much more successful and which are just as noted, but you must dust off a book or a microfiche to find these notes. DuMont's 1953 schedule has received a great deal of attention from critics for being highly unsuccessful, with a weak line-up of programs (I'm thinking specifically of Castleman and Podrazik's detailed commentary of the schedule starting on page 87), and DuMont's craptacular 1955-1956 schedule, which fizzled into nothing at all, a point of commentary by TV historians even today. (Brooks and Marsh, pages xiii and 174; Weinstein, numerous pages). DuMont, though, had a few scheduling successes, for example, scheduling Life is Worth Living against Uncle Miltie with decent ratings, as discussed in Weinstein, pages 156-157, or scheduling a raucous game show against a public service program on other networks. ABC's early scheduling woes, too, merit attention from historians, such as Goldenson on ABC's 1953 schedule, pages 116-124, many others) Let's not forget Newton Minow's "vast wasteland" speech which was directed at the Big Three's 1960–61 United States network television schedule (Boddy, pages 225-228), and the subsequent scramble by the networks to avoid similar criticism the following year. Syndicated programmers' struggles against the Big Three's schedules is documented in many sources, but especially in Boddy's book (page 180, for example, where the three networks' use of scheduled "option time" helped kill any chance of a syndicated network seriously challenging the Big Three, and led to the decline of non-network programming to the point where the number of syndicated programs in 1956 (29) had declined to just 1 in 1964. I could go on, but I don't deal with much TV history past 1962. Now, I'm sure the Firefly scheduling might have helped kill it, but criticism and commentary of network television schedules goes back all the way to 1946, when two tiny TV networks began sending their signals to a handful of TV sets (literally in Washington DC, according to Bergmann). Let's avoid recentism when discussing policy. You say "Must See TV" can stay, because you know of it; however, plenty of other network schedules have received similar (or even greater) attention from the people who study such trends. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking EV is short for "encyclopedic value". Which I believe you address sufficiently above, but more to the point, the historic block schedules are verifiable, not original research, are neutral, and are not indiscriminate (if we did it for every cable channel, that would be pushing it), and based on your analysis, they pass notability guidelines - even if indirectly. Current schedule per stations, yes are sketchy (that falls into both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TEMP), but historical ones are a much different beast --MASEM (t) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah; thanks for the EV definition. I'm not aware of any cable channel receiving a printed "network" block schedule in any television encyclopedia or reliable printed source. I could be wrong, but I've never seen it. Cable channels don't need to please 200 local affiliate stations like the networks do (and can thus be pretty careless about scheduling; we've all seen the all-day marathons of reruns that many cable channels air, even in Prime Time; broadcast networks never do this) and cable channels don't rely entirely on the ratings/advertising cycles to support their operations. Cable channels generally attract very small audiences, and the major broadcast networks historically didn't counter-program based on what cable was airing, (and in the 1980s-'90s many cable channels were mostly airing old network programs anyway) making (eg.) "what did CBS air against Lifetime?" a senseless question. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment The argument that a schedule is "historically significant" is just basically a restatement of WP:IKNOWIT. These schedules are no different from any other schedule unless verifiable evidence of notability can be provided to show that they merit their own standalone articles. While we are at it, lets also put aside lots of other spurious arguements for inclusion:

these schedules are for the "biggest" networks, not little ones;
these schedules only include "important" television programs, not insignificant ones;
these schedules are for "national" networks, not local ones;
these schedules are for "broadcast" networks, not cable ones;
these schedules are for "top rated" programs, not low rated ones;
these schedules go all the way back to "Noah and the flood" and are not recent.

To be honest, all these arguments are a load of intellectual garbage. Just find some significant coverage from reliable secondary sources (not just the barebone schedules) to provide evidence of notability - this is the only real defence against deletion or merger. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you scroll up a bit, you'll see that Firsfron has posted information about 5 books devoted to the subject. So the significant coverage requirement is more than met, for the major-network schedules. Frankly, I'm not sure there's anything left to debate: Major-network schedules are notable due to being written about in multiple books, while per-station schedules should be removed. — PyTom (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you a scroll up a bit, you will see that the sources merely reporoduce the schedules direct from the primary source, but they don't add any evidence of notability. Don't forget that just because a TV schedule appears in more than source, it is still the primary source, and in itself does not provide evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The clear majority says these things don't belong because they are "unencyclopedic." This is worse than them being notable or not; that doesn't matter. 'TV schedules should be and all will be deleted. Let it go. Abductive (reasoning) 08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Support removal. *Current* television schedules for television networks/stations are not appropriate content. Schedules are only appropriate if there is a historical context, and not if they are specific to now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Recently some old television schedules from decades ago came up for deletion. [13] My argue for keeping all the old ones was this: Showing a historic list of every show ever shown on a notable network, is perfectly fine by almanac standards for the Wikipedia. Television plays a massive role in shaping people's opinions, and affecting the world. If someone wanted to see where and when shows were at, and then do a study to determine how each one affected someone, this might be of use. It also shows how the taste of the people changed over time, what sort of thing they watched year by year. Dream Focus 11:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep some. For me the test would be, "if the Wikipedia version of the schedule were not updated for 6 months, would it be of any worth?" A schedule for a small station, or one that changed rapidly, would fail that test. But a schedule that was described in a slightly more generic way (eg, 4am: "Varies. Teletubbies, British sitcom repeats."), for a massive station might still be useful. I agree that providing another place to look up what's on TV tonight fails to be encyclopaedic. Being able to compare what two networks were running at 7pm on tuesday nights in 2007 is useful and encyclopaedic. Stevage 15:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Support removal of directory information. It is reasonable to have an entry on, say, NBC's long-running and successful Must See TV schedule/marketing campaign which includes schedule info., and we do; but the current articles are like what 2008_New_York_Mets_season would look like if only the game log were present in the articles and not the context. It's simple directory info. in the most literal sense of the term and is unencyclopedic. Only the relatively few historical significant schedules should have entries, and those should provide context explaining their significance. JJL (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Support removal and endorse our current policy as expressed. Eusebeus (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support removal and endorse our current policy as expressed. I have just closed a couple of AfDs as No consensus in order to channel the discussion here, as it is more appropriate to have everything centralized. The only way I believe the information about when something was on TV is relevant is if it is included in the article about tv series or another programme, such as in Lost (TV series)#Ratings. --Tone 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support removal. However, I believe that most of historical schedules may be transwikied to Wikisource — vvv^t 17:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource. Good idea. Abductive (reasoning) 05:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep Network block schedules. This is consistent with WP:NOT, which should not be changed. Remove station schedules, do not have TV Guide listings of what is on tonight. Numerous reliable abd independent sources cover the network block schedules, such as books listed above as well as "The complete directory to prime-timenetwork tv shows 1946-present," by Tim Brooks and Earle Marsh, Ballantine Books, 1979. Additionally I have seen TV columnists in major newspapers discuss the networks scheduling choices for many seasons in the past. Scheduling decisions have included moves such as trying to line up a block of programming so people stick with a particular network on a particular night, or stupid decisions like a network putting a popular show up against a (then) unbeatable show, like Ed Sullivan, then cancelling the contender when the ratings drop. Edison (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep network block schedules, per Firsfon, Edison, and others. I'd hate to remove verifiable content that appears in specialist encyclopedias, especially when those calling for its removal base their arguments on some of our vaguest policies and guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 23:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Per Firsfon, Edison, and Zagalejo. This "delete everything" crap needs to stop. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Support removal in current form. I'm now convinced (particularly by JJL's baseball metaphor above) that these standalone schedules are too much out of context to be useful, and that scheduling issues are better off discussed articles about the individual series and notable programming blocks. BryanG (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Support removal of most. A comprehensive TV schedule guide is unmaintainable and is much better suited to a more specialized wiki. -- œ ^™ 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Support full removal per cited policies, WP:DIRECTORY, etc. Agree with above comments regarding removal. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Strongly support full removal. These schedules have no encyclopedic value and no place on WP. Get a TV Guide. Save it if you want. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Strongly support full removal. I thought it was obvious. Wikipedia is not a TV guide, not a directory, not the place for looking for such staff. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical schedules

It appears the consensus is clear about per-station current schedules from the above - they change too much and too often to be effective in an article about the station. So I suggest focusing on the other issue (which many have ID'd above, but there's too much to separate one aspect from the other) and consider the historical TV schedules, which presently is called out as an acceptable allowance.)

I for one think they are fine, per WP being aspects of an almanac - they are not indiscriminate, they are sourced, and they are associated with notable topics (television in country X). There may be a hint of OR in that they have to gloss over the details with the case of rapid cancellation and timeslot changes, but this is not OR towards a specific POV, and falls well within acceptable synthesis (particularly as the specifics of changes are outlined below the schedules, at least for US television). They are as "inappropriate" as the listing of the results of every game a professional sports team has played, which are also perfectly fine for an almanac.

I think the key point here is that the specific NOT phrase this falls under includes as the catchall: "resource for conducting business". Current television schedules can be seen as that, since they inform the reader as what's on or what is coming. Once the event has happened, however, there's no value in that information as a business resource, but it is an information resource to those that study past history of televsion (as evidenced by the books referenced above). I also think it's important that there is a layer of discrimination going on here as only the major network broadcasters are included, and the resolution is, at worst, at the fall/spring/summer schedules, which is a very broad stroke and appropriate for encyclopedic summation. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

None of Wikipedia's content polices support this view. Special pleading only makes you bid for an exemption more obvious: in the absence of veriable evidence of notability, all barebones schedules fail WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Suppose some lunatic started transcribing the ingredients list from different food packages. Would that be tolerated? Would people argue that some readers might want to know this information? Would people argue that food is notable, so that the ingredient lists must therefore be encyclopedic? I can only assume that a few of the people here would so argue, blind as they are to what an encyclopedia really is. Abductive (reasoning) 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you guyes doubt that TV Guide similar sources have produced articles or listings for every years schedule? I don't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you doubt that ingredients lists are printed on the sides of the bags of chips? An the serving size too! Abductive (reasoning) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but I doubt you can find articles on those labels. Big difference, red herring, all that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Only because some lunatic hasn't done it yet. Abductive (reasoning) 20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lists of ingredients from food packages would be indiscriminate, since there's 1) an infinite possibility of ingrediants and 2) an infinite possibly of foodstuffs. Nor is this info verifiable without turning to the primary source (most of the time), being the wrapper or container itself. On the other hand, these lists are selectively looking at certain blocks of programming (prime time schedules) for specific networks of a certain quality (national affliates) that have been covered by non-primary sources.

Again, I point out the question: if these historical tv schedules are inappropriate, then what makes the full record of every pro team's every season appropriate? That's just as much a "directory" as these schedules, and are just as discriminate/indiscriminate and have the same types of backing sources. As noted below, we are more than just an encyclopedia, we include specialized encyclopedias and almanacs, both which these can be derived from. --MASEM (t)

A subsection I started below, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly shows coverage from a reliable, independent source for historic national-network evening schedules in the United States. The source I cite actually has one-year-per-page schedules that look remarkably like our own. My source was published in 1981, but there have been more recent editions. If this kind of thing gets covered in reliable sources like my source or like TV Guide (and it does), then reliable sourcing and the question of whether or not the articles are "encyclopedic" should be resolved. If this independent coverage exists for many of the historic, nationwide schedules, then it's reasonable to assume it exists for all, and there should be no justification from this project page for deleting them. -- Noroton (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The point you are missing is that when an independent reliable source simply reproduces the primary source, then it is still the primary source you are reading. There has to be some sort of commentary, criticism or analysis from the source to provide context to the reader, otherwise what you have is just a directory entry without any notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not a content requirement. That said, and in comment to a few points above, the current historical schedules could be expanded to include information that talks about the general trends in television for that year (in that country). For example, the 2008 writer's strike has significant impact, and while it had its own article, the impact on scheduling can be summarized on the schedule page. There's bound to be both critical preview comments about which networks were doing well and poorly, and post-season summaries. Add in the inclusion of limited Neilsen data to show the top shows for that year (and any analysis of those). In other words, these can all be changed from purely a schedule to something like "2007 in United States Television" or something like that. Some of these already have information that leads to this, and I'm pretty sure the books mentioned above, simply based on what I can garner from reviews and the like, can support this. It would help improve these. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I think you may have misunderstood the General notability guideline in terms of content. For a topic to be included in Wikipedia as a standalone article, it must be the subject of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, so in a way notability is a content requirement. It is therefore correct to say that notability does not give guidance on the content of articles, but only in so far as the topic in question has been the subject of significant coverage. In the context of US television schedules, significant coverage would take the form of some sort of commentary about the schedules themselves, rather than the programs listed in them or networks who broadcast them.
This is all very abstract, but if your are right, and these schedules are more that just barebone schedules, then we would expect to see some sort of basic information above and beyond the schedules themselves: who drew them up, how they were developed, what the objectives of the schedules were, and whether they were successful or not in achieving these. This basic information is absent, which is a symptom of a disinct lack of significant coverage. Instead, we are left with barebone schedules, and bits and pieces of trivial coverage that is vaguely related to the schedules themselves. I agree that they need to be expanded, but I suspect it might be easier to merge them together under one article topic which is the the subject of significant coverage of this sort. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Unless some critical commentary is found on a given schedule itself (whether past or present), as opposed to mere tabular duplication, said schedule is not notable and thus does not merit an article; for the majority of the schedules, I suspect this is not the case. Articles about overall trends, history, strategy, etc. in television scheduling however, are more solidly notable judging by the existence of the aforementioned specialist publications on the topic. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I can hardly believe it, but Ironholds continues to nominate articles for deletion while this discussion is taking place. To me, it seem like an attempt to bypass discussion, to create a fait accompli. See e.g. here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 Australian network television schedule (weekday). Power.corrupts (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd go IAR in this case, closing the AfD as No consensus and redirecting the audience to this page. And leave Ironholds a note on his talkpage. --Tone 21:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I can believe it, considering that Iron hasn't edited this section or shown any positive indication that he has read the discussion here. Protonk (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No consensus so far

People's views range from "Allow all articles on TV schedules" to "allow none". Also people are getting snippy... Maybe we should chill as articles on TV schedules will not bring down the world (or Wikipedia) - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have argued for the overturning of a key tenet of WP:NOT. In order to achieve that goal, they must gain a clear consensus. In fact, the opposite has happened; the majority has argued for the retention of this policy, and even its extension to the highest level of guide. I've toted up the comments so far. If I made a mistake, please move yourself into the proper spot.

After Stevage changed some of the category names, I've changed them a bit more, to indicate the positions, and to point out that the middle position is the one currently taken by WP:NOT, and the one we'd need to achieve consensus to overturn. This is because WP:NOT currently reads: "mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable". I believe the reason the US Network TV schedules are mentioned is that is a series of articles that is acceptable (in category where some may be, and some may not be), and so the current position of NOT is that at least some lists are acceptable. — PyTom (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reconfigured again. Next I will collect opinions from the AfDs, where people not heard from here have expressed opinions on TV schedules generally. Abductive (reasoning) 05:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Allow articles on TV schedules
- Ikip
- Dream Focus
- Peregrine Fisher
- A Nobody
- Neutralhomer
- Power.corrupts
- Ret.Prof
- WWGB
- Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)

Allow certain guides (a variety of opinions)
- Firsfron
- ViperSnake151
- Squidfryerchef
- Powergate92
- Themfromspace
- DGG
- Pytom
- Protonk
- Cybercobra
- TheGrappler
- Stevage
- Edison
- Hobit
- Masem
- Casliber
- Power.corrupts
- Hiding
- Hammersoft
- mhking
- Rivertorch (?)
- Zagalejo
- Noroton
- Mandsford
- Uncle G
- Nmajdan
- VasilievVV (?)
- Gnangarra
- PhillieLWillie (?)
- The-Pope
- Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
- JPG-GR (?)
- Anime Addict AA
- John Z
- 67.187.92.105
- Attmay
- MichaelQSchmidt

No TV schedule articles
- Rossami
- Collectonian
- Abductive
- gadfium
- Gavin.collins
- Cabe6403
- YellowMonkey
- Amalthea
- Tryptofish
- Madcoverboy
- Juliancolton
- Garion96
- Stifle
- Jclemens
- Irbisgreif
- Ohconfucius
- Staxringold
- SmokeyJoe
- JJL
- OlEnglish
- Eusebeus
- Dahn
- DreamGuy
- Tone
- Wikipedical
- Dalejenkins
- Ironholds
- Lithorien
- Bidgee
- Joe Chill
- Kevin
- Mangoe
- Dcheagle
- Drawn Some
- Smile a While
- Jeni
- Niteshift36
- Magioladitis

7:26:25, 9:36:38. Abductive (reasoning) 05:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Abductive, what were the criteria you used to assign positions to people? I'm in support of removing per-station program guides, while keeping network-level guides. I _think_ that's the same position as, for example, DGG... but you listed us with two different positions. I'll also point out that the policy currently explicitly calls out network-level program guides, saying that "Historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules)", so a departure from this position would be overturning NOT. — PyTom (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like the US-centric part (bias) of the policy, which said "may be acceptable" has been deemed unacceptable by 20+ editors. Abductive (reasoning) 22:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  - I don't think the current policy is particularly US-centric, just because it uses a US-related article as an example. A sourced article giving network schedules for national networks (or stations with national distribution) in other countries would be fine, too. — PyTom (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
You can move me closer to 'uphold'. I think that editors should be free to include programs guides insofar as they are contextualized by a reliable source (in the sense that Gavin argues). The core of NOTDIR is valid and shouldn't be changed. Which means that as it applies, we should follow it. Program guides which are functionally and largely just tables of times and shows don't need to be here. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be two lists, for the two questions? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts on striking out the parenthetical special exception (which is rather nationalistic)?: "(such as the annual United States network television schedules)" --Cybercobra (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This is complete not my feelings. I support what NOT currently reads for this: current per-station guides bad, historic guides good. --MASEM (t) 04:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure who should be where, but seeing Masem in with us usual suspects is amusing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, if Firsfron has books on material which can be sourced, then I am all for keeping that material. Whole books on subjects should be enough for verifiability and sourcing. So keep the historic and national guides at least. i need to think about finer details. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep historic, nationwide (or almost nationwide) TV schedules They can be sourced, they are clearly "encyclopedic" as I show in the subsection below, and they can be assumed to meet WP:N based on the sourcing we've seen on this page and on some of the "References" sections of these articles. In-depth coverage for what is essentially a WP:LIST exists in TV Guide and other publications that have articles on network TV schedules (such as The New York Times). There is no reason to change WP:NOT to ban these kinds of articles. -- Noroton (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Late to the party, but I think I agree with Firsfron's view that articles which meet WP:V and WP:NPOV are always acceptable, unless we have renounced such policies? So yes, keep the historic and national guides. The finer gradations are probably something better resolved case by case for the time being. Articles without sourcing are better served by adding sources to, that sort of thing. I agree with Noroton that there is no reason to change WP:NOT to ban these kinds of articles. And I don;t see any sort of consensus to do so on this page, either. Hiding T 19:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Uphold and even strengthen current policy Really, there is absolutely no reason why not to, other than an attempt to flip wikipedia on its head. These things really have no encyclopedic relevancy, and no amount of lawyering will change that. Dahn (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Edison. The assessment of no "Encyclopedic value" is entirely subjective and narrow minded. To me it has no specific value either, but I would never claim it wont have any value to anybody. In fact, I could opt for deletion of very large swaths of Wikipedia, if the criteria was what I narrowly felt had "Encyclopedic value". Wikipedia is a project that benefits from the largest common denominator, not the least common denominator. Key values are laid down in WP:5 above all NOR, V and NPOV. This is an attempt by elitists to define what is not important to the general reader, to protect this poor person from moral corruption of course. History has shown over and again, that the end results of this are invariably poor. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep! See below The Real Issue - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethical concerns

- And an attempt by an even smaller elite to claim that the 20+ people who say they are inappropriate are to be disenfranchised. Abductive (reasoning) 15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  - WP is not a democracy. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    - So an elite can define what is right? You've just contradicted Power.corrupts. Abductive (reasoning) 16:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      - Anyone who edits this talk page is an elite, and not your typical one of millions editor. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've altered the columns presented above. There were many mistakes in the original compilation, all erring for deletion. For example, user:Hammersoft argued that the historic schedules should be kept, but was placed in the 'remove all' column. This was done to several other editors' opinions as well. There were no errors the opposite way: no editor who argued for deletion was placed in either of the 'keep' columns. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Firsfron. There is an obvious bias in the way this issue is being handled! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly

WP:PILLAR, first pillar, first sentence (boldface mine): Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verified with citations to reliable sources.

Clearly, if Wikipedia incorporates an element of a specialized encyclopedia, that incorporation can't be called "unencyclopedic". Well, these historic schedules can't be called "unencyclopedic" for just that reason.

The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows; 1946–Present is a one-volume, specialized encyclopedia with more than 3,000 articles in alphabetical order on individual evening, national-network TV programs, and, in the back, a section titled "Prime Time Schedules: 1946-1980" (my copy, the second revised edition, is from 1981). If this specialized encyclopedia can include dozens of pages of block schedules (pages 852-886) just like our own, then we can't really be "unencyclopedic" by following their lead.

Is this really a specialized encyclopedia? It says it is (from the Introduction, page x): "This is an encyclopedia [...]" It is called an "encyclopedia" or "encyclopedic" by others (from the blurb at the top of the front cover): "'This is the Guinness Book of World Records ... The Encyclopedia [sic] Britannica of Television!' -- TV Guide"; (from the back cover): "'Hilarious and Encyclopedic!' -- Newsday"

Is this book reliable? Well, it won the American Book Award and the San Francisco State University Broadcast Preceptor Award, for what it's worth (page vii, "Preface to the Second Edition"). According to this Google Books search, the book seems to be cited by hundreds of other books: [14] The book has aspirations, at least, to scholarly reliability (from the "Introduction", page x): "This volume has been carefully researched for the scholar who wants to know what happened and when. But it is also — like TV itself — for your enjoyment." The book went into multiple editions.

This information should refute a number of statements above, especially that these kinds of pages are somehow "unencyclopedic." -- Noroton (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid saying the word in debates, but there are times when something clearly is unencyclopedic, such as writing articles in the first person with original research. Most everybody here would agree on that and I believe that calling it unencyclopedic would be backed by consensus. Any debate that is contentious shouldn't revolve around this term, as obviously some editors would feel that the element in question is encyclopedic. Just calling something unencyclopedic in this manner would probably lead to a shouting war with no analysis of why people believe it to be encyclopedic or not. As for the question of whether this is a specialised encyclopedia or not, I note that the word "elements" that you quoted above is vague, probably intentionally so. In the end it is us who determine what elements are fit for discussion. Them From Space 19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to take some of the subjective judgment out of "unencyclopedic"/"encyclopedic" from the argument by pointing to the objective fact that something recognized as a specialized encyclopedia does just the thing that our historic schedule pages do, but I agree that it might be better if we stopped using these terms altogether. Of course, we can't blindly follow what just any publication does (even if it's a reliable specialized encyclopedia). -- Noroton (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with themfromspace. The issue isn't "encyclopedic" or "unencylopedic" (two words destined to be volleyed back and forth in bouts of pointless gainsaying). The issue is, WP:NOT says we aren't merely a directory of stuff. We aren't the phone book. We aren't a cast listing. We aren't an ingredients listing despite the fact that all those things come in dead tree editions. So, insofar as reliable sources can be used to contextualize information (meaning, can we say "this show in this slot is significant because" or "this show in this slot meant XYZ for this network"?), the information belongs here. If we can't contextualize it then id doesn't matter how many sources are out there. If all those sources allow us to do is make a table of times, shows and networks, we run afoul of WP:NOT. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't "encyclopedic" or "unencylopedic", well, maybe it shouldn't be the issue, but to several editors in the discussion it is an issue and it's clearly influencing editors. My point is mainly that specialized encyclopedias, so long as they're considered reliable, are a type of reference book that we officially try to emulate, per WP:PILLARS, and this gives us some guidance when "encyclopedic" and "unencyclopedic" come up. We still have judgment calls to make, but identifying specialized encyclopedias and what they cover should help us in making those calls. Too often, I strongly suspect, editors think "encyclopedic" means "in a general encyclopedia". As to your point about contextualizing, I think this part of WP:DIR applies: there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic [...] Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.. I think these historic lists fit these descriptions to a 'T'". -- Noroton (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I should say that broad appeals to the pillars are totally unconvincing to me. I could just as easily argue that per PILLAR we should delete these and make way for something else. The five pillars aren't specific enough to offer any good guidance. IMO when encyclopedic/unencyclopedic come up just replace the words with "butter side up" and "butter side down". You'll get about the same content. As for the specific section in DIR you mention, are you going to tell me that those television programs are famous for having been in those time slots in the same sense that elements of this list are famous for being elements? That part of DIR admits that significant consensus exists to make list articles (even when those lists are in tabular form). I don't think it supports the claim that tables of schedules can be made where contextualization is absent. Protonk (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My reply to DGG below (same timestamp as this one) also replies to some of your points. WP:PILLAR is a very general, but extremely authoritative policy. It should play a role in how you think about this, and maybe a role in convincing you. I don't think you can just as easily argue that per PILLAR we should delete these because the whole point of the parts I quoted was to be careful about deleting things like lists. Since we have to apply common sense and other, more specific policies like WP:DIR, WP:PILLAR doesn't work alone and isn't always obvious, but it's a useful part of the mix, and to delete something like the historic TV schedules, we should be prepared to explain how they're very different from what we could expect to see in a specialized encyclopedia (just as we should be prepared to say how a particular list advances our knowledge in some area), or how our standards applied here might apply to almanac-type or gazetteer-type content. -- Noroton (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try an analogy. the "core values" of the United States Navy are Honor, Courage and Commitment. I can agree that those core values are broad, authoritative and all encompassing with regard to behavior but still be in a bind as to how I should follow them. If I am given an order that I disagree with, do I follow it, obeying commitment or do I declare it to be unlawful and disobey it (presumably invoking courage)? If all I am given to work with are those three broad mission statements (As it were), how do I act when they may come into conflict? Wouldn't I be better off following some more precise instruction from military law or custom regarding unlawful orders?

And frankly your invocation of the pillars depends desperately on the word "encyclopedia". Do we include anything on wikipedia that is included in something called an encyclopedia? Or do we include things that make wikipedia look like an encyclopedia? Answers to those questions may differ based on prior assumptions and so I could approach the first pillar from a completely different perspective than you might. indeterminacy dominates the debate and so we end up arguing about the wrong thing, rather than using rules as a tool for guidance toward an objective. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong to call WP:PILLARS policy: It's just a longstanding description of policy -- useful for judging the spirit of policies, but not authoritative in the same way a policy would be. You're approach is too granular here (and I think mine was in the first post in this section). I guess my modified position is that WP:PILLAR is and should be an important influence on how we look at what is "encyclopedic" for Wikipedia (especially if we're going to invoke the word "unencyclopedic"). To say that in individual cases we could take WP:PILLARS and come to different conclusions is true but doesn't address the real point: We're more likely to come to similar conclusions after taking WP:PILLAR into account. WP:PILLAR necessarily provides some kind of a check on the WP:DIRECTORY section. Wouldn't I be better off following some more precise instruction from military law or custom regarding unlawful orders? Your approach is to say WP:PILLARS is useless if it doesn't give you a precise answer. But there is no precise answer until consensus comes up with one, which is what this discussion is all about. For that role, WP:PILLAR is very useful in pointing out the spirit behind the policies. This ain't the Navy.

Or do we include things that make wikipedia look like an encyclopedia? According to WP:PILLAR we also use things that make Wikipedia look a bit like an almanac, a specialized encyclopedia, a gazetteer and a general encyclopedia. It's evidently a broad subject area, and meant to be, and WP:PILLAR describes pretty well what we've been, by consensus. -- Noroton (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"We're more likely to come to similar conclusions after taking WP:PILLAR into account." But that's just my point, we aren't. Clearly you have articulated a convincing case as to why the pillars should point us in a direction. I'm not accusing you of invoking them in lieu of argument. But the weight behind the persuasion comes from the argument and not the pillar. The pillar says that (linking WP:NOT) wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes materials from various sources, including other encycloepdias, almanacs, gazettes and so forth. If I make an argument which stresses the first half of that sentence, I can use the first pillar to support a claim that this sort of material isn't meant for an encyclopedia. If I make an argument which stresses the second half of the sentence, I can use the first pillar to claim that almost by definition this material is fit for an encyclopedia. Neither case is derived from first principles and in both cases the meat of the statement is interpretation of the sentence. But the existence of the pillar itself is not an argument one way or the other.

My analogy about the navy was to argue that the pillars are so broad that reasonable people operating in good faith can come to completely divergent conclusions on the same subject if the subject is narrow enough. I wouldn't admonish a subordinate to consider the core values (Aside from the fact that I thought they were lame corporatist nonsense) when weighing the merits of a decision like that because it wouldn't offer a good decision rule. I would tell him (well, I would usually tell him to shut up and follow orders) to read about what did and didn't constitute a lawful order and what role feedback played in the senior-subordinate relationship. Your point that the pillars represent the spirit behind policies is well taken, but what form the spirit takes is inchoate at best. Discussion about the spirit of the rules is better carried out at the level of the rule, rather than (as I say below) invoking some higher tier rule.

Another point which I will raise now (but didn't before because I didn't want you to think I was accusing you of it) is that PILLAR gets used as a weapon sometimes (just like NOT and N and NFCC). They are the 'big guns' in a debate. If I want to argue that something is of great importance to the project or that core principles support an argument, I bring in the pillar because it kind of silences 'lesser' rules and guidelines. At a deletion discussion? Invoke the first pillar and say that the content belongs in an encyclopedia and so it should stay. It will look like rank pettifoggery to reply by citing chapter and verse of some guideline or wikiproject suggestion. I certainly don't want to say that (pardon the expression) the first pillar is bullshit, because I'll never live that down. So I'm left making defensive arguments about interpretation and applicability. Ya know? I mean, if the first pillar supports the inclusion of all this stuff, then what's all the fighting about? Sort of shuts out debate. Protonk (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You've made a lot of great points here and your (and comments from some others) have already caused me to modify my initial position. I see what you mean by invoking some link in a deletion discussion in a way that avoids and tends to silence discussion and thinking rather than help them along. But the first WP:PILLAR isn't as elastic as you say, even though it's more flexible and general than I initially described it. It states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it doesn't say WP is only a general encyclopedia. You can't remove "specialized encyclopedias" from our scope no matter how you read that first pillar. It is unambiguous that we are meant to be an encyclopedia and to some extent mirror what specialized encyclopedias do (or at least act like a specialized encyclopedia). Whatever limits are placed on that must come from elsewhere.

You bring up a reading of incorporating elements that I hadn't thought of before by interpreting "elements" as simply material. Of course, we incorporate material (information) from all sorts of reference works and many other sources without becoming them, even in part. But "elements" doesn't just mean "material" or "information". It means our fundamental nature is something that is not simply an encyclopedia, traditionally understood. We have elements in this encyclopedia -- that is, mainspace subjects, purposes and goals, and ways of presenting information -- that are meant to go beyond what the word "encyclopedia" has normally meant. I think that's why the sentence is there. It isn't worth having the sentence there to simply state that we get material from other types of reference works (and if it was, why focus only on a few types of reference works anyway? Actually, go back to the original, May 4, 2005 version, which says in a separate sentence that we're not a newspaper or some other things, and I think it becomes clearer that "general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" is something we at least partly amalgamate into ourselves, not something we're supposed to be distinguishing ourselves from). It's interesting to see how Encyclopedia#Characteristics describes how encyclopedias overlap with other reference works and that technology has changed encyclopedias.

It's been a long time since I participated in a lot of AfD discussions, and I wasn't aware that WP:PILLAR was used more than rarely in them. You're right, it shouldn't be used to shut the door on some arguments, but it's a good door stopper to keep open some arguments, especially some that counter the "unencyclopedic" assertion. -- Noroton (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

" encyclopedia" is a word that has multiple meanings, and it can be used for lists, including lists that include everything indiscriminately. There are works called encyclopedias, for example, listing every major available at each US college, but we would not consider this suitable for individual articles on each. There is a very important reference tool available in any large library called Encyclopedia of associations. It includes every organization it can find at a national level. That's OK; But there is also the same publisher's Encyclopedia of associations. Regional, state, and local organizations. There is a limit to how specialized would count. Any rule in Wikipedia can be used to give irrational results if used without common sense. Given the diversity of people here, the best guide to common sense is compromise solutions: National network schedules, for example, not those of individual stations. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, common sense is the way we're supposed to interpret and apply all of this, but WP:PILLAR (which is referred to and linked to in the third paragraph of WP:NOT) is helpful in reminding us not to be too narrow. The name of a reference work doesn't necessarily nail down what it is, so we need to assess that in each case. I think the Encyclopedia of Associations is really a directory -- used and meant to be used (and best used) to look up discrete bits of information more than to get a well-rounded picture of an association the way an encyclopedia would give it; conversely, The Complete Directory to Primetime Network TV Shows is really an encyclopedia (best used as an encyclopedia), not a directory. We can't have indiscriminate lists under "What Wikipedia is Not", whether or not you might find them in a specialized encyclopedia, although I think the "gazetteer" and "almanac" parts of WP:PILLAR seem to suggest there should be limits to how far "indiscriminate" might be applied. These schedule pages seem to work something like 2009 in music works, and the best defense of them is that they're a WP:LIST, defensible as navigation aides as well as giving readers a useful idea of what class or category of things they belong to, and that provides the "context" that WP:DIR seems to want. But that "context", as I say, should be interpreted broadly, as a gazetteer or almanac would, and with the tolerance a specialized encyclopedia would, but yes -- ultimately it's still a judgment call figured out in a common-sense way. -- Noroton (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

DGG and ThemFromSpace both have very good points, but I'd like to add one other thought: "encyclopedic" or "not encyclopedic" should be used only for gross discrimination, rather than fine discrimination. There's a large gray area of topics that are appropriate for specific encyclopediae, but perhaps not for general ones, as Noroton nicely points out. Thus, the question isn't one of encyclopedic vs. not encyclopedic, but rather one of "is this characteristic of the encyclopedia that Wikipedia is supposed to become?" A question that has less black-and-white delineation, and upon which a consensus may need substantially more discussion. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand people's feelings on both sides of the argument. Let me give more counterexamples: recipes are not appropriate for Wikipedia, even though there are plenty of meta/secondary sources that talk about the recipes. Lists of calories in various foods are not found on Wikipedia, even though the foods are. Lists of every single street in a city may be linked to, but not allowed. A lists of the lengths of all movies would not be allowed, even though the length of the movie can be put in the movie's article. Over at Wikiproject Baseball, they decided to delete stats tables from a bunch of players' articles, even though one could make a case that such stats tables belong in a sports gazetteer. Abductive (reasoning) 20:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And guess what? These schedules are not detailing the same minutea, but instead a bulk overview of television schedules through the history of the industry. It is completely possible, with a lot of legwork, to identify at the level of every half hour since the start of TV broadcasting what was being aired on every major station with verification. Of course we don't include that; that's similar to a gazetteer. A broad swath of that that avoids the level of indiscrimination is what the current historical schedules offer. They could be more complex; they also could be simpler, but (I presume) the television project editors have identified this level of detail to be broad enough to still provide necessary information for understanding the industry. See, there's a point here that we have to assume good faith that those that have created and standardized the approach of the list have considered how best to avoid indiscriminate information but still provide details they feel are necessary as "experts" within the field (experts in the sense they can talk about the field, but not that they would be reliable sources). That should be the case for every project to know when they cross the line - and if there is concern they have, then there needs to be discussion for it. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that most people don't want 'em at all. Abductive (reasoning) 21:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
And the baseball players stats are not trivial! They are the core of a players worth. Abductive (reasoning) 21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the player stats - for an encyclopedia - are trivial. But I recognize that those in the various athlete projects place value on those. It seems perfect fair to extend the same assumption of importance to these historical guides, given, in both cases, no other content policies seem to be at issue. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Baseball Wikiproject killed the stats boxes. Abductive (reasoning) 15:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not from what I can tell. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My own views fairly well mirror Noroton's: if Wikipedia is supposed to incorporate elements of both general and specialized encyclopedias, then that incorporation can't be called "unencyclopedic". Because multiple well-respected television encyclopedias (one in its 9th edition and one in its fourth) include such information, there's no reason Wikipedia can't, except that less-informed editors can't be bothered to actually crack a book on the subject. At the beginning of this topic, one editor actually claimed that I couldn't know what the books I was citing contained(!), that I was just guessing. Heh. These sorts of non sequiturs are what drag Wikipedia down from serious scholarship, the opposite of the intent of the deletionists, I believe. Please, folks: go to your local library. Many libraries have excellent interlibrary loan services where you can check out books on television history which include this information (examples given above), or libraries with access to on-line databases like JSTOR or the Journal of Popular Culture where such things as network television history are studied. My fear is that the people deciding that something isn't "encyclopedic" are the people who would never pick up an encyclopedia on the subject in the first place, ala WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Indeed, several of the editors here made claims quite similar to those found in IDONTLIKEIT: "cruft", "unencyclopedic", etc. The above claim that national television network schedules are akin to "lists of the lengths of all movies", etc, rings hollow: what printed encyclopedia, specialized or general, has published a list of the lengths of all movies? The analogy doesn't work well. Finally, most troubling of all to me, is the fake tally of users' opinions that user:Abductive gave above, which has numerous discrepancies from what was actually written by the editors. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if there are some errors in my "fake" tally, it is clear that your position is not supported. Abductive (reasoning) 21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you even know my position? You didn't get it right when you tallied my opinion in the fake tally. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is clear that you are for the schedules. I put you in that column. Abductive (reasoning) 22:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you put me in the Overturn WP:NOT an electronic program guide column. I do not support that position; I have already stated that only some of the schedules should stay: those concerning the national network television schedules, because only those are sourced and verifiable. In fact, many others were placed in the wrong column. Actually, there should be no tallying at all, but if it's done, it should at least be accurate. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, those of us opposing the inclusion of all these schedules have the maturity to treat your arguments with respect. I think that we are due something more than slurs about deletionists and ILIKEIT. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it is so very mature and respectful to repeatedly link to WP:IKNOWIT. Of course your views are supported by people who honor and respect those who have differing points. It's the other side who use "slurs". Firsfron of Ronchester 22:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to treat me like I have something valid to say or aren't you? Protonk (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You've said several quite valid things, some of which I agree with. Your point above, about maturity and respect being shown for my arguments, while I haven't shown your side maturity and respect, are not valid: I linked to IDONTLIKEIT just once, and you were quite upset: it was somehow a "slur". Imagine how upset you'd be if I had linked to it not once but seven times, as Gavin has linked to WP:IKNOWIT concerning my arguments. Please make your points without the "my side is mature, yours isn't" junk. It's just that. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying your side isn't mature (edit: I not saying that your side isn't mature by the virtue of it being your side), and I should have made an exception about gavin--I don't really agree w/ his style or behavior. I was saying that my eyes start to gloss over when I see the word deletionist or accusations about editor xyz being less well informed. I'm sorry I should have been more clear. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if people's feelings were totally irrational, the consensus is not for the inclusion of all schedules. You can't successfully argue that people are wrong about their own feelings, and that therefore the minority position must be the consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 22:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Strength of argument sometimes counts, though. Here's an encyc that contains this info vs. I don't think WP should contain it, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

One could make similar arguments to include historical weather reports, since they are probably compiled somewhere by a reliable source. Abductive (reasoning) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't include historical daily weather reports but we do include historical average temperatures and other details (rainfall, etc.) for many major cities. Again, it's understanding at what level of detail information is sufficiently broad to avoid indiscriminate information but still of use to the reader. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, and there is no reason the article on the show can't mention the airtime. Abductive (reasoning) 15:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Most shows do have this, true. So all these tables are doing is providing the same information in a different format and thus not adding anything new to the encyclopedia that would already be there. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Which airtime(s) do they typically report? Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

All the US schedules and shows include the appropriate time zone infomation. I'm not sure if other schedules would have the same problem elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't the full schedules be in Wikisource? Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Wikisource does not host "vanity press" books or documents produced by its contributors.". These are non-original research but newly prepared information and thus not appropriate there. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Peregrine Fisher's view that strength of argument can be used as a basis for a topic's inclusion as a standalone article, instead of verifiable evidence of notability. Any editor can come up with a strong argument for including virtually any topic under the sun in Wikipedia, including topics which are already covered in one or more existing articles (in which case a content fork would be created). Some of these arguments may be entirely sensible, but they depend on subjective inclusion criteria which are impossible to verify. To avoid a perpetual clash of editorial opinion over what measure of subjective importance should be used for each topic, Wikipeida uses a set of inclusion criteria which is based on verifable evidence in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is therefore an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers, but those topics have to be notable if they are to be included as standalone articles. If a topic fails the General notability guideline, then it is likely to fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and vice-versa.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The strength of the argument is that TV encycs include the info. They are a RS, so they meet V, GNG, whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is a common misunderstanding that just because a schedule contains information (even if that information is "vital", "useful", "historic", etc), that does not mean it is notable; in fact, the argument that they include info is just another way of saying it has subjective importance. Barebone schedules don't actually meet the requirements of WP:V, as they are reproductions of the primary source, and are not the subject of coverage from reliable, third-party sources. A mirror of the primary source cannot be classed as third party. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What defines 1st...3rd in this case. Do we have a normal page or a guideline, or is this your opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They're defined at WP:PSTS, the important part for secondary sources being that they "make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", which mere reprints don't. And since tertiary sources summarize secondary sources, they must mention (secondary) critiques. I thus agree with Gavin that barebones schedules are inappropriate.--Cybercobra (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove current TV schedules, keep historical schedules, with no change to WP:NOT. The first one, to me, falls under WP:WEBHOST and WP:DIRECTORY. The other, which is mentioned in an oft-quoted bit of dictum from WP:NOT, is a common feature in reference books about television. Some people suggest that a television schedule from, say, 1959, is silly and not encyclopedic; I suspect that many of these people think that it's silly to have a "television encyclopedia" in the first place, although different authors have compiled these. Mandsford (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The presence of the qualifiers "historically significant" must by definition mean there are instances of the US network schedules which are not historically significant. Arguably, the US is a special case, since the structure of the year is rigid, with each headline programme running for a "season" (20-26) or "half-season" (12-13), with the episodes spread around a bit to allow for the occasional interruption. A schedule for the UK would not be quite so significant, since there isn't the annual nature to it - during the 39-week "season", there may have been half a dozen different programmes in a given time slot. Add it all up, and you might occasionally struggle to find two weeks where the five terrestrial services maintained the same line-up from week to week, with one series ending and another beginning. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's definitely a line on what is "historically significant". I think most people that want to keep parts of these lists will agree that the American prime time schedules are much more historically significant than the American daytime schedules. I noticed two Aussie daytime schedules up for deletion (one here) and I would think it reasonable to delete both - daytime schedules are just not as significant as prime time. Now, as to when a country's prime time schedule becomes historically significant or not, that's a different issue and not as easy to determine.--MASEM (t) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Let sources decide. Do we know if daytime schedules are listed in the books mentioned? Daytime in other countries? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read every single post on this matter, but I support the keeping of articles such as 2009–2010 United States network television schedule. Why? Because I know that, I, for one, use these articles frequently. If I do, I know other's do. But that's the inclusionist in me speaking.↔NMajdan•talk 19:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- fyi: WP:ITSUSEFUL --Cybercobra (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Actually, I think, apart from the notability conferred by the various specialized encyclopedias, it's possible to make a fairly good argument from WP:ITSUSEFUL. If we treat these as oddly-formatted list articles, usefulness becomes and important criteria. For example, they make it easy to find out that, in 1966, the original Star Trek was up against My Three Sons and The Tammy Grimes Show (later The Dating Game). That makes these articles useful for navigating from a show to its competitors, and hence useful for "navigating the subject". So thanks for bringing up WP:ITSUSEFUL... it's yet another argument for why we should include at least major network schedules. — PyTom (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    - You completely missed the point. "it's useful" is generally an argument to avoid. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

generally, not always. useful in understanding the article is something we do condider for content; useful in understanding related articles is relevant also. We edit so as to be useful to the readers--that's the whole purpose of the project--it's not an academic exercise to see if such an encyclopedia is possible. useful applies to in navigation also. I think of these articles essentially as navigational summaries, as a form of infoboxes, remembering that each network program will normally be notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Noroton's argument, because I have at times been frustrated at deletion nominations, even speedy deletion nominations, on subjects deemed so notable by the encyclopedia publisher that they devoted a separate article to it. (The AFD on Ellen Hambro stands out as my classical example of very poorly thought out nomination.) However, I would generally limit the "obviously encyclopedic because it's in an encyclopedia" argument to general purpose encyclopedias in the genre of Britannica and the like. Wikipedia should cover everything which are in general encyclopedias, but it only covers elements of the specialist enclopedias. I generally support a lenient standard, for instance I deem all aircraft in the specialist Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation as notable. However, many "specialist encyclopedias" are encyclopedias in name only. Their content may differ substantially from what is appropriate for Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles should be about the subject, not be the subject. Lists and listings should serve to supplement a prose article, and not be created just for their own sake. Regarding the TV schedules, I voted "delete" on two of the recent Australian TV AFDs, and I support the removal of raw TV schedules. The problem is that they are not encyclopedia articles about the TV schedules, the raw programming list is the TV schedule. If the programming has been the subject of debate, and the article had prose coverage about the scheduling, then I would probably support keeping that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicely said. Ditto. --Tone 14:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is deleting them before that info can be added. They aren't a hot topic for editing, and for most the sources are old and difficult to find. But, I'm pretty sure that the coverage of the US TV industry for an entire year can provide enough sources for these articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The real issue!

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. -- Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder..

–Jimmy Wales ^[1]

I agree with Mr. Wales, therefore I am in favour of Keep - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep what? --Tone 15:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep Network block schedules. See Edison above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a bit of an extrapolation. And I thought lawyers and accountants were bad when it comes to stretching the truth, but it seems they are not the only ones to capable of a little imaginative interpretation :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The national network schedules provide clear evidence of notability since many are clearly sourced to reliable third-party publications. Gavin, please go to your local library and check out some of the books listed as references on these pages. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC) PS Please - No personal attacks on lawyers and accountants!

Attacks on broad categories like professions are by definition not personal. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawyer jokes was deleted, but we have a good section at Lawyer#Cultural perception of lawyers. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read Gavin's comment you will see it was not really L&A he was attacking . . . but Hey, I have been called worse by better people. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I did read gavin's comment. Which made your statement "PS Please - No personal attacks on lawyers and accountants!" all the more curious. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK " Please - No personal attacks on lawyers and accountants!(or me)" - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Then it would be more appropriate to move this section up, there are 3 different topics discussed here at the moment and you don't want to make it disorganized ;-) --Tone 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand why television schedules are a "directory", they seem useful to people, and they can definitely be sourced, so AFAICT they're encyclopedic Shii (tock) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The controversy is also over whether notability requirements should/do apply to them and if so, are they (in general) indeed notable (although there obviously will always be exceptions). --Cybercobra (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not exact. It shouldn't be looked at as: what does WP:N require us to do? The controversy is whether notability requirements should apply to them. We can decide whether they do or they don't. We made the Notability policy, we can modify it, and we do almost continually reinterpret it. We are free to decide whatwvwe we want to do--if we can agree. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that WP:N "commands" us to do anything or is written in stone. I've inserted a "should" for clarity. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think DGG is mistaken in his view that we can simply disregard the notability guideline, because it sits within the existing framework of Wikipedia content policies. Article topics that fail WP:N usuall fail WP:NOT, which defines the outer boundry of what is encyclopedic by defining which topics are not allowable as standalone articles, but it cannot be used to presecribe what can be included nor to provide exemptions from the general notability guideline. WP:NOT cannot be used as a platform for the creation of exemptions, otherwise it will become a set article inclusion criteria based on subjective importance by the back door. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We should be heartened that DGG said WP:N is a policy, even if it was accidental. Abductive (reasoning) 09:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove special treatment for US schedules

The current wording of WP:NOT#DIR reads like special pleading for the US schedules:

Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable.

I am not sure what is meant by "acceptable" other than a veiled suggestion that they can be included on the basis of WP:IKNOWIT. Either a particular article topic about television schedules is or is not notable, but inclusion on the basis of acceptability is questionable. In any case, I don't understand why the US schedules should be given special treatment. Surely it is time to eliminate this exemption on the grounds that subjective importance is not a valid criteria for including a topic as a standalone article? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The US network television schedules, among others, can be included on the basis of historical significance. We know that they are historically significant because we can show that multiple specialized encyclopedias have been written about them. There's nothing subjective here, and no special pleading here, just an example of what "historically significant programme ... schedules" might be. — PyTom (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical significance? Is that not another term for subjective importance? I thought that WP:NOT is basically a policy that prohibits the inclusion of articles topics on the basis of subjective importance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT has nothing to do with selective importance. That's WP:N, and that's a guideline, not a policy. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to smack of geographical bias, but I don't readily have access to the encyclopedias in question to see whether they are mere reproductions or include commentary. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that calling out the United States is a wholly inappropriate provincialism for a key policy. Also, historical significance really relates more to the Notability guideline for subject matter rather than to this policy on the nature of encyclopedic information. I think that the final clause, beginning at "although", is out of place here because historical articles and lists do not run afoul of the spirit of this subsection.
  (To the extent that there is a problem with these examples of relatively undigested information, being more almanacian than encyclopedic, it seems to me that it lies in the unresolved subjective area of reconciling comprehensive lists with writing in an encyclopedic summary style.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Sorry, but I totally disagree, and I don't even have a TV set, have never been in the US and I am sure there are quite a few people who think I am a deletionist. In a previous post that is probably being lost in the large amount of discussion here, Firsfron gave a list of books about US television schedules. Publishers include Penguin, Scarecrow, Ballantine. Once McGraw-Hill has published a book with the subtitle Four Decades of Network Programming from Sign-On to Sign-Off I think we can simply stop worrying whether these schedules are notable or not. The only problem with mentioning this example, that I can see, is that people don't understand it because they are not aware of these books.
  A deeper problem seems to be that most editors think they are experts on the subject of television because they spend so much time consuming it. It's natural to think: "If I, as an expert, would never be interested in such detail, then nobody will be." But most editors are not experts. The real experts include programme planners and professional buyers of advertising slots. If their professional literature discusses the various big channels' overall schedule structure in detail – and this seems to be the case – then of course Wikipedia should treat this. If this means special treatment for US schedules, then that's because US schedules are special in this respect. But perhaps they are not. Perhaps British or French or German TV schedules have similar books written about them. Then they should be treated similarly. Hans Adler 16:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that despite the previous post, no evidence of notability in the form of significant coverage has been added to the barebone schedules, despite the fact that they have been reproduced in many books. Simply reproducing the schedules in a secondary source does support the presumption that they should have their own standalone article. In this instance, the barebone schedules are not unlike the table of contents you would find in any book; simply reproducing the table does not impart any notability. A topic that fails WP:N is likely to fail WP:NOT and vice versa, and in this case these barebone schedules fail WP:NOT#DIR; just because a topic has been reproduced, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Rationalizing towards consensus

Let's work out the various disagreements here.

Clearly, per-station current schedules are out. That's already in the language, so we can drop that.
The question is on "historically significant" schedules. The main point against these is that, as bare schedules, they seem no different from a directory. This is a fair assessment. (In contract to the sporting statistics that I bring up, which are nearly always contained in some larger context).
It is, however, contended that these schedules, beyond their significance, violate no other policy: they meet V, NOR, NPOV. They discriminately pick only network stations and only certain blocks of time where the networks broadcast concurrent programming. So it is not that we're trying to find another reason to remove them, just that they don't appear to be significant to some.
Considering the case of American television for the moment:
- It seems clear there are sources that describe these schedules in more than just a repetition form and provide secondary information about the schedules - at least rivalries between shows or strengths of various line-ups or the like. If anything, the existence of the Neilsen system and its impact on advertizing dollar on US television should be considered a sign that these schedules are fundamentally important as part of the discussion of that year/season's of television programming. (Yes, these sources need to be shown to have this, but judging by the limited information I've seen from google books and the like, we can take it on good faith).
- Thus, it is possible that these schedules, while presently existing as barebone schedules, can be molded into individual articles that talk about each year of programming in the United States - it may be easier with the seasons since the internet and more difficult before Neilson came along, but it seems reasonably possible. As to whether there is so much info on these seasons that the schedule itself should be broken out as a separate article per WP:SS is yet to be seen, but working on good faith, lets assume that these schedules can be associated with the larger topic that describes the various analyses of that year of television.
- Thus, for at least the American television lineups, these should state, but based on the premise that improvements can be made to include more secondary information about the season, which follow logically from the sources given. This information establishes the "historical significance" through WP:N that is being requested.
Now turn back to any other country. I would assume that the same logic that follows for American television is true for any nation that has several national broadcasters *and* a means of tracking viewership, at bare minimum. Canada, the UK, Australia, and many Far East countries likely have this; I doubt the same can be said for many S. American or African countries. Thus, when a country's television system is sufficiently sophisticated enough to have similar qualities as the US, then likely we can have the same yearly season coverage with these schedules included as part of that coverage - again, demonstrating historical significance. This is simply the same type of systematic bias that comes up for developed vs developing countries for a number of things: politicans, cities, schools, etc.

So, how can we change NOT to come to consensus? Instead of:

For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.

We can say:

For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or programme lists and schedules as part of the coverage of a historical significant period may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.

That is, if these schedules were embedded in appropriate articles, I get from reading the comments there would be no issues. But as bare schedules and with no Summary Style approach in existence, they are just bare and demonstrate little.

Presuming that is consensus on that, the way forward is to encourage the development of the historically significant articles on the various TV seasons and to work these into those. These needs to be a good faith effort as while nearly everything post 2000 can probably done in a short time, trying to justify TV schedules from the 1960s may take more work. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that a network television schedule needs prose to be encyclopedic, any more than a map, image, or table need prose, and also disagree that there's a consensus that they need prose to be encyclopedic. I also disagree with the premise that it would be more difficult to come up with prose for seasons before the 1960s, or before Nielsen was doing ratings for television. Nielsen has been doing television ratings since at least 1950, and commercial network television only began in 1946; Hooper did the ratings for the first years of television.[15]. McNeil's book ends with the 1996 network television schedule, Brooks and Marsh's with the 2007, Bergmann's with the 1954 DuMont schedule, Castleman and Podrazik's after the 1982 schedule (though there is an updated version which I don't own). Boddy's book ends after about 1964, and Hilmes skips most of the years after 1965. Heldenfels devotes basically an entire book to 1954.

It would be fairly easy, then, to come up with critical commentary for most early network TV schedules: certainly 1946-1947 (the first year of commercial network operations), 1948-1949 (first year of four network operations), 1953-1954 (revamping of ABC's network schedule, criticism of DuMont's low-budget schedule), 1954-1955 ("Television's Greatest Year"), 1955-1956 (end of DuMont, beginning of Big Three oligarchy, the rush to program game shows on all three remaining networks), 1959-1960 (28 Westerns aired in Prime Time), 1960-1961 ("vast wasteland" speech, directed at bad TV schedules), 1961-1962 (the three networks' schedule response to the "vast wasteland" speech), 1966-1967 (Overmyer's abbreviated network schedule), etc. The 1940s, '50s, and '60s schedules are well-covered by historians and critics. It might be easier for Wikipedia editors doing Google searches to come up with commentary for later-day schedules, but there's no reason Wikipedia editors can't open books. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the sort of "compromise" that Masem is proposing is merely a repetition if the argument for the inclusion of article topics using subjective importance, rather than verifiable evidence of notability. The idea that some TV schedules inherit notability from advertising statistics is not sound. The schedules have to stand on their own feet in terms of notability, and that means they have to be the subject of significant commentary from reliable secondary sources. If Masem and Firsfron come up with these sources, then this whole thread becomes unnecessary, but arguments based on subjective importance are just so much hot air, no matter how passionately those views are held. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Firsfron has already provided several sources that as best as I can tell do establish the existence of secondary sources for these schedules. That's why I said that there's a reasonable amount of good faith that these can be expanded to build better articles about the television season of interest which these schedules would be a part of - short term deletion would not be wise but improvement in the future would be needed. --MASEM (t) 11:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change NOT (and there's clearly not a consensus to change NOTDIR radically) in order to agree to interpret NOT in a certain fashion. I don't think "as part of a historically significant period" is what we mean to say. The siege and airlift to west berlin was a historically significant period, but we don't need radio schedules from Germany during 1948. I could be convinced that NOT could be interpreted (or rewritten, if absolutely necessary) to indicate that schedules themselves which are subject to coverage that WP:N demands may be included. That has only the problem of mixing N and NOT, but seems to solve the major complaints about content and focus. In response to Firsfron above...I'm not convinced that third party coverage of television or television programming is the same as coverage of televisions schedules. I agree that sourcing exists for television schedules, but what gavin is saying has some merit. Broad coverage of TV schedules doesn't somehow grant us license to build a directory of articles which show where Leave it to Beaver preceded the evening news. Protonk (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Might I put forward: "although mention of major events, promotions or programme lists and schedules along with coverage of critical commentary about them are usually acceptable." --Cybercobra (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That may run us back around into the problem with the current per-channel schedules because at least nowadays, a station's schedule is often put through the ringer in terms of how strong it is before the season starts. Not that this info is bad - but this shouldn't be in the per-station article but in the per-season ones I'm suggesting can be written. --MASEM (t) 11:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

But why? You have stated that secondary sources exist for these schedules, but these barebone schedules are completely lacking the significant coverage that is required to write an encyclopedic article or demonstrate notability. We can't provide exemptions for these barebone schedules on the basis that it is "not bad". I agree with Protonk that notability is not inherited from either the networks nor the programmes to which they are related; there has to be some significant coverage about the schedules themselves in the form of commentary, criticism, analysis or details of their development that will provide the reader with some form of context and a means of understanding their significance other than the personal opinion of Masem and Firsfrom. I think they may be in denial about this requirement. I think Cybercobra's proposal to change the wording rather than getting rid of it altogether as I have proposed is the best compromise, because any hint that subjective importance is acceptable for the inclusion of these schedules is nothing more than an attempt to construct an exemption from WP:N for them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You are completely misreading what I am saying. I agree these can be expanded to include significant coverage. It's a matter of that being done, but Firsfrom has shown there exist sources that can be done. Thus, there's no reason to delete these sources at the present time on the presumption they can be improved. This supports Cybercobra's wording change but my caution is that this change also can lead to "current schedules" being sourced with significance information even though there's agreement that such schedules shouldn't exist. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Another excellent dead-tree resource is the corpus of Erik Barnouw. There is indeed more "significant coverage" available for the history of network programming than almanacs and horse-race coverage. Are annual lineups good stubs for future prose articles, or are separate articles by year not the best way to cover history? Are complete schedule listings, with or without annotations, valuable supplements for prose articles, or are they indiscriminate detail? These are subjective questions best addressed as a matter of style.
What seems clear to me is that it is NOT appropriate to carve out such a very, very specific case in the fundamental WP:NOT policy statement. I think the "although" clause should be removed from item 4, which relates to current directories, and historical schedules should be evaluated in light of item 7, which relates to level of detail and appropriate weight.~ Ningauble (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I would be fine with current schedules if they meet the guideline; perhaps just be less lax about giving current schedule articles time to improve than their older counterparts which require more research. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on the 1953-1954 schedule here. Although I strongly disagree that there was any "consensus" that prose must be added to these articles to add "notability", I don't believe anyone can state that adding prose would be harmful. I'll continue adding references and sources for the '53 schedule (I am not done yet, so please do not tear this schedule apart as "still not notable"). Please note that I do understand the difference between a network being notable and its schedule being notable. There are several books (listed above) which have a season-by-season breakdown of each network schedule, with critical commentary, meaning someone has noted them. Finally, I'd ask Gavin (yet again) to stop linking to the WP:IKNOWIT essay, as links have been provided to reliable sources since this conversation began. Should the repetitive linking to WP:IKNOWIT continue, I will open a request for comment. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I not uninvolved, but it's looking like we may take out the US TV schedule example, and also acknowledge that plenty of coverage exists, so NOT does not apply. As far as current schedules, I'm not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's kinda the trouble we get for mixing N and NOT. Plenty of words are notable, but we don't include them here because they are outside of our scope. Ideally NOT represents a delineation of scope for the encyclopedia and shouldn't be automatically amended when sourcing allows a topic to meet other inclusion guidelines. Reality is a lot more messy. NOT#NEWS is effectively a dead letter, insofar as sufficient news coverage will almost always allow us to write an article which is essentially an aggregation of news reports. But I don't think it helps to push discussions here toward an erosion of NOT's function (if that makes sense). Obviously some of this problem comes from the mutability and means-determined nature of N. We want articles subjects to be covered by reliable sources so they have the possibility to meet V, NOT, OR, and NPOV. So we get ourselves running in circles when we have a discussion on NOT about applying N. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, then it just comes down to our opinions on a directory, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:N should not be invoked at all in WP:NOT - pointing to it for advise is fine, but what NOT should be doing is describing what content that, by all other means is ok to have (meaning it's passed V, NPOV, and NOR, and quite possibly WP:N), we don't include typically on the basis of being indiscriminate info. Certain aspects of the sub-notability guidelines help to identify cases of material that would otherwise be notable but fail NOT in some means, but this is neither required or necessary.

So the case in point for tv schedules is that current schedules are generally not appropriate per advice like NOT#NEWS or NTEMP, while bare historical schedules are lacking notability info presently (though I think it's clear that they've been verbally demonstrated to be notable), and that's a factor here. There's probably a way to remove the text of the "exception" by altering the approach of this point, with something that has to do with raw, updating information that will likely to be overwritten in the future (transient data) as well as the commercial directory aspect, but that still makes sense to keep historical schedules and whatnot. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be invoking WP:N to explain why barebone schedules should not be included as standalone articles. But if that is the case, I think you have to agree that agruments in favour of their inclusion based subjective importance have no place in this policy either. Furthermore,I think Masem has also to accept that notability requires verifiable evidence, and that we can't accept one editors opinion that they are notable, whether or that editor is an expert in the subject. In short there is no good reason to exempt barebone schedules from Wikipedia's content policies. This is why I have now removed this clause[16]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a TV Guide

Following on from the discussions about barebone TV schedules, I can see why this policy is disputed by many editors, which may be down to a misunderstanding about what constitutes encyclopedic coverage from the perspective of Wikipedia.

It is true that there are many publications, books and websites which provide extensive coverage of the television schedules and programmes, and some of these publications refer to themselves as encyclopedic, and in the general sense, they are. However, the editorial policies of these publications differ markedly from those of Wikipedia: the content of these guides is usually written in house, and the inclusion criteria they employ is based on editorial opinion, or on the opinion of their publishers or proprietors.

By contrast, Wikipedia's content policies are stricter in the sense that in house contributions (i.e. original research) is prohibited, and notability is the basis for article inclusion, rather than editorial opinion. Although Wikipedia's editorial policies are stricter in this sense, the benefit to us is that we can create a new article provided these guideline is adhered to without obstruction from arbitrary opinions about an article topic's subjective importance. This means that Wikipedia is primarily built upon significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, which is what makes it so valuable as a source of information.

It is therefore the consensus in Wikipedia and that primary and tertiary sources (or a barebones summary of those sources) cannot provide encyclopedic coverage on their own. Wikipedia is not a directory is a prohibition against articles based solely on primary and tertiary sources, and should not have their own article because they don't provide significant coverage about their subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You have something wrong, in that you have the tail wagging the dog when you say that "notability is the basis for article inclusion, rather than editorial opinion." It is consensus which decides our policies and guidelines, therefore it is editorial opinion which forms the basis for article inclusion. Where policies and guidance conflict with consensus, we follow the consensus. Oddly enough, our policy on policies makes this very point: Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus. Your other ideas also have some merit, but look to be based on an overly strict reading of our policies. After all, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tells us that Editors are expected to use common sense in interpreting and applying these rules. I think a common sense approach would tell us it is counter-productive to do anything other than judge each article individually on its merits in this arena. It's worth noting that in the United States a television schedule is something that will receive critical commentary in the United States press, with such coverage being considered secondary sourcing for Wikipedia's purposes, as they make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims of the primary source material, the schedule itself. Hiding T 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You have confused the creation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with the creation of articles, which must be the subject of signicant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, not the opinions of Wikipedia's editors. It is indeed consensus which gave rise to the General notability guideline, but that guideline does not say that editorial opinion is the basis for article inclusion. What it does say is that...

...If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

The General notability guideline is the consensus, and you should note that verfiable evidence is required, not promises that a topic will receive critical commentary at some point in the future. Simply claiming that they are notable without evidence is just another way of speculating that there might be lots of sources without really knowing. If only secondary sources had been added to each of these schedules in the first place, then this debate would never have taken place. Article topics that fail the notability guideline tend to fail WP:NOT and vice versa, which is why these barebone schedules should be merged into an article topic that does provide context for the reader, or deleted if none can be found. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You have it backwards. Notability is a guideline but that means it is not universally applies. We don't require articles when created to show notability, but instead use good faith that the article will eventually meet policy; this is only specifically ignored in the cases of the CSD for vanity-type articles about persons, organizations, bands, webpages, etc. that make no attempt to show wh they are part of WP. If notability was required off the bat from article creation, we'd have a review of every page created that's much more depth than New Page Patrol to assert the failure of notability, but that doesn't happen - instead we trust authors will work towards improvement. An article lacking notability demonstration does not mean it is not notable nor that is shouldn't be part of WP, just that work needs to be done to show that and that work should be taken on good faith. If someone (as in this case) has says there are sources and is presently working on one example to show that it can be done, that's enough good faith for me to assume it can be done for the rest. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to think we could include every article topic on good faith alone, but we can't rely on a crystall ball to determine whether these articles have a future or not. If an article to meets the General notability guideline, that is verifable evidence that it can meet Wikipedia's content policies and avoid failing WP:NOT, so just because WP:N is a guideline, it does not mean that it does not reflect policy.
The bottom line is that you can't demonstrate a topic can avoid failing WP:NOT without providing evidence of notability, so barebone schedules will continue to be deletion candidates until evidence of their notability is provided. Since all arguments for inclusion made based on subjective importance carry no wieight on their own, its not down to us to simply assume good faith; instead, the burden falls on the creators of these articles to demonstrate they are not talking "cock and bull". Until such time that signficant coverage in the form of commentary from reliable secondary sources can be added to these articles, they are always going to be at risk of deletion, and in some instances, but not all, that is already happening. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a recent change of heart on the subject and find the national, seasonal ones appropriate. Think of them as just a variant type of list article. If Wikipedia was in print, they would be located in an Appendix. They can be reasonably seen to fall under Wikipedia's mandate to include Almanac-like material. For instance, we include Human Development Index and other similar statistical tables even though they just reproduce primary sources and most lack critical commentary on the tables themselves. We generally allow lists to skirt notability, that should be the case here; the only limit being the reasonableness of the list topic, which I believe several have said should lie at the national network seasonal level -- anything station-specific or broken down to a finer degree than seasonal is likely trivia. With that in mind, and seeing the apparent "success" (air quotes) of my previous attempt (only in that nobody has bothered to revert it yet), may I put forward:

"For example, an article on a television station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions, or past seasonal programme lists and schedules (for a national network) are acceptable." --Cybercobra (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert since I dislike edit warring. I think your new suggested wording is good. BTW, what changed your mind concerning the annual national schedules? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought, Cybercobra, like you, that some stuff that appears in appendixes and the like is a viable ancilliary article sort of thing. The trouble is, when one takes a strict reading of policies and guidelines, as Gavin does, you kind of get trapped in a logic loop, that the material must be merged back but it must be split out. You can see Gavin following this loop above when he says that "these barebone schedules should be merged into an article topic that does provide context for the reader". Luckily, our policies allow, in fact they outright state that we should ignore a strict interpretation of policies and instead work out what the best approach to benefit the reader and the encyclopedia. Gavin's right that these articles need better context. That doesn't have to mean merging them though. It can also mean putting in a decent lead to the schedule which contextualises it. But what you have to do is drop a slavish, unbending adoption of rules, to avoid the mindset which can only follow all rules, and remember that it is possible, in fact it is imperative that we keep an open mind and ignore all the rules in order to improve and maintain Wikipedia. I like the new wording as much as I like any wording. It'll just get argued over, of course, but then some people just like arguing. Hiding T 09:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a schedule could be useful if it was actually provided as an appendicies to an article about a notable topic, but beyond that I don't agree that inclusion is justified at this level of detail. The barebones schedules don't provide any encyclopedic coverage per se (where is the significant coverage in the form of commentary?), and furthermore the level of detail runs contrary to the spirit of WP:SUMMARY. It is true that we could try and ignore all the rules, but in this instance that would not be the common sense thing to do, because there is very little to seperate a barebones schedule without commentary from a barebones summary of, say, a railway timetable. On the plus side, I recognise that at a summary level that the United States network television schedules might be notable if specialist commentary can be found - US television industry is huge, but that is not a reason for inclusion on its own. Better to admit that this whole subject area should be covered by just one over-arching article, rather than by dozens of stubs containing only the schedule specific to one year or season. I don't think it is fair to say that I am caught in a "logic loop" on this matter; rather, it is the general consensus that article topics should not be split and split again in many seperate stubs that don't provide any significant coverage about their subject matter. We have to apply some sort of common sense, and although the arguments for inclusion are many, they are not supported by verifable evidence that would provide a knockout argument in their favour for each and every one. In short, the appropriate level of detail needs to be found for this whole subject area. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your assertion that verifable evidence is a knock-out blow is challenged by the people above who feel they have found verifiable evidence. Besides which, that very section allows for a separate article to be created for formatting and display purposes. So once again we find ourselves trapped in a debate regarding subjective opinions as to what this guidance actually means. Now people can continue to do that, or they can work towards good faith consensus. The general thrust seems to be that schedules are a bad idea unless there is good reason to include them, and that where this information supports an article there is a good reason to include it. That's always been the thrust of our inclusion criteria: we need a good reason to include it. The criteria at WP:N is the best iteration of one way of measuring that, but we've always allowed ourselves room to wriggle around on gray areas. That's the whole premise of consensus and ignore all rules. The one editor alone who stands by their interpretation of policy against the fifty editors who say it needn't apply is not representing consensus. Hiding T 11:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You have missed the earlier point that just because their source is verifiable, does not mean they are suitable for inclusion, as primary sources alone (i.e. barebones schedules) can't impart notability. No, I think you are saying that these schedules might be spared from deletion for as long as a majority of editors are happy to give them a temporary pass - and perhaps you are right on this point. But that is another way of saying WP:IKNOWIT and won't apply in the longterm. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You have missed my point. This isn't WP:IKNOWIT, this is based on the fact that we are here to build an encyclopedia, and as part of that remit, where we have articles which discuss a television schedule, it helps illustrate that article and inform the reader if we also reproduce that schedule. Arguing about whether that reproduction should be in the article which discusses the schedule itself or as a separate article is actually a redundant argument that misses the underlying points and ignores Wikipedia's raison d'être. And let's not ignore the fact that you are currently playing the WP:ALLORNOTHING card for all it is worth. For what anything is worth, all arguments approach "I like it" or "I don't like it", and it is redundant to pretend otherwise. I agree with your last point, that eventually the mess will resolve itself somehow. Hiding T 13:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That is just the point, Hiding. If we are here to build an encyclopedia, then we need some sort of encyclopedic coverage, which these schedules don't have. At present, they don't support any over arching article topic either. The argument is still the same: if there is no evidence of notability, then they fail WP:NOT or vice versa. Just a reminder of all the arguments why they are not suitable for inclusion are as follows:

They are devoid of significant coverage in the form of commentary, and don't provide any context, which is key to understanding any topic;
Their level of detail that is not appropriate, so merging them into an article that does provide context about their salient features makes sense;
They don't support a specific over-arching article topic;
They don't provide evidence of notability as standalone articles;

In short they fail Wikipedia is not a directory because even though they may be verifiable, merely reproducing the primary or tertiary source without commentary does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You can argue this is redundant point, but since there is insufficient coverage from reliable secondary sources, they don't meet Wikipedia content polices, so they are not encyclopedic from a Wikipedia perspective. In short, they need to be rolled up into an article topic that is notable, or into a list that supports a notable article topic. Whether they serve some raison d'être or other is a matter of subjective importance, and need not concern us here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But we're more than just an encyclopedia. One Pillar instructs that we are also elements of specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. We do need to be careful about pure raw data as we are not indiscriminate, but that doesn't mean that an appropriate level of discriminated data by itself is against WP's inclusion principles. Notability is only one measure of inclusion, but not the only one. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head, Masem. These barebones schedules are a form of data. An expert can look at, say, 1977–78 United States network television schedule and infer certain things: which shows were for a general audience, which were for an adult audiance, which shows complimented each other and which were substitutes, whether the networks planners were successful or not in attracting the audience that they were seeking. The problem is that a layman like me can't, he can only guess at what they mean. An encyclopedic article imparts information to the reader: a few sentences of commentary from a reliable secondary source can impart more information that say 20 or 30 of these schedules ever could. I am not discriminating against raw data per se, I am just arguing that the level of data contained in these schedules is not appropriate because it does not provide any context to the reader, nor do they provide any support to any article topic is the subject of some sort of commentary. My point is that the barebones data has to be merged into one or more article topics than impart some sort of information; from an encycledic persepective, they are orphan articles or facts in a desert of data. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we going around in circles here? Or did you just like arguing so much you missed the part above where I stated:

Gavin's right that these articles need better context. That doesn't have to mean merging them though. It can also mean putting in a decent lead to the schedule which contextualises it. But what you have to do is drop a slavish, unbending adoption of rules, to avoid the mindset which can only follow all rules, and remember that it is possible, in fact it is imperative that we keep an open mind and ignore all the rules in order to improve and maintain Wikipedia. I like the new wording as much as I like any wording. It'll just get argued over, of course, but then some people just like arguing.

I'm so glad I got one thing right. Hiding T 10:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

For diversity of opinion's sake, would anyone from the "Con" side besides Gavin care to interject? --Cybercobra (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the key issue here is what constitutes encyclopedic coverage of the network TV schedules, and although we don't yet have a model article that we can point to, I think that a barebones schedule is not the way to go because they don't provide any context to the reader in the same way that commentary does. That is not to say that is not an important topic, and I noticed a recent Reuters article which suggests that a very interesting article could be written about them ("Will Jay Leno rescue or ruin network TV?"). Looking at articles such as 1977–78 United States network television schedule, its obvious that more research needs to be done so that commentary of some sort can to be obtained to put flesh on the bones of the TV schedules themselves. Otherwise, I think the creation of barebones schedules is a waste of time, because without evidence of notability, these schedules fall too short of Wikipedia's content policies to be considered for standalone articles. An individual schedule provides data, but not information: the schedules have evolved over time and really what we need to know is why they have evolved, rather than the detail of them at any point in time. Sure you can verify the primary source, but that is not enough to pass WP:NOT#DIR, and I don't think presenting data in a raw form fits in with the requirement to provide context to the reader. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Is there consensus here for the mass removal of TV schedules now? I would like an uninvolved editor to answer this. Thanks. –Howard the Duck 13:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I count as "uninvolved", but I think the current consensus is that there needs to be some sort of evidence that a station's schedule is "notable enough" to be worth including. Such evidence will also help us decide the granularity at which to include the schedule. For the US Network Television schedules, there are multiple specialized encyclopedias that include historical schedules at a yearly granularity, so we do the same.

I suspect the consensus is that we shouldn't create schedules based on information in TV Guide-type publications, or taken from the station's website itself, as both sources give, at most, daily granularity. I don't think a lack of time-based schedules would necessarily prevent including a list of notable programs, provided the list can be created from reliable sources.

I'm not sure there's consensus for "mass removal". I personally would rather the editors at the articles be given a chance to find such evidence, and only once some time has passed should the schedules be removed. But that's just my personal opinion on how to accomplish this change with a minimum of drama. — PyTom (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This level of detail (which stations deserve to have their schedules included, and which not) does not belong in a policy. It should be added to a guideline. Pcap ping 15:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring now happening

At GMA Network, a host of editors are routinely updating the current schedule ([17][18][19] and ensuring that at least on a monthly basis it is up to date [20][21]. This is not an historical schedule. It's a current schedule, and being maintained as such.

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and per numerous comments here on this extensive thread, I removed the schedule twice [22][23]. User:Howard the Duck has restored it twice [24][25]. As a side note, he abused his rollback privileges in the first of these restorations.

At User_talk:Howard_the_Duck#WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I noted the policy and that it is quite clear on the point. Further debate showed that he didn't feel the policy was disputed, but the application. Now it appears he finds the policy is disputed, and can not be applied. Therefore, any policies under debate are suspended until further notice.

In abstract, I find this exceptionally troubling. Any policy can be vacated just by starting a debate on it and finding enough people to debate it (which isn't hard around here). In particular to this article, this is a current schedule, not an historical one, and is being routinely maintained as a current schedule. The granularity of the schedule and the fact the schedule changes are not being reported in secondary media is troubling an in violation of our policies. That Howard seems willing to abuse his rollback privileges and force the issue via edit warring is also troubling. Input welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's like this, you are a murderer, at the same time you are the judge. You're saying you are innocent, for the sole reason that you told yourself so. All I'm asking is for this to be resolved here, or perhaps some other people (but not from the "other" side) to review the edits and decide for his/herself if it does violate the policy. –Howard the Duck 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. I only used my rollback once, on my last edit I undid since I want to have a personal edit summary. If that is abuse then block indefinetely, which pretty much says what I said above (the murderer/judge analogy). –Howard the Duck 13:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

If we have to debate every time that a policy is applied, we might as well forget having policy. WP:NOTDIR is explicit and it is policy; "an article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules". What part of this is unclear? The policy stands, and barring consensus to change it (which does not exist), it IS policy. I'm sorry you don't like it, but revert warring and abusing your rollback privileges in an attempt to ignore the policy is way out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I don't really have a strong position on either side, I just wanted someone else to do it. What part of my statement is unclear?

As I've said above, I rollbacked only once, and I reverted twice. If that is edit-warring and abuse of rollback privleges than ban me. –Howard the Duck 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The abuse of your rollback privileges isn't an isolated event [26][27](even restoring vandalism) and you've even done it before on this article [28]. Rollback isn't to be use for non-vandalistic edit removals. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, is this RFA? LOL. On the first instance, I would hardly call it abuse, considering "UAAP Season 72" has tens more (I've lost count) with "72nd season of the UAAP". On the second one,that was vandalism, and on the third instance, if you'll check out the page history, the vandalism was conducted by 2 users, so when I rollbacked it, it reverted to another vandalized version, which I reverted permanently later that day.
Again, if that is abuse, AN/I me or something. –Howard the Duck 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying you need to be considerably more careful in your use of rollback privileges. Treating my edits as vandalism was out of line. This isn't an isolated incident. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, on your three examples, none of those was abuse; all edits were vandalism.
As for my action on your first edit, I apologize. –Howard the Duck 14:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, if there really is consensus, perhaps this should be applied elsewhere. Hammersoft has been doing edits, and I dunno if that is enough. He should touch the NBC, ABC, et. al. articles though so we can test this policy. –Howard the Duck 13:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't do 'test' edits. That could be construed as violating WP:POINT. GMA Network can't be compared to NBC. GMA network has four affiliate television stations. NBC has more than 200. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but those 200 NBC stations "probably" air the same primetime lineup so... –Howard the Duck 13:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In the debate above, and in the most recent AfDs, I have seen very little support for current schedules or schedules for a single network. Abductive (reasoning) 15:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

A straw poll to see if we're getting anywhere. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should allow (in order of least to most inclusive):

No TV schedules at all

Something more exclusive than the next option

Past seasonal schedules of national networks

Something more inclusive than the previous option

All past/non-current TV schedules

All TV schedules

All TV schedules Of course Wikipedia allows TV schedules - there is nothing inherently wrong or special about them. If a schedule is the subject of significant coverage (in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis) from reliable secondary sources that are independent, then it deserves its own standalone article, just like any other topic. Perhaps the question needs to be rephrased? Perhaps the question should be whether TV schedules are exempt from Wikipedia:Notability? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Notability is not a requirement or policy. There are other routes for standalone articles to exist. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's true that TV programming is discussed, by secondary sources but but not really in terms of individual stations, except some of the ,most famous. I think we should be bver y hesitant indeed in adding the schedules of indicidual local stations, unless there is some very real significance in a particular case. I essentially agree with Gavin here.
Past seasonal schedules of national networks, just as many specialized encyclopedias do. Although there was no consensus that commentary, criticism, or analysis is needed to give context to these articles (just as a map requires no commentary), no one would state that including such would harm these articles, so I've provided prose, with references, for the 53-54, 54-55, 55-56, 56-57, and 57-58 U.S. major network TV prime time schedules, and intend to finish off the '50s before moving on to the '40s and '60s (in that order). The commentary I added was specifically created to address concerns various editors had. I included requested details, such as who developed the schedules, what overall trends in scheduling occurred, what scheduling strategies were used, noted commentary on head-to-head competitions, what effect stronger schedules had against weaker ones, etc. Although I've primarily stuck to four or five books, I have a big stack I can go though later as well; I'm also planning to add some newspaper articles from that era. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this issue needs a straw poll. Protonk (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your suggested course of action? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  - That we respect NOTDIR and allow TV schedules only where it can be shown that secondary sources have made substantive claims about them. Meaning, if we can't, in the end come up with an article about a schedule with some reasonable amount of prose, then we should merge that into a parent article. Obviously this requires some faith on the part of editors interested in deletion and some honestly on the part of editors interested in expansion. I don't see consensus here to change the policy, not at all. But I also don't see anyone arguing as strenuously as Gavin that these articles be curtailed. Despite my concerns about about effectively mixing NOT and N in order to reach some outcome, I don't see a better solution. And honestly we are past the straw poll point. The discussion has fallen off cent, most of the participants have moved away save a few, and enough words have been said. We are at a point where the proliferation of solutions from a straw poll would be counterproductive. We need to put forward a core solution (e.g. mine suggested above) and get the remaining interested parties to agree to it in some form. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What is a "reasonable" amount of prose? How does one measure "substantive"? You have linked above to WP:DEADLINE; what deadline would you suggest for the reasonable amount of prose to be added, confirming the substantive claims about television schedules, should your proposal be enacted? Firsfron of Ronchester 06:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know the answer to those questions. I don't own any of the reference material nor do I have a strong understanding of the history involved. Determining the specifics needs to come through a process whereby someone like you (a subject matter expert) offers an opinion that someone like me (somewhat of a skeptic) can agree with. As for the deadline, linking WP:DEADLINE was deliberate. Honestly so long as we are assured that expansion to meet our scope is possible my opinion is that we allow the article to exist. Obviously we cannot demand that expansion occur prior to retention, but we do not do justice to our scope by allowing a broad swath of articles. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, but I really must insist on a number from you, Protonk. I've already offered an opinion; that real reference works from major publishers have included exactly this information for at least the last 30 years, without any accompanying prose. If the content is deleted, it will be a tragedy (not because the information will be lost; it's still preserved in real reference works) because Wikipedia will be dumping genuine reference material in favor of "featured content". This is a major problem with Wikipedia: what's popular is retained, but what actually appears in academic works somehow gets labeled "fancruft", and can be deleted, unless very vague conditions ("reasonable", substantive") can somehow be met. (I'll not even get into the warped logistics of editors "respect[ing] WP:NOTDIR" while arguing for its rewording). Above you've stated that a reasonable amount of prose must be added, and that proof of substantive claims have been made about the schedules from secondary sources. But you hesitate to give me any sort of guideline on what you'd consider a reasonable amount of prose, or how many secondary sources are needed to be a substantive claim. The effect, then becomes an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery; I can't possibly know how much prose or referencing to secondary sources will satisfy you. I'm not picking on you; I genuinely need a number.

At any rate, I'm not sure I'd call myself a subject matter expert. I work in educational, not commercial, broadcasting (neither of the two major educational broadcasters in the U.S. ever required their affiliates to broadcast "in pattern"); I'm simply a guy who enjoys early television history, who has amassed a collection of books relating to the subject, and who works for an educational institution which has ready access to additional reference works. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

42. Protonk (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'df suggest there is always information about the schedules of major networks, commercial or non-commercial. Openi issues are what size and scope of the network is appropriatel, and whether every minor cable channel is appropriate for this extensive coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion, but I would counter that the bar we are trying to clear is IINFO/NOTDIR. I'm less concerned about size and scope of the schedules and more concerned about the scope of possible coverage. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither NET nor PBS ever required their member stations to air their programs according to a set schedule, so no commentary on PBS's or NET's network schedules will likely be possible (which is why their schedules aren't listed on Wikipedia already). The schedules of minor cable channels do not appear in reliable print sources (and often even their programs are relegated to mere mentions in books about television). Only the schedules of the largest commercial broadcast networks are discussed in reliable sources. I've added commentary, with sourcing to 1951-52, 1952-53, and 1958-59. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Something more inclusive than the previous option. I think the important thing here is that schedules be found in reliable sources that have written articles about them, making them both verifiable and notable. I don't believe that we should limit ourselves to past schedules, but should also include verifiable and notable current information as well. If an article like [[[1999–2000 United States network television schedule]] is fine, so is 2009–2010 United States network television schedule. While we shouldn't include content just for the sake of being a directory, neither should we eliminate otherwise valid content simply because it is useful as a directory. — PyTom (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I see nothng wrong with current schedules either, if we an do the job--and i thinikit highly likely considering interests among Wikipedia editors that we can. We wouoldnt do hem in the detail of a tv guide, but we can do them, at least for the major networks DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All TV schedules

then they can be collapsed, if necessary. Ikip (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The policy is blatantly clear and unequivocal. An "article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules" Historical schedules, with secondary sources supporting notability, fine. Current schedules, no. No decision here can override policy. If you want to change policy, fine. But that's not the question at hand. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

but that is exactly the question at hand---what should our policy be in this particular. This tight here is the discussion page for the relevant policy, and the place to discuss changes in it. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just chalk this up as "there is not currently consensus" on the topic? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

and how will this help the resolution of indivdual article afds or guide people how to edit articles. ? DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It won't, presumably because there isn't enough agreement here to offer a singular concise statement. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

^ Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.

[1] Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.

[1]