Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. 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 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 →

Contents

WP:NOT - Gameguides

Currently, it says "video game guide". Any reason why it says this and leaves the door open for game guides for board games? Corpx 05:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Since nobody has replied, would anyone object if I changed it from "video game guides" to "game guides" ? Corpx 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it should still list video game. Add on a note about board games if you want, I don't think it will cause problems. RobJ1981 01:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
If you don't think it would cause problems, then you should see the currently contested
as well as the DRV on the last two.
Bubba73 (talk), 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's the primary reason for this suggesiton. I dont think there should be an exception for board games. Corpx 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't think the intent was to include games such as chess. Bubba73 (talk), 02:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's precisely what I dont get. Why does chess qualify as an exception? Corpx 03:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What I don't get is why pick on chess? It is OK to have information about the other games I listed. Bubba73 (talk), 04:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I didnt start that AFD, so I have no clue as to the nominator's intentions. I just think that we need to set a solid criteria on what game guides are allowed and what are not. Per my understanding of the policy now, I dont think the other ones should be allowed either. Corpx 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree wholeheartedly that we need to get that clarified. A book on chess is never considered a "game guide". Bubba73 (talk), 13:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of books about starcraft. Why is chess strategies OK while this is not? Corpx 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If you are asking me, I didn't say that it was not OK. Bubba73 (talk), 20:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Really, is that the best you've got? Fewer than 20 books on Starcraft currently in print??? Many of those results don't seem to have anything to do with the video game and many of them are book jacket mentions of other Starcraft novels. A better search would look for "Starcraft" in the title, and that returns all of about 50 results, mostly out of print, three fourths seem to be novels, and the strategy guides seem to come from at most two sources. Any hope of finding multiple independent WP:RS sources for Starcraft strategy? You do realize, of course, that Amazon lists over 3800 chess titles, and those are primarily English sources—there is extensive chess literature in other languages that is independent work (not translation of English works). In any case, 3800 titles is a small fraction of the available chess literature. The John G. White collection at the Cleveland public library has 32,568 volumes, and it isn't even thought to be the world's largest chess collection. How many periodicals are devoted to Starcraft? Our List of chess periodicals is very incomplete, but it lists only a small number of the periodicals currently published—a complete historical list would be much longer. This whole "Chess is Pokémon" nonsense betrays tremendous ignorance about the chess literature, history, and impact on culture. Quale 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a starcraft strategy guide would definately meet notability guidelines baseed on the books as well as the all the web sources Corpx 04:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And I think that most of the web sources on Starcraft strategy fail WP:RS. How many do you think pass? Quale 04:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you think the best way to note this is? Corpx 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I say eliminate both. With as much memory as Wikipedia has available and with the large number of editors who like to work on this kind of information, we're only alienating potential editors and readers by not included this information. Wikipedia has great potential, so we should not limit it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Its not about the disk space...Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of information" Corpx 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, consensus can change after all, and so I for one think we should be more open minded. We have a wonderful opportunity to catalog as much of human knowledge as possible. We should not squander it. By the way, I found the following articles helpful: User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy and User:Rfwoolf#Constructive_Criticism_on_current_Wiki_Deletion_Policy. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So, you'd be in favor of basically removing WP:NOT and all other policies that specify exclusion? Corpx 02:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Revising it, yes. Excluding hoaxes, attack pieces, etc. is fine by me, but anything that is factual and that has editors out there wanting to edit it ought to stay. Have a nice night (getting ready to watch Headlines on The Tonight Show). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because editors enjoy to work on something: doesn't automatically make it right for Wikipedia. The same goes for factual things. Many things not suitable for Wikipedia (game guide articles, and other things) are indeed futual, but that still doesn't make it suitable to stay here on Wikipedia. We can't just ignore all rules, because editors want to edit a certain thing that is clearly against guidelines. Wikipedia needs limits, otherwise it would be a massive place for people to spam, post fancruft and so on. Maybe I read (or understood) what you said wrong, but that's the opinion I got after I read what you posted. RobJ1981 13:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can this section be deleted entirely? I would think non-encyclopedic guides would fail verifiability/notability on their own, and in cases where they do not, should probably be kept anyway - Ten Commandments, Coca-Cola Formula, Standing Rules of the United States Senate, etc.Evouga 16:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Check out the section right above this one :) Corpx 16:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line: if video game guides are not allowed, no game guides should be allowed. So far nobody's even attempted to give a reason why video games should be singled out while board games get a free pass. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that video games and board games and card games should all be treated consistently in terms of what sorts of articles are allowed. Strategy guides for any game should be frowned upon in general. I think the main exception would be if a particular strategy or class of strategies of a particular game or game genre is significantly analyzed and discussed in outside publications. In such cases you can probably construct a reasonably encyclopedic, comprehensive and analytical article about that sort of strategy using reliable references and be confident that it has proper notability and lack of original research.

In fact, that level of outside published analysis is a significant area where classic games like chess or go differ from the average video game. Chess strategies, for example, have been painstakingly analyzed for hundreds of years. But most (not all) video games will have at most one or maybe two published game guides for reference and pretty much no encyclopedic analysis of its strategies. That is why you're more likely to have acceptable articles about chess strategies versus articles explaining how to beat a particular video game. Dugwiki 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • RTS games arent about "beating the game" - just like chess, they're about beating your opponent. While there is usually a single player mode, the focus is usually on multiplayer. Most of the strategy guides for video games are notable due the coverage from independent sources on it. Where would you draw the line on notability for strategy of a game? Corpx 18:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with a Starcraft strategy article, assuming it cited multiple reliable sources. Evouga 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm in complete agreement, but it must be multiple, reliable, independent sources. Blizzard and Prima could be used, but if they're all you've got, that just doesn't cut it. Quale 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • First off, take into consideration that Wikipedia recognizes a game guide specifically as a strategy guide, so even if it said "game guide" there would be a small problem. But even more to the point, the reason that Wikipedia has policy against game guides is to prevent people from adding material that is intended to aid people in playing a game (a walkthough, something like that), which I think makes perfec sense. Now, when you want to change things like wording, you have to get down into the nitty gritty of what words mean. What is a "game"? I'd advise that everyone participating in this discussion take a look at the Wikipedia article for game (if you haven't already), because it summarizes things nicely. The key elements of virtually any game are the rules and strategy. Therefore, if any well-known game of significant recognition is going to have an article, it is reasonable to include information about the rules and strategy involved, as understanding the rules and strategy are integral to understanding the game itself. Take note that this is not the same as a typical video game strategy guide, as video game guides generally provide specific information as to how to accomplish certain...things, that would not be of value to anyone other than a player of the game. As such, I feel it is logical that the policy not be extended to other sorts of games, such as board games, as it would potentially prevent a good deal of valuable information (muchof which is already on Wikipedia). Calgary 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A logical perspective... hopefully I'm going to try to lay this out logically.

  • Board games are very very rarely invented and very rarely become notable.
  • There are lots of video games and they become notable very quickly.
  • Video games and the culture surrounding them makes guides and walkthroughs very popular
  • Game guides are often most effective on user-submitted guides like GameFAQs.

(For the same reasons Wikipedia itself is so effective)

  • Wikipedia would be filled with them if it weren't for the guideline.

These statements are relatively uncontroversial, I think. The controversial bit is the disparity between the two interpretations:

  • 1- Board games should be held to the same standards as video games, they should not be exempt just because they've been around longer and don't need electricity, it's still a game. Instructions to play backgammon and instructions to capture MewTwo are essentially the same thing, wikipedia is not a game guide. Simple.
  • 2- Board games are different to video games because they are relatively timeless and in some cases more respectable in high-society. Board games are less numerous and more notable than most video games and have lots of references to them, therefore the gameplay needs to be explained. Also guides for board games are more broad guidelines on how to play well than step-by-step instructions of how to find the ammo in the locker to shoot the zombies.

These two sides both make very good points. I personally think the latter is more apt. The bottom line is, should the definition of WP:NOT#GUIDE automatically call for the deletion of the Rules Of Chess despite the overwhelming majority consensus in the AfD that it shouldn't?Simondrake 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • But why can't we hold both video games and board games to the same standard - notability? There's no way How to find all of the stars in Mario 64 is going to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, the way the most important board games like Chess do - and though I'm not particularly comfortable with the current notability policy, notability feels like the best way to avoid making the otherwise arbitrary distinction between media, or what is and is not a "game guide."
  • I think that's a very well explained way to examine this. I'm going to have to disagree with the former, and I like that people constantly use Pokemon as an example, so I'm going to use Pokemon as well. The rules of backgammon and how to capture Mewtwo are two different things, essentially because the mechanics of the game are not the same as specific instructions on how do do certain things within the mechanics of the game. To that effect, Wikipedia even has an article called Pokemon game mechanics, which, although about a video game, is not a strategy guide. Further more, another big difference between video games and board games is that video games are tend to be linear, whereas board games are not, so while a strategy guide would refer to how to caaomplish a specific task, an article about board game strategy would refer only to a specific type of move or play. Also, take note that if we do not specifically use the term "video game" and instead go with "game" this would also call into question such things as sports.
Also, something else that I notied is that in the world the significance of game mechanics and strategy is relative. Clearly, a detailed account of the rules of Chess is far more significant than the rules of Cluedo. In addition, there are perhaps a handful of video games in which mechanics and strategy (not detailed strategy guides, but just an overview of strategy) are indeed significant and encyclopedic. Just something to keep in mind. Calgary 21:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree on the following counts: (A) There are actually many board games invented (head into a specialty board game shop for hundreds of examples), although most do not reach the importance of chess. Then again, most do not reach the importance of PONG either. (B) The rules of a game are not the same as a strategy guide. We have a description of the rules of Sudoku, Chess, Scrabble, etc. and also for Qix and PONG ("avoid missing ball for high score"). I think these are encyclopedic, and I think most agree. The controversy comes from articles like Bluff (poker) and Ruy Lopez and Fianchetto; these are articles that most people don't balk at seeing in an encyclopedia, because they're about chess and poker, highbrow games. They are at best articles about a notable strategy, at worst, they are howtos. I don't want to see them go.
I'd say it's clear that there's no consensus to make "game guide" apply to board/card games as well. But that does leave the strange situation that video games are in a unique position and perhaps discriminated against here. Personally, I'd rather see our rules be consistent: that we get get rid of the "game guide" provision entirely, and instead codify what it is about Ruy Lopez and Bluff (poker) that make them acceptable. I believe that we should at least be able to have good articles about Camping (computer gaming) and Rush (computer and video games), for example. — brighterorange (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The camping/rushing articles are entirely original research though, and doesnt apply to one single game. Corpx 01:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's my opinion that the exclusion of 'game guides' is due to the fact that an NPOV game guide is hard to write as people will disagree on the best way to do something. UOSSReiska 21:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but NPOV articles should be treated on a case-by-case basis, and not with a sweeping ban at the policy level. Edits to major politicians or religions are more NPOV-prone than a game guide will ever be, but these topics should obviously remain part of Wikipedia. Evouga 21:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, I missed out what point I was trying to make. Someone is currently listing Rules Of Chess for deletion on the logic that it contains rules for gameplay therefore can be used to deduce how to play therefore is a guide to play therefore is a game-guide therefore should be deleted exactly as Defeating Bowser For Dummies or The Lock-picking Technique In Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion made easy. I think this is a farce. The page meets all other criteria on neutrality, notability, references and all other wikipedia rules, the only complaint is that it is a game-guide in the opinion of the nominator. The question is, should the page be deleted for being a game-guide or should the game-guide-guidelines be rewritten or adjusted to stop this rediculous AfD from returning?Simondrake 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If these articles are against the rules then the rules are wrong, IMO. Bubba73 (talk), 00:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a question as to what a "game guide" is, exactly. It's a vague, undefined term, and I'm not sure that we need it at all. Shouldn't the terms "how-to" and "walkthrough" already cover this ground for both table and video games? -Chunky Rice 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would generally be defined by the Wikipedia article for strategy guide. Wikipedia does not have a policy that refers exclusively to game guides though, dor does any policy define the term...it is rather ambiguous. Calgary 23:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
game guide redirects to strategy guide. Bubba73 (talk), 00:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think whats said above only reflects single player video games. Multiplayer games are not about accomplishing a single goal - but just to beat your opponent (just like chess, I might add). There are just as many "strats" and "tactics" to use to defeat your opponent just like there is in chess. I think what most of you are describing is a walkthrough, which is found in some video game strategy guides, but usually is a seperate entity. Corpx 01:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the justification for the special ban on video game walkthroughs (or game guides)? I agree with Brighterorange in that it seems to be just another source of systemic bias. It just happens that board games like chess have been around a lot longer than video games, and thus have greater notability. 128.42.46.71 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The logic behind the policy is that Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, and that an article of which the only purpose is to teach the reader how to do something is inherently unencyclopedic (something with which I generally agree). It's essentially a good policy, the only problem is that complications arise when certain people interpret the rules to mean different things, specifically relative to the deletion argument for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of chess. There have been disputes in this case over exactly what the policy applies to, which is why I think we need to better define the term "guide", so that we can have a greater standard against which to judge the application af the policy. There is no bias here, no one's saying that an articles that offers hints at how to win monopoly is any more encyclopedic than a typical strategy guide.
Really, if you ask me, the policy should do a better job of explaining what a guide is and what a guide isn't, rather than restricting policy to a certain class of games. Calgary 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that, and that's why I think that the policy should make exception for articles that are of widespread scholarly interest, and have well-established primary purpose other than teaching someone how to improve their abilities at playing a certain game. Surely the policy was never intended to apply to absolutely everything that even remotely resembles an instructional guide, yet it was applied that way in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess strategy. Perhaps it was a rather reckless nomination, but that's beside the point. The matter is not whether a strategy guide for board games should be allowed, it's whether a strategy guide for anything should be allowed when it's not a strategy guide. There are a myriad of articles on the rules and strategies of sports, board games, and even some video games, that are included on Wikipedia, simply because while they may resemble a strategy guide, they are not true violations of the poliicy. The rationale that I'm providing already seems pretty well established and accepted, I don't see why the wording of the policy can't reflect it. Calgary 03:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You make a good point about scholarly interest, but what about Poker strategy. How much scholarly interest can there be in a game based on luck? I diagree about how chess strategy article is written. The article goes into detail about what each "unit" is good for, when to sacrifice one for another, how to defend pieces etc....everything you'd find in a RTS strategy guide. Corpx 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You ask how much scholarly interest there can be in a game based on luck, but there are two things to remember that poker is based on odds and taking reasonable risks, not luck (if you rely entirely on luck, you're not playing very well). I'd be willing to take a guess that there is still a significant interest in poker, certainly not in the same sense as chess, but probably just as much as another well established gambling game, like backgammon. And whether or not the article is similar to a strategy guide to a video game is irrelevant, the very point I am trying to make is that when determining whether or not an article should be considered a guide, the article should be judged by the function of it's content, not how strong a resemblance it bares to something else, because the article and the something else are still unrelated. And also, I'd wager that any information that discusses the strategy of a strategy-based board game will resemble any other information that discusses the strategy of a strategy-based video game, regardless of whether or not either publication is a strategy guide. Calgary 04:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Corpx, I guess you have never had to try to figure out the Time value of money or had to run a regression. My finance teacher at twice (if not more) mentioned that statistics came out of the study of gambling, like chemistry came out of alchemy.XinJeisan 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Corpx,if you believe that poker is a game of luck then you need to play against a professional for money. "luck" evens out. A pro will usually take an amateur to the cleaners. Poker is a game of skill and there are many books about the strategy of it. Bubba73 (talk), 05:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Its all about the statistics, but so are video games. Afterall, video games are based on math and physics when you strip it down. There's a x% chance event z happens because you did (or did not) do event y, or you move your units to defend anticipating a chance your opponent might do something else. Corpx 06:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There is in fact a great deal of scholarly work on poker strategy, especially in the machine learning and artificial intelligence fields of computer science. (Just search citeseer or google scholar for poker for some examples.) I believe the subject to be completely encyclopedic. — brighterorange (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that since many well known games like chess poker go etc have lasted generations while most video games have not (and have not have had the chance either -- there is no reason to suspect that people 50 years from now will be playing any video game around in any large number (does anyone still play pong?) but I am sure that people will still be playing chess and go and poker. this is reason enough for one to be encylopedic and the other not, but, i would much rather see rules of video games in wikipedia than 80+kb arguments on why the rules of chess should not be. XinJeisan 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all relative. There are indeed some videogames (although small in number) which have had such a major impact on the world, or of which the mechanics are of such widespread interest to non-players, that they merit a Wikipedia article. Conversely, there are board games out there of which the rules and strategy are so useless to non-players that a Wikipedia article about it's strategy would never survive a deletion argument. Restricting the game guides rule to one category of games or another doesn't solve the problem at hand, it only contributes to it. Calgary 05:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the policy should state "Wikipeida is not a how to manual-- however, for many notable sports, games, and other entertainments a fundemental understanding of the mechanics of play is essential for a basic understanding and this rule does not preclude inclusion of the rules of any entertainment so long it does not exist solely to promote that entertainment." It is still a bit vauge but would preclude the WP:POINT deletions and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments that the current policy wording has created.XinJeisan 05:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I like it, but I think it gets very wordy, while Wikipedia policy is meant to be straightforward and to the point. The page currently says this:
"While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." I think it would suffice to add on "This does not include articles where the article's primary purpose is not to instruct", because that's what we're trying to say, but it's also hopelessly redundant. I've been reading over the policy again and again, and you think it would be clear that it is intended to refer specifically to instructional material, which is why it uses the term so frequently...but instead people have taken a single word out of the policy, "guide", and attempt to use it to mean whatever they want. I've been thinking this over, and after racking my brain trying to figure out what change could be made to the policy to reflect exactly what it means by "guide", I realized that the answer is pretty much there, it's just that people aren't looking at it. It specifically prohibits "instruction manuals", and "game guide" is used as an example of an instruction manual. If an article resembles a guide, but is purely an instruction manual, you think it would be obvious that "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual" wouldn't apply, but no, people still make these erroneous nominations...I'm sorry, I'm ranting, and I apologize. But still, if we're going to make a change, we should keep it simple, although I'm starting to think that this issue would better be addressed by an essay, because the problem is human error, not an ambiguous policy...anyway, other thoughts would be nice, but again, I think if we make a change, we should basically go with what XinJeisan suggested, although we should try to keep it simple, and try not to sound too redundant. Calgary 08:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For reference, see the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games#Strategy, currently reading: "despite the fact that this material may be of interest to the reader, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Discussion of game strategy should serve to illustrate why the subject is of interest, and not be included simply for its own sake." This is the attempt by that project to apply WP:NOT to board games and define what consitutes an unencyclopedic "game guide." If any change comes out of this discussion, someone should update accordingly. -Stellmach 14:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I tried in previous discussions (on various pages including that project's talk page) to get some clarification and consensus on this question, hoping to make the project's guidelines more helpful. When the chess articles came up on DRV (the AfD's were closed before I could get to them), it was an opportunity to get more people to give attention to the problem. I'll work with others here to update the wikiproject's guidelines once we reach consensus for improvements. Barno 14:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To reply to some of the comments above, the idea that there aren't a lot of board games simply isn't true. Keep in mind that people were making and playing board games for over a hundred years prior to video gaming, and there are many, many board game whose strategy discussions aren't nearly as notable as Chess. Also keep in mind that there are many video games which are not simple single play platform puzzles or roleplaying games. Virtually all multiplayer shooters and multiplayer computer war games and other competitive video games can have very intricate strategy discussions back and forth on their related forums. And since Starcraft was mentioned, I should point out that Starcraft in particular is quite literally a major national professional sport and pastime in South Korea, on par with other conventional sporting events there. So just because a game is a video game doesn't necessarilly mean there aren't potentially good, verifiable and notable topics for certain strategy specific concept articles.

I think the best approach is to ignore whether a game is a board game or video game and instead focus on questions of verifiability, original research, bias, reliable sources and notable publication of sources on the topic at hand. If an article about a game or video game doesn't meet standards in those areas then it should be ammended or deleted. If it sufficiently meets standards in those areas then it's probably a reasonable topic for its own article. Thus focussing in on whether or not the game is a board game or card game or video game is basically a red herring that diverts attention from the more significant issues I mentioned. Dugwiki 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I strongly agree. Calgary 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear. — brighterorange (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "people were making and playing board games for over a hundred years prior to video gaming" — well, that's certainly true, especially if "over a hundred years" means about 5000 years. Chess has had a recognized world champion for about 120 years, and although it and its predecessors were already over 1000 years old by that time there are many board games that are even older. This quibble aside, I completely agree that WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR provide good standards for inclusion. Quale 02:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I chose a poor phrasing. I meant to primarilly refer there to mass-produced mass market board games, the kind sold at Toys-R-Us and such, a great many of which probably weren't distributed in bulk until the industrial revolution and mass production in the 1800s. Obviously board games as a whole have existed for a much longer time. Dugwiki 14:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Others have expressed it more eloquently than I can, but I agree too. I think the criteria should be the usual notability, reliable and verifiable sources, and to a large extent multiple sources. That is, not just some pamphlet published with hints, but a strategy that should have multiple reliable sources and be the consensus of multiple experts in the game. Bubba73 (talk), 02:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree with this very common-sense proposal. 128.42.158.72 03:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree — This sounds reasonable to me. — Val42 04:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree this needs to be in the policy.--SefringleTalk 06:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I really dont know if this is the way to go - I mean, do we want a list of all the units and their HP, shield, attack, cost to make, build time etc all documented here? I think thats what it'll turn into. Corpx 06:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The units of Starcraft are analogous to the pieces of Chess - if the former are to be excluded, it should be on notability, verifiability, POV, or other overarching policy grounds only. I'm not very familiar with the topic, but if Starcraft's strategy is as notable as has been suggested above, I don't think a well-organized table of units in the Starcraft article would degrade the quality of the encyclopedia, especially if that information complements descriptions of strategy and tactics. Evouga 07:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If all of that information is not notable or of significant value it would still fall under WP:TRIVIA. So I don't see how this could give exception to trivial information. Calgary 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, WP:TRIVIA is simply a style guideline that describes how to properly incorporate trivia into an article (ie instead of using trivia sections, incorporate the trivia into the text of the article). It makes no statements one way or another about what sort of information is too trivial to include in an article. So I wouldn't recommend referring to WP:TRIVIA when trying to claim information "isn't significant enough to include". Dugwiki 19:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly clear on what the new policy would say, but in my opinion, it is fine to have a well sourced, NPOV article about general strategy. For example, discussing the concept of a "rush" strategy in an RTS, or Starcraft specifically. However, the policy should still prohibit how-tos and walkthroughs. No matter how well sourced, we don't need to have a guide on how to beat every specific level or the statistics and hit points of every unit. This goes for board and table games as well. -Chunky Rice 19:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, here's what I propose: Just remove the words "game guide". It may seem that this would open a door to detailed strategy guides, but it's highly unkilely, as any detailed and clearly instructional strategy guide would still be an obvious violation of "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual", even if the policy does not specifically include the words "game guide". On the other hand, if an article that is not an instruction manual, and includes information about a notable game, in a manner that has already been established in this article, such as Rules of chess or Mechanics of Pokemon, as well as others, then this article would not be arguably deletable simply under the pretense that it is a "game guide". This seems to me to be both the simplest and most logical way to deal with the issue. Calgary 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I'd generally agree with what's been said here in terms of what should and should not be included in terms of game descriptions, strategy, etc. Here's a couple of quotes from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games "style guide" which are probably most relevant here, and I think also suggest good guidelines for games in general (including such things as chess, football, the other football or even the other other football).
"For commercially released games, exercise restraint in listing out the game's parts or other specifications (such as the distribution of number tokens in Settlers of Catan), for several reasons:
  • Saying too much raises concerns of a derivative work that could infringe copyright on the game instructions or other protected material.
  • Exacting detail is rarely necessary to give the reader a good general idea of how the game works appropriate to an encyclopedia,...
...
Observations on game strategy must not be drawn simply from the analysis or experience of the editor. To do so constitutes a clear-cut case of original research.
...
Discussion of game strategy should serve to illustrate why the subject is of interest, and not be included simply for its own sake." (emphasis is mine)
Obvious modifications should be interpreted if you're talking about a video game. For example, there aren't "components" in such a game, but detailing every statistic with regards to a unit in a video game (like HP, armor, attack/defense values, etc.) probably isn't appropriate for an article here. *That* kind of stuff would be found in a proper "game guide" (if there has been any actual agreement on what that term means). Judgment should be exercised in the case of particularly notable games (e.g. chess) for which there have been thousands of books published on the subject. This would allow for more liberal interpretation, and hence more significant discussion of strategy is permitted in these cases (properly sourced, of course). In any event, you can read more detail at the project page above. Craw-daddy 21:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thank you for that helpful information. Bubba73 (talk), 02:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the change has been proposed before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=145248768&oldid=99031332 and at some point before that, it was written as "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things." But I don't see the change as meaningful, the fact is, whether it's a video game or a board game, it's quite possible to write instructional material on it, the same as it is for various legal and medical problems. While certain descriptions may border on it, it's not a good idea to cross the line. There doesn't seem to be much agreement as to where the line is drawn though, which leads to some problems. I do find the idea of exclusions by subject a bad idea though. FrozenPurpleCube 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
So, anyone have any drafts that we could look at/add ? Corpx 04:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Howto" guides

Following on from the game guide discussion above, I'm starting to think that the entire "not an instruction manual" paragraph is flawed in some essential way. A number of articles about magic tricks have been nominated for deletion recently. Regardless of issues of notability, many people have been suggesting that they must be deleted as they are, essentially, "howto" style guides. The problem I see here is that it is difficult to explain a magic trick without also providing information about how it is performed. I've also seen discussions of what ingredients might be included in certain foods removed because "wikipedia is not a recipe book", and so on.

I think some kind of distinction needs to be drawn between content that is designed to inform (e.g., explain to somebody who has seen a magic trick how it might have been performed, or to somebody reading about chess who needs to understand the motivations for a variety of strategies) to that designed to instruct (e.g., a stage magician who wants to learn to perform a particular trick, or somebody trying to learn to play chess).

I think the primary difference between these two is the level of detail. To inform somebody about a magic trick, you might say "misdirection is used to distract the audience while the magician places the coin in his pocket", whereas to instruct you might say "the magician then distracts the audience by displaying the handkerchief with his right hand while his left hand places the coin in the right pocket of his overcoat" (for example).

Any comments? JulesH 14:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to consider it some more, but I do not think that articles should get down to the level that they could substitute for the owner's manual of a Motorola V170 cell phone, for example. You could have an article that tells in general how to use a cell phone. I think that is more in line with the intent of the guideline. Bubba73 (talk), 14:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm not really sure. I think it would be better if I understood the context. Can you name any specific articles that have been nominated for deletion under these pretenses? Calgary 19:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misled (magic trick) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tame Head (magic) are the only ones I can find, but I don't know that they're what the original person was asking about. FrozenPurpleCube 08:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Misled (magic trick) is, indeed, the page I had in mind. It gives a small amount of information about the trick, but not enough to perform it. Really, it's just enough to give somebody who's seen the trick some idea of what happened. I don't think this is an inappropriate subject for an encyclopedia. JulesH 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, my opinion about whether or not the page should be deleted aside, I don't think this is a signficant enough quarrel to warrent a change to the rules. So far as I can see it, the issue has come up once, and it is a fairly reasonable assertion with a substantial supporting argument. Overall this doesn't seem to be a continuous argument, and I'd have to say that unlike the whole game-guide thing, the particular interpretation of the "How-to" policy seems to be within reason. Calgary 03:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a good starting point for discussing how-to guides is to look at the practical reasons we are trying to avoid having them in Wikipedia. A few reasons come to mind off the top of my head.

  1. Liability - You don't want an article to tell a reader how to do something, and then when they try and do it as described it doesn't work. Obvious examples are that Wikipedia shouldn't be telling people how to practice law or practice medicine, for example, or how to perform electrical work, etc. Those sorts of detailed training and instruction are beyond the intended scope of expertise of the encyclopedia and it can't be held liable for readers trying to do things in a way that a Wikipedia article recommends.
  2. Patented and copyrighted instructions - Certain methods of doing things might be patented. Detailed instructions on how to do certain business or technical practices might violate copyrights or patents on the information.
  3. Bias - There might be multiple valid ways of achieving a goal, and Wikipedia shouldn't be in the position of offering potentially biased opinions on which way is "the best" way to do something. Game strategy guides, for example, might describe what the authors term the best way to do things in a particular game, but there could be other valid ways of achieving the same results. In order to avoid bias and stay objective Wikipedia can't be picking and choosing detailed instruction sets to say what is the best method to do something.
  4. Original research and verifiability - Clearly articles need to follow verifiability and OR policies, and that includes how-to guides. How-to guides are going to be somewhat prone to problems in these areas because an author who is personally an expert in the area might be inclined to piece together an article using original research from experience or primary sources. Going back to game guides a moment, if I'm really good at a game I might be inclined to write an article about tactics and strategies in the game that mainly relies on my own experience and bits of game data from the game's rules.
  5. Conciseness - As a style matter an article should be relatively concise and on-topic. Delving into minute detail on how to do something can bloat an article with relatively unimportant detail. So at a minimum such detailed instructions shouldn't appear in the main article on a topic but be handled as separate subarticles.

The above areas seem to me to be particular areas of concern regarding how-to instruction manuals. I think that articles which might be classified as "how-to" guides and which show weakness in those areas should be considered for removal or change. Articles which seem to be relatively ok in all these areas are probably going to be more reasonable for inclusion, even if they delve slightly into the realm of giving instructions.

Rationale for why we avoid how-to guides might be a good topic for an essay or guideline to supplement the policy. If someone feels like coming up with such a supplemental page, feel free to post about it. I'd be interested in seeing the results. Dugwiki 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused.
On Talk:File_Transfer_Protocol#Debate_on_inclusion_of_external_link,
I see one person claiming that the WP:NOT#HOWTO bans not only a textual description of how to do something, but also bans links to howtos. Is this true? Does this mean all links to WikiBooks or WikiHowto are banned in Wikipedia?
Another person claims that WP:NOT#HOWTO may ban howtos in the text of an article, but *links* to howtos are welcome in the "External links" section article, as long as they meet WP:EL criteria.
Which is it?
Does the policy need to be clarified?
--68.0.120.35 05:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a time capsule

...or is it? I've seen this argument crop up a great deal lately, that we need to keep Wikipedia in some form so that it will be useful to people a hundred years from now. But this strikes me as being contrary to what Wikipedia is about. I'd like to see "Not a timecapsule" become part of the explicit list, and I want to know what others think about that. --Eyrian 15:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I'm not sure where it'd fit best. Here or WP:FIVE Corpx 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you be more specific on what you're recommending be added? I'm not clear on what you mean to append exactly. Maybe you could post a quick draft of what you'd like? Dugwiki 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a time capsule. While we might all want to provide those in the future with valuable, accurate insights into our current lives, Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia is to be informative and useful for modern readers. Being useful for those in the future should only be seen as a side-effect of Wikipedia's goals, not an end unto itself." --Eyrian 15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but what kind of edit is it trying to prevent? -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Edits that reduce Wikipedia's encyclopedic merit, justified by the fact that they might be useful to someone studying the present in the future. A lot of the "Popular culture" arguments hit on this (see section above). --Eyrian 16:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but if anything popular culture information is more useful today than it is in the future. Information about a 2007 television show, for example, is going to be much more likely to be read and used in 2007 and 2008 than it will be in 2050. If anything, saying we shouldn't be concerned with Wikipedia in the future implies that we should be keeping as much current day in-the-moment popular information as verifiably possible. Dugwiki 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles should be written to be informative to people who know nothing about the subject (hence the sky article mentioning the sky is blue). A well sourced comment that something is popularly spoofed or lampooned should be sufficient, we needn't give every popular culture example (although in some cases it may be appropriate, such as the small section at law label.) -Nard 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's wildly unlikely that WP in its present form will be a major active reference source in 100 years. But the information recorded here will be a summary of the state of at least one outlook on popular understand the way it is now--and--thanks to the archiving records--of how it changes. This argument can be used in two ways: first, that everything important now should be included, and second, that nothing that won't still be important in 100 years should be included. Both are wrong: If WP is preserved, the rest of the internet will be also, and not all of it is our responsibility. And even if WP is seen as a future historical record, it will be not as much for the present state of factual knowledge as for the present idea of what is interesting. So we shouldn't try to anticipate history, and just go about our proper business of preparing an encyclopedia for use in the present. If we're important to historians, they will know what to do with it.
So I think the paragraph as proposed above is suitable. I do not think it serves to bias in the direction of excessive coverage of popular culture--the present discussions on X in popular culture are a separate issue. DGG (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think what we run into there is the fact that we're writing an encyclopedia. You can already find a listing of modern culture as a whole, from the most moving and thoughtful treatise to the most inane blog posting, at the Internet Archive. We're not the Internet Archive, nor the "World Archive". We're very deliberately restricted in mission to a subset of both modern and historical material, namely that which has been mentioned significantly in multiple reliable secondary sources. That's the purpose of a tertiary source, to distill and condense secondary source material, not to create it. That's why we prohibit original research, unverifiable information, and articles which rely solely or mainly on non-independent or unreliable sources. There are, of course, other wikis out there. If you'd like to write a comprehensive textbook on a subject, go to Wikibooks! If you'd like to teach others about it based on your insights, go to Wikiversity! If you want to write about stuff that's in the news but not of lasting or historical significance, go to Wikinews! If you'd like to write a comprehensive in-universe guide to a work of fiction, go to (or start) the Wikia on it! There are already perfectly good places for all of those things, but that place is not here, and we do those other places a disservice every time we usurp their unique mission by wrongly taking it upon ourselves rather than pointing people in their direction. Wikipedia should be one resource among many, not "one wiki to rule them all, one wiki to bind them" (with sincerest apologies to Tolkein). Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This section was just removed without any kind of discussion.... Corpx 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Was there any consensus to add it in the first place? -Chunky Rice 19:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that WP:NOT is a very good piece of work at the moment, properly dividing up subjects. This was an extremely obvious correlary to WP:CRYSTAL, and if anything, needed to be under that section header. The Evil Spartan 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not the case. Crystal is about looking forward. Time capsule is about specifically doing something so that information will be preserved for the future. --Eyrian 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Was there consensus to add this section? I don't see in this discussion, that's for sure. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 03:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked the same thing. I'd say no. -Chunky Rice 04:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It is asserted that this "crops up a great deal lately". Can we see some evidence of that, please? >Radiant< 13:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I haven't seen one concrete example of the kind of edit this is supposed to prevent. And if editors can't figure out what the policy is supposed to mean, it doesn't belong here. All the other entries are very obvious in terms of what they represent. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Memorial guideline

I haven't checked all the archives, but I think the rule regarding WP:NOT#MEMORIAL needs to be better explained. It has been cited many times recently as a reason for removing neutral and sourced lists of fatalities from accidents and bombings, especially in regards to the Troubles in Northern Ireland and also regarding school massacres. Some examples: here, here, here and here to name a few. Whilst there is much debate on whether the lists should or should not be included (I think they should, but I'm open to the alternative point of view), the guideline above is clearly inadequate as a reason for their removal. I think it is necessary for the line to be expanded to say something like either "this guideline extends to lists of dead, which should be removed" or "this guideline is not intended to be used for the removal of lists within an article". This was, I see, brought up previously here, and I substantially agree with Dugwiki's comments, but I see they were not enacted in the guideline and would push for something to be added along the lines of his proposal.--Jackyd101 11:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

With the slight changes I proposed in that discussion, I still support such an amendment. -Chunky Rice 12:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Good idea. Its time for users to start getting it right when they refer to guildeine and policy. Deletion should be taken seriously, not casually. I applaud your efforts and wish you luck. (Mind meal 13:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
Wow, looks like one of my suggestions that fell by the wayside. Yeah, I still support the idea. Feel free to post a draft of the change you'd like for everybody to comment on. Dugwiki 15:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
as i understand it, you are proposing that a list of the dead in a notable event be considered encyclopedic. In general, I think that runs into certain difficulties, such as the various battle of World War II. Or do I have it wrong, and you are proposing that information about individual victims appear only in a list, and never in separate articles? DGG (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, lists like this are unencyclopedic and add nothing to the article in terms of information and are purely memorials. We need to think WHY are these lists being entered and does the article suffer if they are not included.--Vintagekits 09:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I think a clarification is needed here. My feeling, and I think the opinion of the original poster above, is that the names of victims in a tragedy or battle, etc, is a key set of data about the event. If the list is sufficiently small, then it makes sense to incorporate it into the main article on the event. For lists that are too large to fit comfortably within the span of a single Wikipedia article, it makes more sense to either make the list a separate subarticle or to make it an open source list transwikied to Wikisource (which is the Wiki site that handles open source data to be used as references for Wiki articles).
So while I do believe the victims list should be accessible in some format, it doesn't necessarily have to be actually within the article itself. It could simply a Wikisource document or a subarticle linked to from the main article. Dugwiki 14:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with Dugwiki's statement above, but actually my original post here was in an effort for the guideline to be clarified one wayy or another because some editors are using the Memorial guideline as an excuse for removing lists from articles despite the rule making no provision for this. After encountering yet another example of this on the extra-contentious articles about the Troubles in Northern Ireland, I decided to come here and clarify. My personal belief is that where space permits, such lists are useful, relevant and valid information when presented in an NPOV and sourced format, but I am open to reasonable discussion of the alternative point of view. --Jackyd101 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
on a more general note, here has been a suggestion from time to time of a WikiData sister project to cover this and much other material, some removed from WP , some still here, some that we might well want. (It's been determined that neither WikiSource nor WikiBooks wants this type of material.) I think it would be a great idea--I also think it would be very difficult to accomplish--this sort of thing is a major matter, would take several people prepared to work on it and guide it, and also Foundation approval. I dont think the Foundation is feeling very expansive just now, but rather under pressure to support and consolidate what we already have. A slightly more modest proposal is to add a Tables namespace. This could be used for this sort of material also. Is there any support for this? DGG (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. It would not be appropriate to include a stand alone list or to incorporate in an article about a battle the names of everyone who was killed in a battle. In some battles of the First World War or the American Civil War (200,000 killed in action, 620,000 total dead soldiers) many thousands were killed. In World War 2, 22 million soldiers died. The simple list of names would be far longer than the article, and even more info would be needed to distinguish persons with similar names, for those using the list for genealogical research. An example of an online implementation of an 1860's listing of just the Confederate soldiers killed in the bloodiest American Civil War battle, Antietam, can be found at [1]. Even such a listing will contain omissions as well as "dead" soldiers who survived. It would look like a telephone directory for a large city. There should be a place on the internet for such lists, as well as lists of every soldier who served in any army, and every immigrant to every country, and everyone in every census, and everyone killed in the Holocaust. Sites such as Ancestry.com have lare databases like that, as do the Latter Day Saints. But such directories fail as encyclopedia articles. I could see them in some data source, which people would find interesting for genealogical research. Even better than a copied, vandalized, and error filled list here would be a link to primary lists in government files or other curated lists. I will go on and say that neither should we routinely include the names of everyone killed in lesser incidents of violence that a war, since the victims of a plane crash, a terror bombing, or a school shooting are not any deader than a soldier who gave his life for his country. Edison 22:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
We have here the opportunity to do more than list. There's a bias in printed encyclopedias, that the dead generals get listed, but not the private soldiers. We seem to be perpetuating it. DGG (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Question I'm just wondering how, in general, the names of people who died in a notable event is notable. I could understand that their ages and such are valuable statistical information, but how do we draw the line between what statistics are worthy of inclusion in an article and which are trivial. In summary, of what value would a list of fatalities be to an encyclopedia article?
I think it boils down to the old set of questions "Who? What? Where? When? Why?" Understanding an event requires being able to adequately answer all those questions, and the names of the people involved in the event, be they victims or perpetrators or other important participants, is a key data point when answering "Who was involved?" For example, if someone were writing a follow-up story on the event, they would want to be able to talk to the people involved and that would mean having to know their names. (Of course, in some cases names are intentionally kept private and out of publications, and only verifiable published names should appear in Wikipedia.)
Now as I said previously, that doesn't mean the names always have to appear in a Wikipedia article, especially when you're talking about a large scale event with lots of people. But if it's not in the article then the article should at least link to a reliable place that gives the full list of names, such as a data list provided on Wikisource. Dugwiki 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that wikisource doesnt seem to want them. Read their policy. [2] They do not want data collections --and neither does wikibooks.they've both been asked with respect to similar material. DGG (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what you're talking about on the policy page you listed. The closest thing would be the section on Reference material, and even that says that "Reference data that is provided as part of larger publication (tables, appendices, etc.) is perfectly acceptable." So I'm not sure where you're seeing that previously published verifiable data on events, including the names of the people involved, isn't permitted on Wikisource. Dugwiki 14:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Go down further, to the section on exclusions, under Reference Material:

Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text. Such information has not been previously published, is often user-compiled and unverified, and does not fit the goals of Wikisource. Some examples of these include Lists; Mathematical constants (such as digits of pi); Tables of data or results; Cryptographic material; Source code. They do not publish data or information--they publish texts available as PD. The question where it most recently came up to my knowledge was tables of astronomical data, currently on WP. DGG (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the editor above has a point with his comment that there is neither space nor source material for everyone who dies in certain events and that as a result we should not make distinctions by including some whilst not including others and I see this as the only reason why space should perhaps not be made somewhere on the Wiki for such lists. However I would counter that the lists are only intended for insertion in certain articles, where such information is a) avaliable publically b) provides additional information and insight to the subject of the article and c) was widely covered in the media at the time of the incident. This information would be beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. Articles on such subjects as terrorist attacks, school shootings, major accidents and the like would all I feel benefit from this kind of information especially if is is accompanied by basic biographical details. This would enable readers to see for themselves such facts as the sex and age range of the dead, the nationalities of those killed, any military or police status (significant in terrorist incidents), time of death (such as those who died later of injuries) and so on. This is a valuable tool for people researching the subject of the article and allows such data to be presented raw, without editors being forced to provide it through original-research filled statements like "most of the dead were men in their 30-40s" or similar.
In all cases, information should be properly sourced and presented with as little sentiment as possible to forestall accusations of memorial-creation. Size is a major issue, but were a list is too large for a page other options are possible. I experimented a year ago with creating lists on article pages, reverting to the original article and the linking to the list from the history, but this throws up all sorts of issues involving editing the list in the future and the links tended to get removed by people misinterpreting the memorial guideline anyway. Another option is the creation of sub-pages which can be linked to, as was recently done at the Omagh bombing, before this link too was removed by users citing WR:NOT as the reason. Are sub-pages still able to be created? Can a list be made on one which would then be part of the articlespace? A final idea is that the list could be placed on a special template which could be hidden or in a scroll box, either of which would then fulfill the purpose without dominating the page. Anyone have any preferences or comments on these ideas?--Jackyd101 02:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually is wasnt removed it was put into a new article, which someone sent to AfD here, the result of which was to delete as it was ruled purely a memorial.--Vintagekits 09:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thats not quite what it said, the Afd concluded delete with no prejudice against recreation in a more encyclopedic form and moved the information to a sub-article of the page, from whence it was subsequently moved to the talk page. It also cited as its reasoning WP:NOT, which as I pointed out above, makes no provision for this kind of list as part of another article, only as a seperate article itself.--Jackyd101 10:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, in my experience this lists of "the dead" are nothing more than memorial lists and add nothing in terms of information to an article and are therefore unencyclodic and boil down to trivial information. If it added to an article I would have a different view but we are build an encyclodia not trivial lists of useless information.--Vintagekits 09:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask where you would draw the line? Would you therefore be OK with the removal of the list at Bloody Sunday (1972)?--Jackyd101 10:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it adds to the article? The Bloody Sunday inquiry held a detailed investigation into each of the separate shootings so actually it would be possibly to write an indivdual article could be written on each of the murders on bloddy sunday. That too would have to be taken into consideration.--Vintagekits 10:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So you agree that there are cases where lists can and should be made. What criteria would you use to determine that and how would you phrase the guideline covering it? That is after all the reason I brought the discussion here, because the current guidelines are inadequate to deal with this issue at present.--Jackyd101 10:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously commonsense needs to be used and probably a consensus on the talkpages of the individual artices would need to be built, as to a new wording for it - I havent got a suggestion for that to be honest, also as can be seen from this discussion amongest a number of editors and admins that these sorts of lists where ruled to be both memorials and indiscriminate information.--Vintagekits 10:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think a list of names and ages adds anything to an article, saying that X people died is sufficient. Bloody Sunday is mentioned above that article gives details of where and in what circumstances each person died, this is necessary as they didn't all died in one location, at the same time, also the British government and army claimed that these people where in procession of firearms at the time of their deaths, this has been disproven, and in many instances the secquences of events in statements by the British don't tally with events on the ground that day, leading to a number of inquiries.--padraig 10:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose This discussion has been had before [3], and I found it to be very informative. This discussion has provided useful information, and outlined many of the pitfall that exist. I would like to add, that this is one of the most reasonable and rational discussions I have yet come across. --Domer48 13:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Dont feel a list of dead adds anything to an article an external link I feel is sufficent. BigDunc 17:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose any change to allow lists of non-notable victims without any specific reason for inclusion. The comments regarding Bloody Sunday (1972) are specious, there is no list of dead similar to the ones being proposed. Rather than summarise, there is a discussion here which shows exactly how the list in that article is different to a list of people who died in a bombing or other incident. An article about such incidents should ideally consist of the following:

  • Background information, to put the incident in some sort of historical context so the reader understands why it happened.
  • Information on the incident itself.
  • Reactions to the incident.
  • Any consequences as a result of the incident.

It would be physically impossible to have an article about Bloody Sunday (1972) without a list of victims due to the very nature of the incident and subsequent inquiries into it. A more apt comparison to an article about a bombing would be Bloody Sunday (1920) which does not have a list of dead, as it would be nothing but a memorial which is what is being proposed here. Such lists are not only memorials but also indiscriminate information, the names of dead are not relevant encylopedic content. Brixton Busters 11:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The oppose votes of the above members of WP:IRA are all very well, but none of them has adressed the primary reason this subject was brought up. If you don't think that lists of dead are legitimate parts of an encyclopedia article then how should the guideline be rephrased in order to cover this issue, which at the moment it does not address? Since they believe Bloody Sunday should be an exception to this rule, then how should the guideline be rephrased to include this exception but exclude all other lists and how should it be decided which lists are notable and which aren't?--Jackyd101 18:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks please, you should not be grouping people due to their membership of a WikiProject. I addressed Bloody Sunday above, the list does not fall under a memorial, that much is evident if you read the linked discussion. Brixton Busters 08:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if you were offended by something I said, but you still haven't answered the question I posed above. In addition, I did read the discussion you linked and it made it even more clear to me that there is no difference between Bloody Sunday and the dozens of other article which would benefit from a list of the dead.--Jackyd101 10:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The constant comparison to Bloody Sunday (1972) is a red herring. Bloody Sunday needs a list of dead, for the very fact that the circumstances in which people died have been disputed for over 35 years now. Unless how they died is explained, how can the article explain the dispute? A similar list for a bombing article would be:
  • John (stood near the bomb)
  • Jim (stood near the bomb)
  • Mary (stood near the bomb)
  • and so on...
That adds nothing to the article, it's a memorial and indiscriminate information and not encyclopedic. The Pan Am Flight 103 article doesn't have a list of dead, including 270 names would be pointless the names are not encyclopedic. Where do you draw the line? As suggested in the linked discussion above the best place to draw the line is no lists of non-notable victims. Brixton Busters 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dugwiki. If you need to give names and details to explain what happened, then such a list is fine. For a war, it is informative enough to say "23,456 people died", plus a few more details. No reader in the world is going to say "I wonder where I can find a list of all 23,456 people?" For a school shooting, it is quite likely that a reader will ask: "who were the 7 people that died?" I'm not touching the Irish Troubles examples with a bargepole, except to say that there is a murky middle ground where the numbers start to become too big for a list. Carcharoth 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Gaimhreadhan made an excellent compromise suggestion here: to "have a list of victims only where their victimhood is an important part of making the subject of the article notable and the list of victims constitutes less than 10% of the characters in our article"
 W. Frank talk ✉  22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of Eletronic Program Guide

Having seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks in various forms over time, I wonder if it's a good idea to clarify the portions of WP:NOT that talk about program guides and schedules. It seems there is a consensus that certain forms of these articles should be kept, if not all, but there's a regularly recurring problem with folks nominated articles that seemingly meet the criteria but really don't. I think the expression in the current page is unclear and needs to be modified. FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

the were kept as articles discussing the season's programs, which is straight forward enough. What wording do you suggest. DGG (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the exact wording to use, but perhaps something to indicate more strongly the difference between a record of shows broadcast by a network or channel versus an attempt at a current TV-guide style program schedule? What's there now would seem to be enough, except for the numerous times people nominate these articles. FrozenPurpleCube 05:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It might also be better to do it as a note, rather than incorporate it into the main-text. FrozenPurpleCube 05:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me just say that I'm strongly opposed to having these TV guides on wikipedia. I think the newly instituted "time capsule" rule also suggests against having such a list. Corpx 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Sharing your position is one thing. Sharing the reasons for your position is another. I see the former. I have yet to see you explain the latter. Would you care to do so? FrozenPurpleCube 17:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
A program guide can illustrate which shows are adjacent or opposite others. Popular shows attract other shows, both before and after, as well as competitors scheduling shows to be on at the same time. Past TV scheduling may also become of historical interest if time-sensitive broadcasting becomes less relevant to television programming. I note that a "program guide" for a season might show only titles of shows in timeslots while more detailed efforts require listing every episode week-by-week. (SEWilco 20:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Censorship?

I have read on several newspapers that Wikipedia has censored things written about Chinas government, politics, and human rights in the Chinese version of Wikipedia. Is this true? Or has that changed..?

I've read something like that. Different language Wikipedias have different policies though, so the chinese one may not have "not censored" or at least have it worded differently. On the english Wikipedia, we're (supposedly) not censored at all apart from the exceptions listed. - Zeibura (Talk) 03:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that the Chinese Wikipedia is censored by the Chinese government. Then again, I think I heard something about how the censorship applies specifically to the country of China, and that it is still edited without censorship by Chinese-speaking people in other countries...or something like that. In any case, these policies apply specifically to the English language Wikipedia. Calgary 08:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, from what I've seen: the mainland Chinese government has firewall blocked the access of its citizens to Wikipedia for most of the past two years. They haven't explained why, but most speculation runs along the lines that it's difficult for their government to control the flow of information. DurovaCharge! 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration

User:Durova/Wikipedia is not an experiment in consensus reality - currently an essay in user space, with a few links to demonstrate why an explicit policy clause may be a good idea. DurovaCharge! 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it would be a valuable addition. ITAQALLAH 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems redundant, as policy. I'm not sure what it would accomplish. -Chunky Rice 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
An explicit disavowal of a notable misinterpretation. With that as a tool it'd be easier to persuade new editors out of good faith disruption based upon that belief. DurovaCharge! 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't really object, because I don't see the harm, but why can't you just point to WP:V or WP:OR? -Chunky Rice 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Whoa! This has reached over 80 entries on the Table of Contents... We need another archive here, STAT! --Luigifan 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel up to it?--Father Goose 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm already working on it. Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Y I've moved threads to three archives: 11 (Threads completed in June), 12 (Topic: Newspaper articles) and 13 (Threads completed by July 31). Of the threads remaining, the first (WP:NOT - Gameguides) could probably also be archived, but there was a relatively recent comment. Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Nicely done. -Chunky Rice 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bus Routes?

Would providing a listing of the routes serivced by a company be a violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, among other things here? The question is pertaining to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Egged_bus_lines Corpx 16:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Court of law?

I'd like to suggest that this be added to the things WP is not. In a lot of articles about controversial people the subjects are charged with offenses and evidence is presented to support the charges. Then the subjects' defenders present counter evidence. Steve Dufour 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a great description of an example of a synthesis of information, which is already covered by WP:SYNTH. Calgary 06:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, WP:BURO mentions it, albeit with a different context. >Radiant< 09:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

suggest change to policy due to de facto decisions

I have run into many dictionary definitions on Wikipedia and wish to propose that this policy be changed to allow that Wikipedia carries dictionary definitions. I recently proposed deletion of de jure and had my proposal removed quickly by another editor (I now believe correctly, see the discussion). The other editor pointed to a recent keep decision for the article de facto, which is better described as a group of definitions, examples, and some non-definitional text on tangential topics such as a list of notable de facto dictators, and an explanation of why their rule was de facto and not de jure. To me, the decision to keep this article suggests that removing definitions is not the policy of Wikipedia as observed. I would propose that lengthy definitions with a large number of examples are Wikipedia what Wikipedia is. Pdbailey 02:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It;'s the depth of the discussion, not the number of examples that does it. There is an overlap: the OED for example does have encyclopedic information about many words, but the basic idea is that an entry here should not just list, but discuss. Could you try a rewording along that line. DGG (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree on the overlap, and also on the expandability of the article. The concepts of de jure and de facto, for example, could certainly be expanded to discuss rather than define the concepts with references from law books and the like. On the other hand, many articles really can't go past "X means Y", those are more the ones that this applies to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
DGG, this entry is no different than I'd expect out of the field specific jargon dictionaries that I've used (i.e. the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy). Seraphimblade's idea of expandability fits well into the focus on the far off goal of the Wikipedia, but it seems that then present dictionary entries should fall under stubs BUT only if someone should demonstrate (if not in final form or with complete references) a topic that is encyclopedic in nature that belongs on the page. Alternately, this page could change to the de facto standard I pointed out.Pdbailey 18:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
DGG, in particular, I'd encourage you to look up de dictum in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, which is very similar to the Wikipedia definition for de facto and de jure--in the sense that if the Wikipedia entries were expanded and better written they might look more like the dictionary entry. I say this last part not to offend but because of the difference between the two. Pdbailey 02:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Its good to add in a section header called "Usage" and find some relevant examples of the word or phrase being used with an appropriate citation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thats one of my favorite parts of the OED. But that's a dictionary. Pdbailey 02:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The solution to this situation is not to further bend the definition of "encyclopedic" but to get more of our readers/editors involved in Wiktionary and teach them how easy it is to expand those entries and to cross-link them to Wikipedia. Wikipedia entries should always be more than mere lexical content. (Lexical content, by the way, includes the definition, origins and usage of a word or phrase.) Pages which are mere dictionary definitions should be moved to/merged with Wiktionary and, in my opinion, the Wikipedia page replaced with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary page. Rossami (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Note 5

Note 5 reads:

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

IMO this should be expanded to read:

If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate mailing list, contact the Wikimedia Foundation, take legal action against one or more authors and/or against the Wikimedia Foundation, or in cases of copyright violations notify us at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.

Although taking legal action may not the preferred method, it is obviously a realistic option and should therefore be part of the list of actions in Note 5.

Disagreement with WP:NOT

I disagree with some parts of WP:NOT because of the very nature of wikis and how Wikipedia has historically been used. Lists and indiscriminately collecting information are fine on my part, I'm ok with reversible vandalism, and I see no problem with soapboxing on comment pages. Methinks I'll consider leaving WP and setting up my own Wiki Encyclopedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

i agree with your disagreement. sadly, starting up a new wiki encyclopedia is not the answer. in order to be successful, it'd have to be popular and in order to be popular, it'd probably have to appeal to everyone that wikipedia currently appeals and then we'd be right back where we started. the (hypocritical) masses would think one way and you'd think another 209.209.214.5 05:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not include instructions

that's what WP:NOT#GUIDE says. that wikipedia articles should not include instructions. so why does greatest common divisor contains instructions on how to find them? why does euclidean algorithm contain instructions on how to prove it?

as written, both these examples are in clear violation. either WP:NOT#GUIDE should be rewritten to include exceptions like those or it should be removed as a policy. double standards, such as are currently present, don't do anyone any good (unless you're trying to advance a particular agenda - then silencing critics and empowering proponents is quite advantageous) 209.209.214.5 05:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The first case describes various mathematical methods without giving detailed instructions in their use. The second example gives a proof, which is rather different to "intructions on how to prove it". This makes perfect sense to mathematicians, at least. Perhaps the policy should be clarified to say that what looks like instructions might not be instructions when it's a specialist subject. SamBC(talk) 11:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Instructions can be encyclopedic content, but generally they are not. Context plays a big factor for all of WP:NOT. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ned Scott has it. Applying anything in WP:NOT literally can be a bad idea... would we remove any information about the rules of chess from the applicable articles? I suspect they would quickly not make sense, even to people who already knew the rules. A bit of information on how rules work can be encyclopedic and even necessary. The original spirit of the rule was, as far as I know, to prevent stuff like "Quake2 Mutliplayer Strategies" or "How to program C#" articles, which are clearly unencyclopedic as the goal is no longer to inform, but to instruct and advise. --W.marsh 13:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Directory - Loose association

At present this contains the language:

"Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)."

This language is inappropriately vague, as it fails to define what "loosely associated topics" are. In trying to find out what it originally meant, I searched the history. It stems from an old rule #9, which read: "[Encyclopedia articles are not:] Mere lists of quotations and aphorisms. (But some such lists might be very nice to have to supplement encyclopedia articles, sure.)"

It was emended 20 June 2002 by User:Mav to read: "List repository of loosely associated topics such as; quotations, aphorisms or persons (But of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed too the list topic)."

Mav added this line based on a discussion copied from Talk:Listing of noted atheists which began "Who cares about these people being atheists?". The discussion doesn't really show a consensus (some people liked the idea of the article; some didn't). The meaning of the emended rule, with respect to the discussion, seems to be "don't include people in a list of atheists who are famous for some other reason but happen to be atheists; include only people who are famous for being atheists"; that is, that the common characteristic of list members by which they are chosen should be central, rather than peripheral to their reasons for being mentioned at all.

It should be noted that List of atheists still exists, has done so uninterruptedly since 2001, and includes multiple members who are famous for reasons not directly related to their atheism. In fact, the utility of such an article seems to be in calling attention to the atheism of people who are not widely known as being atheists.

The precise meaning of the "loosely associated" language appears never to have been discussed. This has resulted in some disputes over the meaning, with some editors loosely interpreting it in a way that could be used to characterize any list as "loosely associated"; in particular, understanding it to mean that any list which is not itself copied verbatim from a secondary source (which would be pretty nearly all of Wikipedia's lists) is "loosely associated", on the grounds that without reference to such a source the notability, or perhaps the verifiability, of the list (as a list -- not the notability or verifiability of its elements!) cannot be established.

I suggest that this is not the consensus of Wikipedia editors. I suggest that there is a general consensus that there are more and less appropriate types of lists, and that while a "list of persons named Smith" is inappropriate as a list (though it might be useful as a disambiguation page), a "List of Apollo astronauts" is not, and that while it is appropriate that information within a list should be sourced, it is not necessary to have a source to justify the existence of a list. In between the "Smith" and "Apollo" types of lists, there is a large expanse of dubious ground, which apparently used to include "List of atheists" (though I doubt that this list is really controversial now).

I think it would be good to have a discussion to sort out what the editorial consensus really is, what principles it should based on, and how editors can use that to discriminate between a suitable and unsuitable list; and to write that into the policy, preferably without using the words "loosely associated", which don't seem to have been chosen with a great deal of thought. I request a discussion to establish the correct policy with regard to "association", and I would hope that until the nature of this policy is more firmly established that it would not be cited as grounds for deletion of articles.RandomCritic 22:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A conversation which raises similar issues can be found here.--Father Goose 00:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
RandomCritic, I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I found your comment after discovering the original edit from 2002 myself. "Loosely associated" (and its look-alike cousin, "indiscriminate") get thrown around a lot on AfD without any means for the average editor to objectively determine what is a "loose association" or what is "indiscriminate". Like someone commented on "trivia" earlier, people seem to know it when they see it, but can't objectively define it. If these words are going to be in policy, they need to have a clear definition, endorsed by consensus, or they need to be removed. An article or list should not be subject to the whims of whatever certain people happen to think the words "loosely associated" or "indiscriminate" means, against those create and contribute to such lists in good faith, but would rather edit articles than debate the meaning of a vague policy. DHowell 21:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, loosely associated is seeing an awful lot of use over at afd at the moment, where it seems to have been adopted as a blanked cause for deleting anything vaguely list-like that deals with a fictional topic. Some clarification on that would be appreciated. Artw 21:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Non-fictional topics get this treatment as well, such as the various lists of people by ethnicity which get perennially nominated for deletion. DHowell 23:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A note of caution: Vagueness can be very frustrating in some circumstances but instruction creep can be even more damaging to the project over time. If you have better wording that clarifies the issue without making the page longer, let's propose and debate it. By all means, let's debate what that term is supposed to mean but if by "clarification", you mean that we need a separate page - or even a separate paragraph - defining this one term, I think that would do more harm than good. Wikipedia works best when we solve problems by applying a few general principles to the specific situation or question at hand, always maintaining the shared goal of writing an encyclopedia. Wikipedia works much less well when we've tried to manage it through codifications of law. Rossami (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and would prefer that the wording be replaced with something more clear, than to have yet another policy or guideline page defining such phrases as "loosely associated" and "indiscriminate", which are loaded phrases which will mean whatever people choose them to mean regardless of what policy actually says. Even now, where WP:NOT#IINFO has a clear list of what it is supposed to proscribe below it, people say "indiscriminate" about things that don't meet any of those proscriptions.
However, at the risk of promoting instruction creep, I believe that we do need a set of clearer inclusion criteria for lists, though this should be discussed on the WP:LIST or WP:SAL guideline talk pages rather than here. DHowell 23:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion guidelines are good, but surely people will jsut say the exclusion guidelines over-ride them? Artw 23:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm just going to weigh in here. One thing that I think it is very important to recognize is that there are all different kinds of lists, and that standards that work for some may not work for others.

I find that in AfD discussions the magic words "loosely associated" come up most often in discussions of articles about "X in popular culture". In these cases thedistinction is important, and is essentially the main standard used in determining whether the article should be kept or dleted: If all of the subjects listed are closely connected to or based on the main subject, the article is a good list, but if all of the subjects listed only make passing reference to the main subject, and are otherwise unrelated, then the list is trivial I find that for the most part, this is a very effective and accurate way to judge the article, and whether or not the subjects are "loosely associated" is usually very clear.

In general, the "loosely associated" thing shouldn't come up very often in other contexts, usually because other issues are more prominent. For example, the notability of the main connecting subject is more important. After that, the main problem tends to be how broad the main subject is. The problem with a List of atheists is a problem that can apply when discussion any list of people based on religion, ethnicity, nationality, or any other basic grounds for categorization that applies to millions of people worldwide. The problem is not how closely the subjects are related, but how strict the inclusion criteria is.

Overall, a "ist of loosely associated topics" would be a list in which the subjects listed only have a minor or insignificant relationship with the main subject. As it stands right now, it is suggested that the items should not be "loosely associated" with one another, as opposed to the main subject. If you ask me, that would be the wrong way to go about things. First off, I have yet to see a list where the subjects are all related to one another, but do not relate to the main subject. Secondly, there are lists where supposedly unrelated subjects are related simply in the fact that they all relate to the main subject, which, in turn makes them much more closely associated. For example, one could argue that a List of James Bond villains would be loosely associated because they have nothing in common other than the fact that they're James Bond villains, but at the same, they are very closely associated because they are all James Bond villains. In short, how they relate to the main subject will always be more important than how they relate to one another.

Then we come around to the other problem, as to how we can objectively define how significantly one thing relates to another thing. If you ask me, it all comes around to verifiability. If you can attribute a source which recognizes that one subject has a close relationship to another subject, or that a book, periodical or other media outlet recognizes the two subjects as being closely related, then you almost can't go wrong, because an argument based on a reliable source is always more substantial than an article based on absolutely nothing.

So what I propose is this (1) change the wording to recognize that "loosely associated" refers to association with the main subject, not association with each other, (2) recognize that association is something thatcould (or should) be verified, and (3) think of some way to put an end to superfluous citation of WP:NOT#DIR, although I'm not sure that there's anything that can be done about that.

Now, requiring lists to cite association with the main topic may do more harm than good, as it would allow situations where subjects that are clearly associated would be eligible for deletion, simply because they do not have references to assert association. For that reason I'm not sure how good an idea it would be, but it is indeed a major step toward establishing a standard for confirmation of how associated two subjects are. Calgary 22:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I'll note that whether or not a list entry meets the criteria for inclusion should always be something that is verified by a reference. For example, in List of atheists each entry should have a reliable citation that verifies that the person is an athiest. Unfortunately there are a number of lists that fail to meet that verifiability standard, and if I were to select lists to trim or delete I would focus first on ones without proper citations.
Now that being said I wouldn't support requiring that a reference be provided to show that the list criteria itself is a valid association. For example, I don't believe a list needs to provide a reference to show that someone else has already published that exact same list. Lists serve different purposes, and in particular they can assist with indexing links to articles that readers may wish to peruse in a certain subject area or in a particular order. This reindexing is a useful navigational tool, and is not always something well suited for categorization. It would be a shame if otherwise verifiable, reliable and objectively defined indexing lists were deleted simply because a reference didn't exist to show that the list as a whole hadn't already been published. Dugwiki 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

a sidebar on copyrights as they apply to lists

This may be obvious but I'll state it anyway rather than risk anyone misinterpreting the discussion. If the same list already has been published elsewhere, the contents of the list are referenced but we could have to delete the whole list as a copyright violation. Comprehensive directories are generally not copyrightable but a list that involves editorial discretion may be copyrighted. See Feist v Rural for more. Rossami (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as described in the case cited above, when it comes to lists of information "copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange them it would destroy the copyright owned in the data."
In other words just because two lists have the same entries doesn't mean it's a copyright violation. Facts themselves aren't copyrightable; only the artistic and creative way in which you present facts is copyrightable. So while republishing a subjective opininated list such as a "Top 10 Movies" list might run afoul of copyright (since the original list's author is using subjective creative expression in determining the contents), a list which is clearly determined from objective facts probably isn't going to be a problem unless you are copying editorial comments and asides or style choices, etc. Dugwiki 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. To return to the examples at the top of the discussion, our page with the "List of Apollo astronauts" is clearly defensible since it's a comprehensive directory of all members of the class. On the other hand, the "List of atheists" is really a "Listing of noted atheists". The list inherently includes editorial judgements about who among the population of all possible atheists to include. If we copied such a list from someone else, we would be at risk of copyright violation. My point was that the list being "verified" by referencing the same list created somewhere else (which was my interpretation of Calgary's suggestion) is not a universally workable way to defend the list because it brings in other problems. Rossami (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
taking the information from another source is not a copyright violation. In the US at least, the inclusion of items on a list is information, and not expression, and not subject to copyright. Copying the arrangement and the formatting of the list, that would be a copyright violation. DGG (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. For a mere list of facts, that would be true. But a "Top 10 Movies" list involves creative choice of what to include or exclude and, under US law, is expression and is subject to copyright. Feist and the subsequent precedents make it very clear that a list must have some element of originality in order to be protected but also make it clear that the threshold of originality is extremely low. Rossami (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Not a Directory..."

...where does one find the directory for Everything That Has Ever Existed? --Chr.K. 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Try google. >Radiant< 13:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Everything2 maybe is a bit like that. Except entries get deleted if they aren't particularly good in the judgment of other readers. Quality rather than importance is the inclusion standard there. In theory you could write an article on the fire hydrant in front of your house, if the entry was good enough, so in that sense it's potentially a directory of everything. --W.marsh 13:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Directory additions

I've added two items to NOT#DIRECTORY, that come up regularly in AFD and would benefit the project to have a clear statement in WP:NOT. They cover gazeteer type directories, and directories that list arbitrary cross-categorizations. Hopefully the wording is self-explanatory. Both include suitable exceptions for those gazeteers and cross-categorizations that should have articles. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I mean, I agree, in principle. But if you're going to say, "Wikipedia is not X, except for the times when it is," I'm not really sure what the point is. It's not clear to me what makes Jewish musicians the exception to the rule. Without that clarification, I don't think it's that useful. -Chunky Rice 21:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NOT#DIR

I added a "see also" to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) in criteria 1. I see this one quoted in AfDs from editors who do not seem to be familiar with the provisions of that stand-alone policy. I think the whole list policy may need overhaul given how rancorous those AfDs become (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Chinese people (second nomination) for example), but I think that making sure all editors are aware of the various core policies could be helpful in the meantime. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing claims that "[subject] in popular culture" pages "fails WP:NOT#DIR by design." now, per the loosely associated topics. Can we get that langueage tightened or, if for so0me mental reason wikipedia wants to ban pages of that type, and actual real policy banning them? Thanks. Artw 16:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)