Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:51, 24 June 2009

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

• WT:NOT

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 14 days

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 14 days

WP:NOTPLOT replacement

Written by Masem, and has been agreed to by him, myself and Gavin with Shoemaker's Holiday largely on board. So I think we have something. "Concise" going to continue to be a point of debate, but...

(Misplaced Pages is not) Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including aspects of development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary, but these ultimately should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted. For more information on writing about fiction, see Manual of Style (Writing about Fiction).

Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Some infelicitous language ("Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary, but these ultimately should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted." seems to lose track of what it's talking about part-way through), but let's implement it as another step in consensus-building and work on tweaks after. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd actually prefer to update "as written" and then worry about the tweaking. I have a fear of the tweaking resulting in no consensus and I'd _really_ like to see this done. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I contacted a few editors who have been involved in these discussion about this in an attempt to get enough folks. I think I picked the "right" people (Kww, Randomran, Protonk, Pixelface), but feel free to notify others. This is not an attempt to bias anything and I'm sure they are all watching this page, but I wanted to get them here quickly to reach consensus quickly if possible. If we get most or all of them on board I think we can update NOTPLOT.Hobit (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary" does not work for me - it is basically a get out of jail for free card. This should be changed to "Articles on such works that contain only plot summary should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into an article that does, if outright deletion is to be avoided". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That language is too prescriptive ("Fix it or it's gone") for policy, and also is a bit too harsh per the RFC feedback. The way I've worded it, it takes into account WP:IMPERFECT implicitly, and is more descriptive. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Change only to primarily or essentially only, and I'm happy. I really detest the the fictional equivalent of WP:COATRACK articles: a bit of casting info used to justify 90 paragraphs of plot retelling. To address Masem's point, perhaps change should either be expanded to must be expandable, which would stress potential over actuality.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If Masem wants to get rid of the perscriptive language, then he has to get rid of all of it, not just those bits that he likes. I would go along with Kww on the grounds that the guidance offered is clear, but no exemption or loophole based on WP:IMPERFECT is acceptable. Rememeber, userfication is better than creating a class of articles that is permanently imperfect. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I thought you'd agreed with what Masem wrote yesterday. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no prescriptive language in my version ("should", not "must"). But the issue is that in the RFC, people pointed out that PLOT was being used to delete works-in-progress. I agree we don't want plot-only articles to fest indefinitely, but at the same time, there's no deadline either. That's why "ultimately" implies that if you don't work on getting past plot-only, it could be merged away at any time. Yes, your suggested wording says that too, but it says with a heavy hand, which we should avoid. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

MASEM, I agree with your sentiments, but think you've left a loophole in your wording - "should" can mean "preferably" or it can be interpreted as "must". You migth want to be more explicit. --Philcha (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually like "should" here. I read it as "are to be" which is less demanding than "must" but covers the same ground. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on everything I've seen, WP policies generally follow the MoSCoW Method for verbage; for example, the WP:BLP is one of the few places where we use "must" and make it descriptive; everywhere else "should" and "could" are better verbs. As this is still policy, "should" fits fine - it's advisable to follow it within the spirit of WP:IAR - with logical and common sense exceptions. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Kww, which of the "onlys" are you suggesting this for? And I prefer the original language over Gavin's suggestion even with Kww's fix (which does improve it, but still is significantly stronger than I could support.) Hobit (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"... containing only a plot summary ..." to " ... containing primarily a plot summary ..." or "... containing essentially only a plot summary ...".—Kww(talk) 15:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad I asked, I figured the other one. I can get behind "containing essentially only a plot summary" if that brings you on-board. Masem, you okay with that? Hobit (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to several of these, but I couldn't get behind "primarily" in this case: That's fine for a guideline, but this is meant to be the most basic of basic policies. I honestly still think we're going way too prescriptive for basic policy even as it is, but am willing to withdraw my objection for the moment, in the interest of allowing some reasonable consensus to be worked in to the currently edit-protected page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with "primarily" or "essentially"; my concern was on Gavin's suggest that deletion will happen, which should still be descriptive (as we allow for things like episode lists and lists of characters, but I'd concern those as part of a larger topic). --MASEM (t) 23:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:NOT#PLOT needs to be removed. Enough already. Policy must have wide acceptance among editors and by all indications, a section on plot summaries in this policy never will. This has gotten insane. It's as if people who don't want WP:NOT#PLOT removed think no plot-only article will ever be deleted again if it is removed. The proposed replacement completely ignores plot-only articles where there is no consensus to delete (or merge) like Fictional history of Spider-Man and Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) and so on.

Masem says "we don't want plot-only articles to fest indefinitely." Who's "we"? Certainly none of the people who argued to keep in those AFDs. Speak for yourself. An article about a fictional character, like Iago, is going to be, for the most part, a plot summary. The "development, critical reception, and legacy" of Iago, while perhaps nice to have, is by no means a requirement. Enter Iago into Wolfram Alpha: A fictional character who is the villain in William Shakespeare's tragedy who tricked Othello into murdering his wife. That would be an okay stub on Misplaced Pages (and not much shorter than the initial draft).

I already suggested a rewrite of WP:NOT#PLOT in January, but the time for rewrites is over. It's done. People need to stop turning policies into their wishlists and start describing what's actually done, in article space. Enough page protections every few days. Enough bandwidth wasted on what's become the NOTPLOT talkpage. The majority of people in the straw poll above said that WP:NOT should not include a section on plot summaries. What is so difficult for some people to understand? It's over. --Pixelface (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I want to note for the record that I largely agree with Pixelface, but I don't see that in the immediate future thus my effort to find some kind of a compromise. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If every slightest attempt at compromise on the part of those of us who object is going to be turned into hard-line deletionist crap, as seen below, then I think we should ask for it to be deleted. It would be clear that no consensus would ever be possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected Edit?

• I'd say we are at the point we should be asking for a change by an independent admin. I think we have general agreement. Masem, if you agree would you request that edit? I think the only change we are looking at from your wording is adding essentially. I realize we don't have Gavin or Pixelface on-board, but I think getting Kww, Masem, Shoemaker's Holiday and myself in agreement is enough to request that edit. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• You misunderstood. I was replying to Gavin, and was agreeing with Gavin's wording, and making suggestions based on Gavin's wording. Gavin's concerns about a "get out of jail free" card are legitimate. That said, I won't be an obstacle. Go ahead if you must.—Kww(talk) 03:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear then, the wording we have agreed upon is as under:

Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including coverage of its development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works that containing essentially only a plot summary should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into an article that does, if outright deletion is to be avoided. For more information on writing about fiction, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I think this is fairly concise, and adds an element of guidance about rectification that Masem has added. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's not what I agreed to. I can't agree with the heavy-handed pro-deletion. Indeed, I think that's stronger than the version that caused the controversy. I think that's completely unacceptable. This is the version I agreed to:

That one says they generally should not be deleted; yours, that they always should be unless people immediately improve them. Are you actually interested in working to achieve consensus? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hobit, the fact that I'm not on board is irrelevant. The fact that a majority of editors said this policy should not include a section on plot summaries, however, is relevant. Why are those editors being ignored? --Pixelface (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I still agree it should be removed. In fact the latest DrV I've been involved in makes me think it really needs to be removed. But finding consenous for that is nearly impossible. I also think the fact that there isn't consensus for NOT#PLOT means it should be removed. But I didn't get anywhere with that (even though reading policy any other way is nearly impossible). So I took the low-hanging fruit and worked to improve it rather than remove it. If someone else wants to work to remove it, they have my endorsement but I've been warn down by the discussion and want to duck out. Some improvement was better than no improvement (which is where I think we were otherwise headed). I'm actually quite pleased we got somewhere and worry that doing so will reduce the odds of actually getting rid of this silly thing. But bird-in-hand was taken. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding the change I thought Kww had suggested and SH had agreed to. Just a one-word change from what SH had written.

• Kww, Masem and SH: can you all live with that? As with Kww I'm not really endorsing this as I think it's still the "wrong thing", but I think it's the best comprise we are likely to get... Aslo, Gavin, can you explain why you agreed with this when Masem proposed it in the section above, but now don't? What changed?Hobit (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally agreed with Masem approach, because it represents a concise way of wording the prohibition for plot only articles, but providing a temporary licence for plot only articles is not necessary. The phrase " Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary" is such a licence, an is effectively an exemption from WP:V which requires articles to contain coverage that independent of their primary source. I can't imagaine why you would think how this is supposed to work: one part of this version says plot only articles are not allowable and the other says they are. The conflict between is hard to accept, as Misplaced Pages can't cater for a class of articles that don't fit within its framework or policies and guidelines, otherwise we would need to have some sort of editorial board to regulate such articles, even if they were allowed to exist on a temporary basis.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, WP:IMPERFECT implicitly applies to every NOT phrase including PLOT; technically we don't need it. The problem is , as expressed by several no !votes in the RFC, is that PLOT is used to target articles that are works in progress. In the spirit of reaching consensus, it is necessary to reassert that plot-only articles are starting points but not valid final articles and are expected to improve or be merged in time; in what time frame and how to resolve plot-only articles is an exercise left to other policy and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can live with it as an updating of the compromise. I don't think it should be our final word on the matter. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary" is basically an invitiation to spam plot only articles, and it can't stand. You may as well say "Articles about living persons may start with slander" or "Articles may start with orginal research". Are you kidding?--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A plot summary is an acceptable part of an article; on the other hand, slander and original research are never appropriate, thus this is not a valid comparison. Yes, someone could create articles on every episode of a show, but that could happen with or without this statement, and the second half of that statement along with other policies and guidelines will deal with those that are just spamming those out and those that believe they are acting in good faith. The only way to prevent what you are asking is to modify WP:CSD to include plot-only articles, and I'm pretty sure that will never fly. In other words, there is nothing that we can do in NOT to prevent what you're concerned with. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

But plot summary on its own is not acceptable for the same reason as slander or original reseach; it can't be regulated within the frame of Misplaced Pages style and content polices. The distinction between plot only articles and plot summary as part of balance coverage is very different (like a dinner comprised only of salt or a dinner sprinkled with salt), so using this excuse to water down the prohibition is not acceptable. The wording can't conflict between its objective (plot only articles are not allowed) and its implimentation (plot summary only articles are allowed temporarilty). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there's a huge difference. Slander and original research cannot be improved into an article and must be removed on sight. On the other hand, plot summaries can be improved. If your goal here is to try to ban plot-only articles at any time, you're not going to succeed. The goal here is to discourage them as much as possible and suggest alternatives, but WP:NOT cannot prevent the creation of potentially useful material. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the goal was to discourage plot summary in cases where it is very unlikely that the article will ever be substantially more than that. Rd232 17:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Masem, your claim that plot-only articles are not valid final articles is blatantly false. Don't try and pass off your personal opinion as if it were fact. Your view flies in the face of multiple AFDS where editors felt plot-only articles were acceptable. --Pixelface (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say we are in as much agreement as we are likely to get. Masem, if you agree, I think you should propose the edit formally. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see a much stronger demonstration of consensus than just 4 or 5 editors before changing it. Whether that's a new RFC or just a straw poll, I don't know. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I'd say it's in your court. What's the plan? Hobit (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Further, I don't think an article that could normally be edited by anyone with an account really requires an RfC or straw poll. We already have an RfC that shows there is no consensus for this to even be here and thus, per WP:POLICY it should either be removed or tagged as lacking consensus. I don't see what an RfC or straw poll can hope to accomplish at this point beyond what has already been done with the last one. Hobit (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Before we make this and establish this as policy, I want to avoid all the issues with its dubiousness as Pixelface and others have pointed out that the original addition of PLOT had, and make sure that in the current phrasing that it is acceptable. An RFC noting that this wording attempts to address those issues from the previous RFC should be sufficient that as long as agreed to by consensus, the long past disputes over PLOT will no longer matter. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I view this as a stop-gap. If you are asking people to accept this and withdraw all concerns about PLOT even being here, I really don't think you'll find any language that will get consensus. Heck, I can't support that. And given that half the people in the last RfC felt it shouldn't be here, that's a sense of consenous that won't get met. Is that what you are looking for? Hobit (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't viewing it as such; understandably that would be fine, but before changing, I'd like to know what the next step is in the first place. To me, it seems most were looking to a reword based on RFC comments to finalize this, but if this is only a temp step, there's been no talk of what's next. --MASEM (t) 02:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but after we get something I'm going to walk away from this issue: I'm just warn down. If there is another RfC and I notice, I'll !vote to remove PLOT from here. But I want _something_ positive to get done as a result of the RfC before I pack it in. Hobit (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you would like to avoid the issues Masem, but unfortunately for you, you can't. I'm right, you're wrong, and you have put me through absolute hell. WP:NOT#PLOT did not have consensus to be policy when it was initially proposed, and an admin closed an RFC merely 9 days ago where a majority of editors said WP:NOT should not include a section on plot summaries, with the closing admin saying "There is no consensus on whether NOT should include a section on plot summaries or not." Policies must have wide acceptance among editors. So in what world could the current phrasing possibly be acceptable? One would have to ignore that the RFC ever happened.

WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy, which is what I've been trying to tell you for over a year now. And what a long goddamn year it's been. WP:NOT#PLOT has never had consensus to be policy. What is preventing you from understanding that? I am sick and tired of your repeated attempts to plug your ears and bury your head in the sand. You think you can change the outcome of the RFC merely 9 days later, just because you commented in the "Yes" section? I'm sorry, but where exactly did the editors who commented in the "No" section agree to the current wording? And for you to say "the long past disputes over PLOT will no longer matter", you would have to be completely insane, which, now that I think of it, is actually beginning to make a lot of sense to me. Enough is enough. I'll remove WP:NOT#PLOT myself. For the last time. I hope. --Pixelface (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In scanning through the discussion above, I don't think I saw the following point touched on -- how about non-notable episodes of otherwise-notable shows? If 90% of, say, the Star Trek articles have plot summaries with details about reception etc., do we have to delete the articles of the 10% that disappeared without a splash? (Actually, the example I was thinking of, the episode that took place on Memory Alpha, is probably a bad example -- although that's the only memorable thing about that episode, it's passed into fairly wide use...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we're all worn down. If we can get some agreed temporary wording, I suspect a month's break wold be the next step, followed by a review of what happens in that time. If we can't, I dunno. Delete it as no consensus? I'd prefer, though, to have a compromise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Sarek, they don't need to be deleted, but the coverage of their development, critical reception, and legacy should be expanded. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Shoemaker, I have suggested a compromise. If you are unhappy with this wording, please say why and perhaps we can work towards a form of words that is acceptable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I did say why: It completely ignored all previous discussion by coming out much stronger pro-instant-deletion even than the phrasing that started all of this. That's not a compromise, that's a... not sure of the word... landgrab? If you want to compromise, you're going to have to accept that saying that all articles with more plot summaries than real-world information should be deleted on sight, or heavily edited to remove said summaries isn't going to fly. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As for what to do next, I will offer up the option of another RFC (yes, I know, tiring) but with 4 options:

• The revised version to stay in NOT, based on the feedback of the previous RFC to identify the areas that others felt failed the systems, as the option to keep PLOT in NOT. (This option does open for possibly rewordings to improve, but does not ask for a drastic diversion from it.)
• The option to create a new page to house PLOT as a policy, but not in NOT.
• The option to move PLOT to WAF
• The option to completely remove any statement like PLOT from any policy or guideline.

Unlike the previous RFC which didn't really provide for a good followup, the results of this consensus pretty much should be impossible to disagree on interpretation, and thus a direct action can be taken as a result and lay to rest (for at least a month :) any disagreement about PLOT on its outcome. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that What PLOT is meant to be is still uncertain. Is it a deletion policy for articles with too much plot? Does it insist that plot summaries be kept short until real-world material substantially balances it? Or is it simply a statement that articles should seek to move away from being mainly focused on plot summaries as soon as possible? It makes a big difference. If we don't decide what PLOT is, where it's meant to go is meaningless. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In answer to Shoemaker's earlier post, I think you exagerate when you say "all articles with more plot summaries than real-world information should be deleted on sight, or heavily edited to remove said summaries". Masem's wording never suggested this, nor did my amendments. But we could change the wording so that it is less prescriptive:

Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including coverage of its development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works that containing essentially only a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. For more information on writing about fiction, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I feel we are quite close to a compromise. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe I over-reacted. If I might just tweak the wording for grammar and style

Plot-only description of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real-world context of the work, (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting. Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. For more information on writing about fiction, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I've bolded a couple minor changes in meaning. For the record:

• "such as": Some works won't have information on one or more of these; for instance, little can be said of the development of an anonymous work.
• "reasonably concise": In some articles, with lengthy, sourced analysis of the plot, the plot is necessarily longer. See most FAs.
• "plot, characters, and setting": This is probably clearer than "fictional content", while meaning the same thing.
• "literary analysis": Perhaps a little book-centric, but if it's possible to analyse the plot, we should encourage people to do so by all means.

I also rearranged some things for clarity, such as giving real world context before plot, characters and setting, to simplify the sentence structure. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That wording is clear but flexible and has my support. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that I've made a tiny tweak: I had accidentally deleted "legacy" from the list. I also put the list into parentheses, to help readers a little bit more. If you're happy with this, I'm happy.

One possibility instead of "literary analysis" might be "sourced analysis of the fictional elements" (more generic, though a little wordy)Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am good with this as written (without the changes SH just proposed ideally). I don't see the need for an RfC at this time however. If we find language that Gavin, Masem, SH, and I can all live with I think an RfC is not needed. If this weren't a protected article we'd certainly make the change without it. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the language too - however, it would be nice to get a few more hands to confirm it before seeking a protected edit request (and to make this totally legit, even though I could do it, I would rather not be the one to make the edit just to any possible COI issues. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd just request the protected edit if nothing changes in the next 24 hours. I certainly agree you shouldn't do it. I'd say a request to the protecting admin would be the way to go. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, I'm proposing we go with the text in the last box written by SH (but, of course, without the bolding of the added terms). Hobit (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, now that it is no longer protected, I suggest it would be fine (and probably ideal) for Masem to make the change. Hobit (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I know I have contributed nothing here since the WP:FICT era months ago, but I do read - and personally, I like it. — Ched :  ?  21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I already thanked Gavin, but thanks to everyone who was involved. I think we did a fairly good job. Hobit (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I too am glad we worked this out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Nothing was worked out. A majority of editors said this policy should not include a section on plot summaries, so why are those editors being ignored and why are people still trying to rewrite WP:NOT#PLOT when it obviously does not belong here? --Pixelface (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I count 69 no, and 66 yes; not much of a majority (WP:NOT a democracy). Also if there's any sampling bias here, who do you think it favours? Rd232 12:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Please read WP:POLICY. We should not have policies that lack consensus to exist. This one clearly does. Pixelface is in the right, but the current version of NOTPLOT is the best I think that could be achieved. If we actually followed our own policies, NOTPLOT would be long gone. Hobit (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Who said Misplaced Pages was a democracy? Policies must have wide acceptance among editors. Over half of the editors in the straw poll said this policy should not have a section about plot summaries, and WP:NOT#PLOT is about plot summaries. Is that what you call wide acceptance? Regarding bias, I can't say for sure, but I'd say many of the participants are people who are familiar with {{cent}}, or who follow policy talkpages regularly, which I'm guessing inflates the yes numbers. People who write plot-only articles probably don't spend much time in WT space, but people who hate plot-only articles have every motivation to express their support for WP:NOT#PLOT in WT space. --Pixelface (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
              • I've added {{Disputed-section|talk=WP:NOTPLOT replacement}} just above WP:NOTPLOT, as it does not have consensus in this Talk page nor in the poll 2 months ago. Sorry if it's not the most appropriate tag, but it's the only section-level one I could see that did the job.--Philcha (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
                • This is inappropriate to mark it disputed. Yes, the straw poll, if you looked at the numbers, showed a 50/50 split for the question. But that's just the numbers. The responses give much more insight to what editors' concerns with about PLOT in NOT more than just what the numbers gave, and in several cases, they still suggest it should remain in NOT as long as their concern was dealt with (eg identifying that articles may start as plot summaries and shouldn't be summarily deleted as such) Thus, in the preceding discussion, we discussed what those issues were and how to establish a statement for PLOT that would address those issues, and came to a consensus (including the person that started the straw poll) and waited to see if anyone disagreed, and, at least for me, I was going to get an uninvolved admin to consider adding it, but Gavin added it boldly after page project . To me, this is a logical, consensus driven result from the straw poll, everything that we want to come out from discussion of WP policy. If an editor still wants to argue there's no consensus, then we probably need another straw poll to see if the current version has consensus. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • The only way that marking WP:NOT#PLOT disputed could be "inappropriate" is the fact that removal is the proper edit to make. The only course of action is removal. Period. WP:NOT#PLOT has been marked disputed multiple times, so what's different now? What changed? Do you call 50/50 "consensus"? That is no consensus. There is no consensus for this policy to address plot summaries. And the majority of people said this policy should not address plot summaries. I'm not surprised at all you want to ignore the numbers, because sticking your head in the sand is your favorite tactic.
                    
                    If people felt that this policy should have a section about plot summaries, they would have commented (along with you) under the "yes" section, but the majority said no. And as long as you're painting people under the "no" section with a broad brush ("they still suggest it should remain in NOT as long as their concern was dealt with"), care to quote anyone? Cite anyone specifically? Have any of them come forward and said their concern was dealt with? Should I generalize people's comments under the "yes" section? Should I say that you suggested it should not remain in NOT because you gave no reason under the "yes" section? I can make up stuff too. But I won't. Stop being ridiculous.
                    
                    Where's the evidence that the concerns of the people under the "no" section were dealt with with the rewrite? How could their concerns be dealt with when they said this policy should not have a section about plot summaries? From that, how do you possibly conclude "Okay, let's just write a section about plot summaries for you then."? Enough already. Rewriting WP:NOT#PLOT is absolutely not a "logical, consensus driven result from the straw poll." Removal is. No consensus, no policy. Rewriting WP:NOT#PLOT after that straw poll is totally illogical, totally nonsensical, and a waste of time. I'd remove WP:NOT#PLOT myself, but I know that you would only revert me, again . 15 months of this garbage from you... Remember this?
                    
                    And why have a new straw poll for the current wording, when you simply ignored the last straw poll? If you're just going to ignore the next straw poll, what's the point? --Pixelface (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So what is your proposal, Pilcha? If you don't have a proposal, you are spitting in the wind. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the default is that, since WP:NOTPLOT clearly does not have consensus, it should be ignored in the short term, and in the longer term be either modified to a form that obtains consensus or deleted. --Philcha (talk)23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this policy is disputed because you make a bald assertion that it should be ignored. Why should it be ignored, exactly? What modification do you wish to make? You can see all the discussions that resulted in the current version. What is is that you object to? I have removed the disputed tag in the absence of any proposition. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, you are claiming that the current WP:NOTPLOT has consensus. The burden of proof lies on you. At present the available evidence indicates that WP:NOTPLOT does not have consensus. Hence you need to produce convincing evidence for consensus. I am reinstating the "disputed" banner. I suggest you read WP:EDITWAR. --Philcha (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins has asked me to state my own views. I thought I'd already done that, but this discussion has gone one for so long that I've forgotten a lot of it - or perhaps it was in a previous discussion on this Talk page. So:

• WP:NOTPLOT does not have consensus, and should be made inoperative until it gains consensus.
• Rigid application of anything resembling the current WP:NOTPLOT would be bad for Misplaced Pages's long-term future:
  • Most fiction-related articles start as plot summaries. There are good reasons for that:
    • Many are written by newbies. Most WP editors stick around for only 2-3 years. Biting newbies will drive away potential good editors, but will do much less to drive away POV-pushers and even less to deter vandals. So any guideline or policy that amounts to a threat of deletion for plot-only articles will both make WP stagnate and make it more vulnerable to POV-pushers and vandals.
    • There's little point in adding independent commentary if there's no indication of what the commentary is about. Adding commentary first would create a book of cuttings, not an article.
• Even those that later reach GA or FA remain sub- or start-class for a long time, until someone makes a concentrated effort to upgrade them. Any guideline that sets or implies deadlines would be harmful, by killing potential future GAs and FAs.
• The same applies to many non-fiction articles, most obviously to articles about non-fiction books but also to e.g. scientific theories - they all start with summaries of content, and for the same reasons. It's hard to see why there should be a fiction-specific guideline that condemns articles with only content summaries.
• The revised version of WP:NOTPLOT should:
  • Be a guideline rather than a policy, so that it is subject to WP:IAR.
  • Avoid threats of rapid deletion or any explicit or implied setting of deadlines.

PS I do not expect that the views I've just expressed are consensus. That does not change the fact that WP:NOTPLOT is not consensus. --Philcha (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nearly every point you state above, save for the non-fiction aspect, are all potential issues with pretty much every content-based NOT phrase in the present policy - article may start as guides or catalogs or whatnot and end up getting improved, and thus, implicitly buried here at NOT is the fact that improvement over deletion is called for. But I see no one running around calling for getting rid of NOTGUIDE or any other aspect. The only reason that PLOT is "special" is that it is the most visible of NOT cases. But regardless, that's why the above section talked about a satisfactory rewording that removed any call for deletion and instead recognized the points you stated above - articles may start as plot-only, and that in the long-term, improvements or merging should be done. Most of this language is fluff given the implicit nature of NOT, but being explicit is what meets all these points. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you've just said. My main reservation about your proposed wording was about the ambiguity of "should", which deletionists will interpret as "must". And I think WP:NOTPLOT a should be a guideline rather than a policy, so that it is subject to WP:IAR. --Philcha (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, same logic, every content phrase in NOT should thus be a guideline for the same reasons; the only reason PLOT is an issue here is the visibility of fiction. IAR applies to policy too - that's why "must" is rarely used in policy pages save for when WP's wellbeing is at stake (namely, BLP and non-free content). Editors that regularly seek to delete articles citing only PLOT without attempts to improve or work towards improve is an issue that needs to be dealt with outside of WP:NOT. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents, as previously stated, is that NOT#PLOT lacks consensous. I feel that the current wording is a significant improvement, but given that the RfC asked if NOT#PLOT should even exist and a (very slim) majority said no, it shouldn't be part of policy. I'm not going to be involved at this point; it was way too much time and stress to get what we got. I do think the the exact tag should be changed: I believe there is one for policy rather than a "factual dispute". But I think tagging is the least we can do given the wording of WP:POLICY (If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus; possibilities include silence on the issue and acknowledgement that editors disagree on the point.) I'm going to take this page off my watch list as I really don't want to spend time on this again. If anyone wants my further input please go to my talk page. Hobit (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Every policy is open to challenge, and from that point of view is disputed. But unless there is a working alternative put before us in the form of proposal, we can't address the source of the dispute, nor resolve it. Without a proposal, this tag little more than trying to make a point. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I urge you to look beyond the flat out numbers and consider what was said in expanded statements. Several "no" said "it should be policy except it has *this* aspect", which is what the revised wording attempted to address. There are some "no"s that are never going to be met while it remains in NOT, but many can be addressed. This is why I suggested, before adding it back, another straw poll to reassert consensus on the new wording with the understanding if that did not have consensus, we'd drop it back to WAF. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been hashed out? It seemed like there was a long and dramatic debate over this entree and that it was resolved with a reworked wording that satisfied outspoken partisans on either side of the issue. This is the definition of consensus: working out a mutually acceptable solution rather than relying on polarizing straw polls. Once that has happened, we can't just have one editor coming in and slapping disputed tags on the material singlehandedly.

Philcha, its not really productive to keep rehashing an old straw poll that was taken before an honest search for consensus was made. Please see Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I quote: "The ultimate goal of any article discussion is consensus, and a straw poll is helpful only if it helps editors actually reach true consensus." Quoting further, "article straw polls should not be used prematurely. If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming." Finally, "Because straw polling cannot create consensus, polling is rarely helpful in the development of policies or guidelines, and frequently counterproductive." The straw poll did not help editors reach a true consensus; in fact, the present consensus was reached in spite of the straw poll, and clearly after it was taken. Further, the purpose to which and manner in which the straw poll was taken were clearly not consistent with virtually any of the principles in the above guideline.

In a nutshell, please stop trying to use an outdated and flawed straw poll to justify tagging this entree. Misplaced Pages operates by consensus, not by polling, and a (at least tentative) consensus has been reached in the present wording. Locke9k (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. No large organization of human beings makes decisions by the process that WP calls “consensus.” No government does, and the United nations does not. The Supreme Court does not. Juries are small bodies, and even they deadlock, so consensus is not a realistically achievable goal for all cases even at this small size (and in any case, juries operate by repeated internal polling, so “consensus” for juries means only universal polling agreement, and is not the same thing as the term is used on Misplaced Pages). Nor do any professional societies or large businesses with boards of directors operate by consensus. (Nor does WMF itself in its own board-level decision-making, if you’re looking for denial-of-reality). Nor (more internally for en.wiki) does ArbCom. Going back to the “real” world, nor does the military, or any large academic organization, either publicly or privately funded. Not the American Bar Association or the American Medical Society or the United Association of Plumbers and Pipe-fitters. If you have some large organization of human beings which you think operates by consensus, state your example.

What about Misplaced Pages? Well, it doesn’t actually operate by consensus, except in very small decisions involving two or three and never more than a handful of editors. It wants to. That is its ideal. Some people think it does. However, I’ve been here for 3+ years and seen many a large edit war during my 14,000 edits (see WP:LAME if you like this kind of thing; though these are mostly not things I've been directly involved in). Here, in any case, is what I see happening when many people are involved in any issue: 1) there is a lot of arguing, 2) this goes on until most people on one side are exhausted and give up, leaving the diehards. 3) These square off to see which side has the most wiki-juice (number of involved administrators and their supporters). Then the side with the most juice makes the changes it wants, and if 4) the other side reverts, they are accused of editwaring, breaking “consensus” and become subject to the many sacred accusations which have names like SOCK, CIVIL, COI, AGF, 3RR, EDITWAR, and so on. This gives some involved administrator a reason to block them, so they can no longer participate in the argument. Going to dispute resolution or RfC only results in more arguing of the same type. The worst edit wars where nobody can see to block enough of one side to settle the issue, go to ArbCom where consensus is not the mechanism, but rather arbitrators vote, and more often than not, disputants are topic banned, or banned altogether. That is not consensus. So that’s what REALLY happens on Misplaced Pages-- it's NOT a consensus much of the time. In case you didn’t know. SBHarris 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Locke9k, how can you say "it was resolved with a reworked wording that satisfied outspoken partisans on either side of the issue."? Where's the evidence it's a "mutually acceptable solution"? And there has been long and dramatic debate about WP:NOT#PLOT ever since Hiding wrongfully added it to this policy after there was no consensus for it to be policy. If the majority of people said this policy should not have a section about plot summaries, how could any rewording be a "mutually acceptable solution"?

Once it's been determined that there is no consensus for this policy to address plot summaries, which the straw poll did, the first person in the "yes" section can't just come up with yet another new wording with five other people and say "It's fixed now." The straw poll showed that there is no consensus for this policy to address plot summaries at all. Period. And there is no "present consensus" on the wording of WP:NOT#PLOT. You can't just pretend the straw poll didn't happen. Policies must have consensus to be policy. WP:NOT#PLOT does not, and it never has. Policies must have wide acceptance among editors. WP:NOT#PLOT does not.

In a nutshell, the straw poll showed that there is no consensus for this policy to address plot summaries. You said yourself that Misplaced Pages operates by consensus. Masem has been resisting any and all efforts to remove WP:NOT#PLOT from this policy for 15 months now, and enough is enough is enough. --Pixelface (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, I certainly accept the argument that consensus is an ideal that is often not properly put into practice. However, the edit warring and so on that you describe is exactly a result of people not honestly seeking consensus. I agree that straw polls can be useful to determine consensus, but I don't agree that it is almost ever valuable to open an RFC with an immediate straw poll, particularly one framed in a super polarizing yes-or-no way. The purpose of an RFC is to encourage editors to discuss the issue and seek consensus, not to simply solicit more votes on one side or another of an already-polarized debate. A straw poll should be conducted after discussion has occurred, or alternately the RFC should be formatted in a views/proposals setup where editors can contributed views and proposals and others can endorse them. Now that a new wording has been developed which addresses some of the issues raised some of the objectors in the straw poll, we have a new situation. More progress of this kind could possibly be achieved by honest consensus seeking rather than by polling.

On a side note, there is also no consensus to allow pure plot summaries on WP. This is the sort of case where by removing the material from policy, we would be defacto setting a new policy (of allowing more plot summary), which by your own argument also does not have consensus.

Finally, I'll note that I am not particularly a partisan of either side in this dispute. There are pages of almost entire plot summary and in-world content that I enjoy quite a lot and that I am inclined to feel benefit WP in some ways. On the other hand, I sympathize and somewhat agree with arguments to the effect that this sort of extensive in-universe content does not belong in an encyclopedia. In a essence, I will not be particularly devastated if the outcome of this debate goes either way. As someone invested in the improvement of Misplaced Pages, I am just concerned by the polarized nature of this debate: moderate voices seem to get shouted down by partisans of either side, and resolution processes get framed in a way that leads to more polarization rather than resolution.

Remember, there is no binding content resolution here. The very straw poll you put so much credence in shows an almost exactly split result. The only way you are going to get any progress is by reaching out to people on the other side and trying to find some kind of middle ground or more broadly acceptable proposal. Locke9k (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

When the community is split right down the middle on an issue, you cannot make a policy out of that issue. Policies are standards that have community consensus. Policies are standards that have wide acceptance among editors. When it comes to policies, consensus is not merely an ideal, it's a requirement. No consensus, no policy. I've written 33 reasons why WP:NOT#PLOT cannot be policy, and the recently closed straw poll is yet another reason. There is no consensus that this policy should address plot summaries, so it can't. WP:NOT#PLOT has no consensus to be policy. So it cannot be policy. Can you honestly look at the straw poll and say it indicates that the community feels WP:NOT#PLOT is necessary?

There have been reams and reams of discussion about WP:NOT#PLOT on this talkpage ever since Hiding hastily added it to this policy page nearly 3 years ago when there was no consensus for it be policy . You cannot claim consensus where none exists, and you cannot force a policy on the community in the absence of consensus. If you want to look at all the threads about WP:NOT#PLOT on this talkpage and all the edits to WP:NOT#PLOT and conclude that people are not honestly seeking consensus, I would disagree. I look at them and I think they show that consensus on this issue is simply not possible. And the straw poll was more evidence of that. If consensus has not developed after a reasonable time period (and I think three years qualifies as more than reasonable), that means a proposal has failed. If the sentiment is neutral, or unlikely to improve, that also means a proposal has failed. WP:NOT#PLOT is a failure. And it was a failure ever since it was initially proposed.

The "polarization" you're talking about was created by Hiding himself, when he added WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy page after there was no consensus for it. This policy either addresses plot summaries or it doesn't, and the straw poll showed that the majority of people said this policy should not. A new wording has been typed up, but what issues does the wording supposedly address? When I see a straw poll where the majority of people say this policy should not address plot summaries, and then I see a small group of people who think it should address plot summaries writing yet another section about plot summaries, that does not look like they're "honestly seeking consensus" to me. It looks to me like they're simply ignoring what they don't want to hear, and trying to force other people off the cliff with them.

You say there's no consensus to allow pure plot summaries on Misplaced Pages. Maybe you're right. That's fine. There doesn't have to be. This policy is a list of things Misplaced Pages is not, not a list of everything Misplaced Pages allows. Nobody has to obtain consensus before creating an article. Misplaced Pages allows anyone to edit, and they can create an article on any topic whatsoever. That doesn't mean that the article will remain on Misplaced Pages though. But maybe you're wrong. Over 1/3 of the articles on Misplaced Pages fall under Category:Fiction — over 1 million articles . And I'll bet that most of them contain plot summaries. The category is full of articles like Baldrick (created October 2, 2001), and Faber (created October 24, 2005) and Julia (created June 2, 2005) — long before WP:NOT#PLOT came to be. If a specific editor feels that "extensive in-universe content does not belong in an encyclopedia", they're entitled to their opinion. They are not, however, entitled to enforce their opinion upon everyone else as if it was a code of law. When you acknowledge that Misplaced Pages is the "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit, you must also accept that Misplaced Pages has redefined the concept. And Misplaced Pages has articles about all kinds of topics that other encyclopedias do not. Like Fictional universe for example (which has no citations by the way). There is no article about "in-universe." What's the difference between "in-universe content" and descriptions of a story or character? How much "in-universe content" is in The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?

Misplaced Pages existed for 5 1/2 years without WP:NOT#PLOT. And it was only proposed after this thread at WT:COMICS, and this thread about comic book story arcs started by Hiding at WP:WAF. And if you'll notice, most of those "problem" articles noted in that WT:COMICS thread are still around, over 3 years later.

Speaking of WP:WAF, Hiding marked it a guideline and then closed the straw poll to make it a guideline (which he participated in, and where he gave his support). Admins are not supposed to close discussions they've participated in. 25 minutes later, DJ Clayworth expressed concerns about how widely known the straw poll to make WAF a guideline was. For those reasons, WP:WAF's guideline status is also dubious (not to mention all the plugging of for-profit websites founded by Jimbo Wales it does). That was 13 days before Hiding proposed WP:NOT#PLOT, and he cited WP:WAF in his proposal. But there was no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy after he proposed it.

At AFD, sometimes plot-only articles are kept, sometimes plot-only articles are merged, sometimes plot-only articles are deleted, sometimes articles like this, sourced entirely to comic books, are snow kept. From that you cannot say that "Current consensus is that articles are not simply plot summaries." The article Fictional history of Spider-Man survived two AFDs . The article Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) also survived two AFDs . If someone nominated those articles for deletion tomorrow, and everyone who participated in the straw poll commented, do you think there would be consensus to delete those articles or not? I say there would not. Or would they be deleted in an act of bureaucratic nonsense, like Plot of Les Misérables and History of For Better or For Worse, articles that were deleted by admins simply because WP:NOT#PLOT was present on this policy page, even though there was no consensus to delete those articles at AFD?

Removing WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT would absolutely not set a new policy. Plot summaries are allowed on Misplaced Pages, and many plot-only articles are clearly also allowed on Misplaced Pages. By removing the section on plot summaries from this policy, you'd simply be honoring the straw poll where a majority of users said this policy should not have a section on plot summaries. You can say the straw poll is not binding, but policies must have wide acceptance among editors. Did the straw poll demonstrate that? It demonstrated the opposite. How could anyone look at the straw poll and say that WP:NOT#PLOT has community consensus? The answer is it doesn't, not in theory, nor in practice. It doesn't now, and it never did.

If I proposed a section for this policy that said "Misplaced Pages articles should not be...Summaries of abstract concepts", and a straw poll showed an "almost exactly split result", would it be proper of me to then add that text to this policy page and when people object I just leave it on the policy page and rewrite it and rewrite it and rewrite it and refuse any and all attempts to remove it for years? Policies are not based on stalling, or feet dragging, or burying your head in the sand, or plugging your ears, or closing your eyes, or denial. They are based on wide acceptance. Policies are not based on middle ground. They are based on common ground. Policies are based on consensus. And WP:NOT#PLOT has none. WP:NOT#PLOT is an illegitimate policy, and it cannot be policy. Until there's consensus that this policy should address plot summaries, along with consensus on how that should be done, WP:NOT#PLOT has no business being here. End of story. --Pixelface (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that the straw poll was not conducted in a manner that was conducive towards finding consensus. I strongly feel that it was polarizing and tended to push editors into checking one absolute box or the other rather than striving towards a "common ground" as you put it. On that basis, I do not believe that it should be given as much weight as you afford it. However, you have made some other good points, particularly regarding the fact that there are many longstanding articles that are largely plot. Given that policy is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, this seems to me to be a particularly strong argument against inclusion here. Of course, its not an absolute argument, since it is possible for a consensus to form to overturn existing articles. I'll also note that I don't think that the lack of consensus-seeking is limited to opponents of this section; I believe you are correct in your statement that there is stonewalling on the other side as well. I also agree that there is something to your argument that there is not necessarily a clear demarcation between 'in universe' and 'real world' content. However, this alone would not necessarily preclude a policy statement on the issue, as there are plenty of areas in Misplaced Pages with serious demarcation problems (see the many science / pseudoscience debates for example). In any case, inaccordance with all I've just said, I'll definitely think over your arguments more and try to see where things can go productively from here so that some kind of progress can be made

In the meantime, I think the following exercise would be helpful, and I have address Gavin Collins with the same question below. What, in your opinion, does the present section say that is not actually said elsewhere? We clearly have policies against material that does not establish notability, and we have policies against material that is not verifiable from WP:VS, among many others. Do not those policies and guidelines have the cumulative effect of prohibiting most 'plot only' coverage of a fictional work? What, if anything, does the present section prohibit or require that is not cumulatively prohibited or required by those guidelines? Maybe if you could clarify that it would help me understand your strong opposition to inclusion of the section in question.Locke9k (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT, you'll learn more about why I'm strongly opposed to WP:NOT#PLOT. And I never would have imagined that 145 people would comment on WP:NOT#PLOT in 5 weeks. I've never seen so many people comment on WP:NOT#PLOT before, so I do place a lot of weight on the recent straw poll you started. For comparison, in the initial proposal thread from June 2006, 12 people commented (and it was split down the middle). If WP:NOT#PLOT had consensus to be policy, if it had wide acceptance, if it had community consensus, if it was a standard that people felt everyone should follow, a majority of people would not have said that this policy should not have a section about plot summaries. But a majority of people did just that. It's impossible to find common ground on how WP:NOT#PLOT should be worded when you can't even get people to agree that this policy page should address plot summaries.

Perhaps one could look at WP:WAF and WP:N and WP:V and think they have a cumulative effect of prohibiting 'plot only' articles, but that assumes that all the text on those pages actually has community-wide consensus. Amcaja wrote WAF based on User:Uncle G/Describe this universe , WAF was marked a style guideline by Hiding on June 16, 2006 after a week-long straw poll where under 20 people voiced their opinions, WP:N was rewritten by Radiant! in September 2006 and then marked a guideline by Radiant! all by himself after 16 days and then he edit-warred over the guideline tag (saying such things as "We don't vote on proposals" — apparently forgetting that he created Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal as well as several of the sub-proposals and then said it was "open for voting", proposals that people voted on and then some were added to Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion (often with a note about the votes), a page which Radiant! marked a policy), Hiding added the first summary of the subject-specific notability guidelines to WP:N (which then evolved into the "GNG" after Uncle G put his "PNC" onto the page), and the line about topics needing third-party sources in WP:V was proposed by Hiding in April 2006 because he was having an editwar over an article he nominated for deletion (which was deleted). And Hiding proposed WP:NOT#PLOT in June 2006, 3 weeks after marking WAF a guideline. If there's a "cumulative effect" with WAF, N, and V, it's because four editors manufactured it out of thin air.

Oh, and Misplaced Pages has no notability policy. There is no requirement that topics must be "notable". Misplaced Pages:Notability is a "guideline", despite Gavin.collins's proposal to make it a policy. The policy Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy does say (at WP:DEL#REASON) "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):" ..."Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" — but that's just a longwinded, flowery, overly complicated way of saying that many topics have been nominated for deletion for being "non-notable" (or "nn") and many people have voted (yes, voted) to delete saying "non-notable" and many of those topics on Misplaced Pages no longer have articles after admins deleted them. If it was being descriptive, it would say that articles about topics that editors feel are "not-notable" are often deleted, or that "non-notable" is a common reason people give to delete an article. Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy has had 1646 revisions as of now. The oldest version available is from November 29, 2001. The word "notability" didn't appear on that page until October 18, 2005, when Radiant! added it. The word was removed on October 20, 2005 by Kappa (probably because most of those pages were not called "notability guidelines" at that time). It didn't appear on that page again until April 20, 2006, when Kaisershatner added that articles "that fail the criteria for notability or that lack sources or context) can be placed into Category:Proposed deletion." It was removed on June 10, 2006 by Causa sui, saying "notability is not a deletion criterion" (possibly a reference to speedy deletion criteria, which "notability" was not). It didn't appear again until December 11, 2006, when RSLitman expanded the titles of several guidelines. Besides vandalism and page-blanking, the word "notability" has remained on that policy page until the latest version available as of as of June 20, 2009 — June 17, 2009.

Radiant! appears in the top 20 editors of 62 policies and guidelines, more than anyone else on Misplaced Pages. And this is the guy who marked Misplaced Pages:Avoid instruction creep a guideline for crying out loud. He's edited under 2,900 articles. Misplaced Pages currently has over 1,000 times more articles than that, over 2.9 million. Who is he to give advice on anything?

Why does Misplaced Pages have notability guidelines? Because some editor by the name of Jiy made a proposal in December 2005 to rename several inclusion guidelines "notability" guidelines in order to have a "common naming scheme." And a grand total of four people supported the move. That's it. There was no big decision by the community. It was one editor renaming pages in project space. And people take this stuff as a given. It's asinine.

I don't think there's a cumulative effect from policy against 'plot only' articles. I think one can write about any subject in Category:Characters of Les Misérables verifiably, fairly, and without using unpublished opinion — all by using the novel itself (and the musical if one wants). If you summarize a novel, you are giving a plot summary. An article about a fictional character will contain a plot summary. As seen in several featured articles (The Empire Strikes Back, Quatermass and the Pit, Casablanca, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pattern Recognition, etc), an editor can summarize a story directly from the fictional work, and the fictional work is the implicit source. Misplaced Pages does have a policy that information must be verifiable, but everything in the Cosette article is verifiable. If you want to get lost in the details of what Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, and Misplaced Pages:No original research say from day to day, and focus on the letter and ignore the spirit, I'm sure you could find several sentences that say the way those featured articles do it is "wrong." But Misplaced Pages is not a moot court.

If, like you say, that other policies and guidelines have a cumulative effect of prohibiting most 'plot only' articles, then why is WP:NOT#PLOT necessary at all? If that's the case, it's completely superfluous. If WP:NOT#PLOT is meant to prevent editors from creating plot-only articles, it's useless, since nobody is required to read any of Misplaced Pages's 300+ policies and guidelines before creating an article. And if they did read all 300+ policies and guidelines before creating an article, they'd probably be too confused to do anything. When it comes to policies and guidelines, the inmates are running the asylum, and the tone is usually set by the first inmate in the door.

On April 10, 2009, you changed WP:NOT#PLOT to link to the guideline Misplaced Pages:How to write a plot summary. Do you know how that became a guideline? The person who wrote it marked it a guideline immediately after "rolling it out", that was opposed, then he tagged it a guideline again. With people marking their own proposals as "guidelines" and with over 250 guidelines on Misplaced Pages, the term is beginning to lose all meaning.

What does the current version of WP:NOT#PLOT say that is not actually said elsewhere? I think it's a bad idea writing policies based on other policies and guidelines. Writing policies based on what other policies and guidelines say is like a bad game of telephone. It's a horrible feedback loop. Imagine if Misplaced Pages articles were written based on what other articles (with no citations) said. When it comes to articles, people can request references and look at the references and verify that yes, the reference really does say that. How do you back up bare assertions on a policy or guideline, written by complete strangers on the Internet? --Pixelface (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that there's no consensus for any form of NOTPLOT at this time. Why don't we just remove it and put in some version when there is a consensus? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what Pixelface and others forget is that plot only articles fail all Misplaced Pages's core policies. You can apply any of them to plot only articles; like other random stuff there is no rationale for keeping the way they are.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

While there does exist consensus on certain aspects of covering fiction, there obviously isn't consensus for keeping PLOT in NOT. Why don't we take it out for a bit, and let people work on a consensus to put it back in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Because if you read through the rest of this thread, you will see that there is agreement on the current wording, which is the current consensus. If you have alternative wording, then do please put it forward for discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The vote showed there was no consensus. Just because a few editors after the vote think they can agree on something doesn't change the larger vote. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No consensus for what? To give plot only articles an exemption from WP:V and other content policies? No dice. There is just too many guidelines and policies that prohibit plot only articles for a variety or reasons. The consensus at policy level is for it to stay . --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that, and maybe it's true, but there is not consensus on a NOT#PLOT being in NOT. It should be taken out, and then we can work on whatever plot related stuff should be in NOT, if any. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are fogetting that all the prohibitions on content are contained in this policy. Instead of saying what Misplaced Pages is, it is easier to say what it is not, which effectively sets the boundry between the content that is or is not allowed in Misplaced Pages. Plot only articles fall outside that boundry because the existing framework of policies and guidelines can't be applied to them. So it makes sense to keep it here, with all the other stuff that has the same problem. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it does make sense, but it doesn't have consensus, and policies should not contain statements that don't have consensus. It should be removed, and consensus should be found for what it should say. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to give plot only articles an exemption from Misplaced Pages content policies, so the prohibition must stay. There is no consensus for either the disputed tag, so that should go. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is no consensus then the whole section on plot needs to go. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to explain for what reason, it is not simply enough to say "it has not got concensus". Why do you want this policy removed? Make a proposal.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, I'm not clear what you mean by saying that removing the section from this page would create an "exemption" for fiction only articles. As you have pointed out, there are many other policies and guidelines that would potentially apply against a plot only article that would in no way be limited simply by removal of this section. For example, if a plot only article was not verifiable from WP:RS an editor could challenge unverified material and remove it. If a plot only article did not meet notability, then it could be deleted on that basis. These rules would apply whether or not notplot was included in this policy. As you have seen above, I have argued for working towards some consensus wording here. However, what is the crucial prohibition that you feel this section adds that is not covered by other policies and guidelines? Maybe if you would answer that question in a straightforward way it would help resolve what the actual dispute is. If the entry doesn't actually add something new, it seems that since Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, there is no clear reason to be fighting to keep the same limitations in two places. Locke9k (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If plot only articles don't meet WP:V because they don't cite any reliable secondary sources, then they fall into the category of stuff that does not belong in Misplaced Pages, of which plot only articles is only one type of stuff that is prohibited. All of the other sections in WP:NOT fail one or more of Misplaced Pages content polices, which is why they are all here: to specifically disallow them, just in case someone came up with the idea they should be included using the one or more of the arguments for inclusion listed in Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The bottom line is that there is not a single good reason to keep any of the content prohibited in WP:NOT, since it all fails Misplaced Pages's content polcies one way or another. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that there would be no technical difference in what is allowed in WP regarding plot summaries if this section was removed. The effect of the section in your view is simply to restate general policy in a more specific way to help ensure that people don't violate it in this case. Is that a correct assessment of your view? Locke9k (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) I take a rather different view of this than Gavin. The NOT#PLOT applies to a "fictional topic". That means we should expand articles on a fictional topic that are only plot or else consider more appropriate places to put them. A topic is not the same as an article - a topic may have one or more articles associated with it as support (a view I know Gavin doesn't support, but is necessary as a compromise between inclusion and deletion). These sub-articles that are part of a fictional topic coverage (such as character and episode lists, or the articles that Pixelface references) are sometimes necessary due to WP:SIZE issues. These are appropriate places to merge in content from articles on individual topics (such as specific characters) that have no chance of being improved beyond a reiteration of the plot. But this is not the place to put this particular part of the advice - that's over in WAF. The core part of NOT#PLOT, in general that a topic should be more than just plot summary, is a necessary piece of information - we need to provide more context for a fictional work than just saying "here's what it is about" - similar advice for all other aspects of NOT#IINFO. In other words, there are correct time and places for "plot-only articles", just that we should not be having "plot-only topics".

Reviewing the comments in the straw poll, there were two major responses:

• "Plot summaries are a valid part of WP" - that is, the implication that by having NOT#PLOT, plot summaries would be banned - which is not what the statement of what PLOT originally said nor its revised version. No one is saying we can't have plot summaries, and in fact recognize that as a necessary part of the coverage of fiction.
• "NOT#PLOT is used to delete articles in progress" - that is, a strict reading of the former version of NOT#PLOT and WP:DP means that a nascent article on fiction which 99% of the time starts with a plot summary can be readily deleted because of this. Though everything in NOT should be taken with an "Improve before deletion" (per WP:BEFORE), a good number were concerned this would be abused, so the wording was changed to strongly encourage improvement and merging instead of deletion and noting that plot summaries are usually the first signs of life for a new fiction article.

So yes, while the straw poll (which morphed more to an RFC) showed a very tiny fraction of majority that said "no", I think what they were saying "no" to got lost in the shuffle (at the same time, this could have happened with "yes" votes too); thus, despite we don't use simple majorities to decide policy, this was just too close to make a decision one way or another about it. I have no problem considering the section still in dispute as opposed to saying it is either to stay or to remove, and thus why I encouraged another poll on the newly proposed wording to determine that a version that addressed a majority of comments, was acceptable or not, and noting that if that clearly failed, then I would not argue any farther and move PLOT to WAF. That's my point in going forward, making sure that the poll clearly says "is this wording acceptable for PLOT to be a part of NOT policy". --MASEM (t) 17:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A second RFC might be helpful at some point. However, I'll ask that anyone hold off for a bit on creating one just yet. I think before doing so it would be helpful to work together to find a mutually acceptable wording for the RFC. I also think some more discussion first is appropriate to clarify what the exact differences in position are. I am still not 100% clear one what everyone thinks this section is saying (or should be saying) that is not said elsewhere in guidelines/policy already. I'm waiting for responses in the discussion above from a few active participants. Maybe if we can get really clear answers from everyone on that question we could even improve the section wording slightly prior to an RFC and can sharped the RFC wording to be quite clear. I personally agree with the distinction you have made, Masem - I think the topic vs article distinction is key. However, in the interest of moving things forward, it might be helpful if you would also explictly state the answer to my above question - what is new / different in this section relative to other policies/guidelines requiring such things as notability and reliable sources? Is it your position that some pure plot summary topics may actually meet notability and reliable sources, and that such hypothetical topics should nevertheless be deleted?Locke9k (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a key line in WP:V which Gavin pointed to: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. Let's assume that's fixed, and that it's clear that it's applying to a topic - whether the article is the main article of the topic or an appropriate sub-article of the topic.

It is completely possible that for some works of fiction (for purposes of example, an episode of a modern television series), one can write an standalone article on that fiction topic using primary third-party sources works that simply describe the fiction's plot in detail, in addition to the actual work itself. Such an article is perfectly acceptable via WP:V. (WP:N technically applies here, but I'm sticking to the policy level) No other policy can directly apply. So the question is, if one can exhaust all sources and only develop a fiction article that is its own topic and that is adequately sourced to a third party but goes no farther beyond plot details (and basic factual details of the work such as publication date), is this acceptable? From the way we treat these as well as articles on garage bands, web sites, and the like where no demonstration of importance is made and thus are material for CSD, then yes, we do not accept these. As no other policy calls this out, then NOT#PLOT seems to fit that need. I'm not suggesting a new CSD (nor do I think WP would ever put such a case in), just that there are comparisons between those that says that this is not meant to unfairly deal with fiction compared to any other topic; we want topics to demonstrate their importance to us.

If you add notability to this, that changes the picture - the requirement of secondary sources is in line with adding context per PLOT. However, I'm hesistant to allow WP:N to assert this, partially as it's a guideline (meaning people with IAR a lot with it) and that I personally believe it needs a significant overall to meet with this topic/article dichotomy - not that the GNG goes away, just that it's more than just the GNG (but this is glacier-timeline change so don't expect anything soon). Simply stated, WP:N is weaker than NOT, and I believe from what I've seen, this plot-only topic issue is a general caveat across WP and strong enough to be in NOT. Again, I'm willing to put out another RFC to affirm the newly current wording (the one that is described above in this section that includes changes that reflect the straw poll responses) to make sure that this is clearly the case. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If there's another RfC, it should:

• Present all the options, including scrapping NOTPLOT.
• Explicitly ask whether NOTPLOT should be sufficient grounds for deleting an article, if it passes the AfD test of "can be made notable".
• Also ask whether NOTPLOT should be sufficient grounds for forcibly merging an article, if isormation is likely to be lost in the process, e.g. if the "receiving" is or is likley to become so long that information will be lost. --Philcha (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If we were to do an RFC, I would have two questions:

1) Do you agree or disagree with the current statement of PLOT as part of NOT policy (barring any small changes to its text)

2) Given you disagree with #1, what should be done with PLOT?

a) Complete rewrite but remain a policy in NOT or elsewhere

b) Move to guideline WAF (or elsewhere) with possible rewrites

c) Remove it altogether

The questions of deletion and merging are really beyond NOT and PLOT and more matters with other policy/guidelines (like WP:DP). These two questions would settle the dispute right off the bat. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I think if we do a new RFC we should use the more open "opinion / proposal" format that has been on display in many of the RFCs posted on Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion lately (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction for a relevant example of this format). Let anyone who wants to put a proposal on the table do so, and let other editors sign their support for that proposal. That should allow a pretty clear tally of support while at the same time not shoehorning editors into predetermined categories if they would like to go in a different direction. To make things fair, I suggest that we would set a predetermined time for the RFC to go up so anyone active in this discussion can have a proposal ready to post at almost the same time. As I have before, I will volunteer myself to create the intro for the RFC as I believe I have demonstrated myself to be a centrist in this debate, hopefully avoiding any questions of the fairness of the RFC wording. However, as before, I think some more time for discussion before beginning an RFC would be prudent. Locke9k (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not stop a larger RFC like that but I would caution against one, only because 1) we've had at least one RFC before this straw poll to discuss it, and 2) most involved editors know all the issues, we need a point of decision here to put this to rest once and for all - at least, to the point if it should stay in NOT or not. The current version is a remedy from the straw poll results, so I don't think spending time to work out alternate wordings or the like is going to produce much more fruitful solutions.

I'll also point out that at an offshoot page from WT:FICT that I've recommended that we really need a more holistic determination of how fiction is handled. To that end, how PLOT is dealt with may be an issue, but it shouldn't be treated otherwise as a separate piece; it goes hand it hand with notability and other factors. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm more interested in alternative proposals other than wording changes, such as the one I outline below for moving coverage of plot to a different, briefer place within WP:NOT. To my knowledge that sort of idea hasn't been thoroughly discussed, if at all. There also might be other possibilities we haven't considered for ways to include some advisement against plot only articles in a dramatically reconfigured way, perhaps even removing the word "plot" entirely and going in a somewhat different direction.Locke9k (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I've changed the "disputed" banner to point to this specific section and to point out that whether NOTPLOT should even exist is one of the issues. I think that's an accurate summary of this discussion. --Philcha (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT absolutely does not need to be removed. It's the only thing standing in the way of wikipedia becoming a fan site. Most plot summaries start off in the original article, and eventually gets so big that somebody decides to move it to a new page. Thus, we have a new page with just a plot summary of the fictional work. This absolutely needs to be deleted since an encyclopedia is not the place to come find a recap of a movie or a TV episode. An editor watching a TV episode, and then proceding to write a recap is absolutely unencylcopedic to me. Corpx (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do wish we could ban the words "encylcopedic" and "unencylcopedic" - they usually mean simply "I like it" or I don't like it". -Philcha (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think (as a completely separate issue to this but impacting much) that a guideline or policy to state what "encyclopedic" is supposed to mean wrt to WP would go a great way. Deciding on those issues is much more difficult, but its part of the WP vernacular but never defined. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I've changed the "disputed" banner to point to this specific section and to point out that whether NOTPLOT should even exist is one of the issues. I think that's an accurate summary of this discussion. --Philcha (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT absolutely does not need to be removed. It's the only thing standing in the way of wikipedia becoming a fan site. Most plot summaries start off in the original article, and eventually gets so big that somebody decides to move it to a new page. Thus, we have a new page with just a plot summary of the fictional work. This absolutely needs to be deleted since an encyclopedia is not the place to come find a recap of a movie or a TV episode. An editor watching a TV episode, and then proceding to write a recap is absolutely unencylcopedic to me. Also, wasnt there a tidbit in WP:NOT#PLOT a while back about possible copyright infringement on detailed plot summaries? Corpx (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a statement on copyright. Until we are told by Mike Godwin (WP's lawyer) that we've got plot summaries violating copyright, we should not worry about legal issues with it. (There have been cases of other works that summarize fiction works that have been successfully sued, but I'm sure if that happens to WP, we'll be second in line after the Foundation to learn of that). Where copyright does become of a concern is that as a retelling of a work gets more detailed, the more and more it likely will be considered a derivative work, which places the ownership of the text with the copyright holder. Per the GFDL, this creates a problem with redistribution, which is why we need to encourage "concise" plot summaries to avoid this possible situation. But again, we're not in any legal problems with what plot summaries we do have so we should not be worried to this end. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem, you're right, we shouldn't worry about legal issues regarding plot summaries. But you've shown again and again that you know very little about derivative works — so you should really stop talking about them. Are derivative works a concern over at aselia.wikia.com? Does Wikia encourage "concise" plot summaries? The whole copyright/derivative work paranoia when it comes to plot summaries is just that, paranoia. By your logic, if analysis of a fictional work was copyrighted, then wouldn't a summary of that analysis be a derivative work as well? Wouldn't a plot summary of a copyrighted work and a summary of copyrighted analysis be one big derivative work? Wouldn't any citation on Misplaced Pages to something under copyright (like a newspaper article) be a derivative work? How many references on Misplaced Pages do you think are under copyright? We don't need to encourage concise plot summaries in order to avoid problems with redistribution. Wikia doesn't seem to have any problems with appropriating Misplaced Pages content for profit. So let me know when Wikia is sued for something like http://naruto.wikia.com/Akatsuki. And there is positively no issue whatsoever with fictional works that are not under copyright. --Pixelface (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy, so it needs to be removed. A majority of people said this policy should not have a section about plot summaries, so WP:NOT#PLOT needs to be removed. WP:NOT#PLOT did not have consensus to be policy when it was first proposed, so it needs to be removed. WP:NOT#PLOT does not have wide acceptance among the community, so it needs to be removed.

Corpx, I know you argued to delete in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables, because it "violated" this policy, and you're certainly entitled to do that. But there was no consensus to delete in that AFD. Yet the article was deleted anyway in an act of bureaucratic nonsense. That AFD even led to this thread on this talkpage (one of scores of threads about WP:NOT#PLOT on this talkpage). And I also know that you made several edits in that thread. . I know you argued to delete in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot of Highschool of the Dead. That article was deleted but there was no consensus to delete that article either. Seven people suggested a merge. I also know that you argued to delete in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot of Naruto: Shippuden (2nd nomination), and you're entitled to do that. But I'm having a hard time finding consensus to delete there either (among your screaming at other editors ). The article was kept after the first AFD. I know you argued to delete in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot of InuYasha, which was nominated for deletion by a banned user and deleted by an editor who's no longer here. I also know that you argued to delete at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot of Rurouni Kenshin, and you're entitled to do that. I also know that you argued to delete at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot of Fairy Tail, and you're entitled to do that. But there was hardly consensus to delete there either. Why should every article about something fictional be affected just because some people created some articles called "Plot of some Japanese cartoon"? I think "Plot of ..." articles are generally a bad idea. But there was no consensus to delete in several of those AFDs.

WP:NOT#PLOT is the "the only thing standing in the way of wikipedia becoming a fan site"? I've addressed that ridiculous logic here in User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT. Misplaced Pages existed for 5 1/2 years without WP:NOT#PLOT. Was Misplaced Pages a "fan site" from January 2001 until June 2006? And please define "fan site" for me. That label has always perplexed me. Do the 28 articles under Category:Lewis Carroll characters make Misplaced Pages a "fan site"? Do the 1001 articles under Category:Poker make Misplaced Pages a fan site? No, those are articles about topics that some people happen to be fans of. Does the article HornFans make Misplaced Pages a fan site? How about Hook 'em Horns? Texas Longhorns football? Texas Longhorns? Most of Misplaced Pages was written by fans. If someone has made a considerable number of edits to an article, chances are, they're a fan of the topic.

WP:NOT#PLOT affects much more than just "Plot of ..." articles for lame anime. I address that (minus about 4,700 articles under Category:Documentary films ) and over 10,000 articles under Category:Television episodes . Speaking of TV episodes, articles for those have over seven years of precedent on Misplaced Pages. A television show is a source just like a newspaper article is a source just like a film is a source. If someone has the ability to summarize one, they can summarize the others. If you personally think that summarizing something on TV is "absolutely encyclopedic", then you don't have to read any of those articles. You're free to test out your idea of what's "encyclopedic" at britannica.com. Or feel free to go to that self-proclaimed "fan site" Wikia, and go make money for Jimbo Wales there with your pageviews and/or unpaid labor. --Pixelface (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone asked Mr Goodwin about his thoughts on this issue? Corpx (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Copywrite is a bit of a red herring when it comes to plot summary - afterall, contributors generally summarise all sorts of sources in order to write articles, and plot summary is no different in this regard. The real problem with plot summary only articles is the lack of signicant real world coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject matter. All three of the core content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV & WP:OR) all require this type of coverage in order to provide assurance that a topic is suitable for its own standalone article. Since plot only article can't provide this coverage, they can't be regulated in any way. For instance, editors could write about any fictional topic under the sun, regardless of notability; they could create multiple content forks and duplicate articles by slicing the plot summary into slightly different segments; they could engage in original research by constructing fictographies for characters and they can use fictional works that contain contraversial viewpoints to push certain points of view. The argument used in defense of this activity has always been "its just a summary of the primary source", but that won't wash. Plot only articles are just random stuff that falls outside the scope of Misplaced Pages, and because content polices cannot be applied to such articles it is not possible to regulate them. I have removed the disputed template because no one has explained by plot only articles comply with any of Misplaced Pages core policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, I've reinstated the "disputed" template:

• There is an actual dispute in progress here.
• Your "Plot only articles are just random stuff that falls outside the scope of Misplaced Pages" is nonsense. Most fiction articles start as plot-only, possibly citing a single review comment or a best-seller lifting if someone raises WP:Notability. Fiction-related GAs and FAs languish at start-class for years before someone takes a serious interest in them. Do you want kill off potential future fiction-related GAs and FAs at birth?
• With a few legally-based exceptions, e.g. WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO, WP policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. That means they have to adapt to editor's practice, not be used as a whip against editors.
• Plenty of people have stated objections to NOTPLOT here. Masem thought he had reached agreement with you on an amendment, then you torpedoed that. It looks very like you're the one who's out of step. --Philcha (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact it would help if you could explain why you make so many edits at fiction-related policy & guideline Talk pages when it's very hard to find edits to fiction articles in your contributions. --Philcha (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Philcha, I don't think there is a dispute, as nobody has put forward a proposal as to how or why plot only articles should be allowed if they can't meet any of the core content policies. If a topic cannot demonstrate notability, then it is just random stuff from the viewpoint of Misplaced Pages, because there is no verifiable evidence to the contrary. You can dismiss this argument with bald assertions that it is nonsense, but it won't wash, becasue WP:V says that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. Plot only articles fall into this category, because a summary of the primary source cannot be independent of the primary source itself.
I would like to think that you have a constructive proposal get the status of plot only articles changed, but if you don't, then this discussion is leading nowhere. There are other guidelines, such as WP:WAF, which make it clear that plot only articles are not acceptable because they don't provide balanced coverage of their subject matter. If you can think of a reason why they should be accepted, then make your case why you think plot only articles should not be improved. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability can be established by just 1 citation of e.g. a review or a place in a best-seller list. If it does establish notability, IMO the article not should be deleted, and probably not merged, for all the reasons stated above. If it does not currently establish notability, those who object should make a conscientious search for refences that could establish notability - note that WP:DELETE says improvement is always preferable to deletion. --Philcha (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BK disallows the use reviews that contain only plot summary (i.e. flap copy) or listings in best seller lists (which are tertiary sources in this context) as evidence of notability, so you are mistaken in this regard. However, I agree with you that deleting an article is not only nor the best way to deal with such articles, and WP:PLOT says that such articles should be improved so that they provide balanced coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, if numerous editors disagree on something, then it is by definition disputed. An assessment of the merits of the other side's case do not change this fact. Second, it seems based on your answer to my question above and on your statements here that you believe that the totality of the prohibitions in notplot are already provided for elsewhere in policy and guidelines. If that is the case, isn't a rigid insistence on also having it here essentially bureaucracy? I am not saying that it shouldnt be here, I am just raising the following question: if you believe that other policies already would prohibit every single thing prohibited by notplot, why is it so important that the rules be stated again here?Locke9k (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Disputed" is just to broad a generalisation to have any real meaning; you have to say why its disputed, and what action should be taken to resolve the dispute. I think it is must fairer to say that WP:PLOT has been "challenged" many times, but nobody has repudiated the fact that plot only articles are not supported by the existing framework of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidlelines. That framework exists to provide us with the freedom to create or contribute to articles without having to obtain permission from an editorial board or a cabal of administrators, and although they may be subject to challenge, they are not goinga away anytime soon.
All of the prohibitions in WP:NOT are are all provided for elsewhere in policy and guidelines. This is why they are here, to set the outer boundry between What Misplaced Pages is not and what it is, so it makes no sense moving any of these prohibitions from this policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Disputed" has a simple, well-known meaning: . I've often read in Misplaced Pages that something isn't really disputed because the other side is wrong, but that isn't what it means. I haven't studied the issue itself here, but the length of this talk section should be enough to prove it's "disputed". Art LaPella (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what this thread shows why attempts to remove WP:PLOT have failed: no editor is prepared to make a contstructive proposal that either defines or resolves the so dispute. In the absence of an alternative proposal, I would conclude the opposite: generalisations that this policy is disuputed or is not consensus have not been substantiated. Sure, lots of people don't like it, but that is not the same as disputed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "lots of people don't like it" matches the dictionary definition of "disputed" pretty well, so perhaps you meant to say that the tag should be removed. Art LaPella (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not to be fair. Lots of people don't like to go to the dentist, but there is no disputing that it is a necessary and healthy to go. No one in this debate has said why WP:NOT#PLOT is not a good idea other than to say "it is disputed". Until you say why it is disputed, it seems to me there is no dispute per se. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, please read the recent straw poll, particularly the comments of the majority — that said this policy should not have a section about plot summaries. And also read User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT. Why is WP:NOT#PLOT necessary? If it was necessary, then why did a majority of people say it wasn't needed? If WP:NOT#PLOT is removed, there is nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from nominating plot-only articles for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't hide behind "consensus" or the "majority view", when it is actually your own point of view that you are pushing. If you have a proposal, put it forward, and make your view explicit, don't hide behind the straw poll. Please explain why you are putting a proposal to remove WP:PLOT forward. You still have not explained why balanced coverage of fictional topics is a bad, and plot only articles are good. When you can explain this, come back to us. What is needed is a rational argument for its removal, not vague generalisations that it is not consensus.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Idea for different approach

Right now we have an entire entry dedicated to NotPlot, and it is placed in the "indiscriminate collection of information" section. This arrangement has always struck me as a bit strange, since even if we wish to prohibit plot only articles they don't seem to me to fall under the "indiscriminate" label. Furthermore, having an entire section, with the accompanying intro of something like 'Misplaced Pages is not plot summaries' may be causing acceptance problems among editors by threatening to make the rule 'too strong'. A more natural place to start seems to me to be "Mere collections of public domain or other source material" under the "mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" section. How would people feel about a comprimise where we get rid of the standalone notplot section, and instead add an extra line to the above mentioned section?

Here is the sort of thing I have in mind, with the new material added in italics:

"Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Summaries or excerpts of such source material should be used consistent with Misplaced Pages's objective to report on, and not merely reproduce, such material. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Misplaced Pages. There is nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Misplaced Pages:Don't include copies of primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy. For more information on writing about fiction, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)."

My objective with this proposal is to try to find a middle ground where we retain the intent of the policy message that 'its better to have more than just plot' without making it seem so strong that it worries editors about overuse in AFD. Please try to view this proposal through a lens of seeking consensus - this is just an attempt to break some of the gridlock above via a novel approach. Locke9k (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing strange about WP:PLOT. An topic that does not provide evidence of notability is "indiscriminate collection of information" until such time that verifiable evidence is provided that it is notable. Locke9k may be misinterpreting WP:PLOT when he says that "Misplaced Pages is not plot summaries" when it actually says "Misplaced Pages is not plot summaries only". An analogy would is comparing a sprinkle of salt with your meal to having a meal comprised only of salt. Plot summaries are not reporoductions of primary works, they are summaries of primary works. This proposal is very wide of the mark when it comes to addressing the problem of plot only articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I am aware of the difference in wording. However, despite that difference, I think that many editors still see this as a dangerously strong wording that may excessively encourage article deletion. Mind you, I am not taking a position on that. I am simply acknowledging that there are a sizeable number of editors with that apparent position, and I am attempting an alternative proposal to break the gridlock and find a consensus. As I said, this proposal would keep the heart of notplot in my view while radically changing the approach in a way that might find more consensus. Like it or not, there is presently no consensus in any direction, either to keep or to remove. This is an unacceptable situation, and 'outside the box' thinking may be necessary to solve the problem. Locke9k (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

These are precisely the issues that the new wording addresses: WP:PLOT explains why plot summary articles are approporiate, whilst at the same time making the prohibition less threatening. So in this regard, I am happy to report that the dispute has been resolved. However, if you can better the current wording that addresses the issue that plot only articles do not provide balanced coverage, then I am sure many editors would be open to a new proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My above proposal does exactly that. It makes clear that excessive summary of source material (such as plot) is not preferred. Rather we want articles that report on the overall subject, not just reproduce source material in some complete or shortened form. In that sense, I would expect it to still satisfy your wish to have something in WP:NOT that you can point to as speaking against plot only articles. My hope is that by merging it into another section and putting it better in the overall context of WP, we will satisfy the 'remove' proponents more as well. Locke9k (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, plot summary is not a reproduction of the primary source, they are a summary of the primary source, so the proposal is wide of the mark. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As you may have missed, the wording I have proposed would apply to "summaries and excerpts" of source material. Locke9k (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They are no more similar than chalk and cheese, so its not clear why you would put plot summary and plot excerpts together when they are completely unrelated issues. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Policies reflect consensus

Anyone mind explaining how PLOT has "wide acceptance among editors"? I don't think the straw poll indicates anything of the sort, and I think teh spirit of Misplaced Pages's policies, which we adhere to, rather than the letter, demand of us that we remove it and the re-propose it. It's gone too far now, and there's too much gaming the system. If we have any respect at all for the ideas of consensus, good faith, civility, collaboration and collegiate atmosphere, we need to recognise that PLOT divides us rather than unites us. Hiding T 12:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The straw poll suggests that there isn't that, but at the same time, the results of the poll in straight up numbers are too close to be making rash moves. I'm willing to still say it is in dispute and a more formal RFC to review it, but to say it is splitting the community is not a fair statement:

• Read the input provided by the straw poll, not just numbers. It indicates two things to me that first, the question people were responding to was unclear and thus completely reasonable to have a better constructed poll or RFC on it, and that there are concerns that were raised that could be (and were) written into a new version to address these, which I did suggest another poll to double check consensus but that wasn't done before it was readded. The poll's numbers are dubious, but the input provided was valuable to assert what a next step could have been.
• The people fighting against it strongly are those that believe PLOT is being used as a reason to delete at AFD. While this might be true, without PLOT, the same articles would still be deleted through WP:N (and I've yet to see an AFD that cites PLOT as the only reason to delete, it is always tied with WP:N or a SNG at worst, if not other policies). If it were the case that PLOT was being used as a sole reason to delete, I would be worried too; eg this would be like TTN's actions prior to the Ep & Char cases, and thus needing some change. But there's a lot of other play going on here that PLOT is not the root cause of. (That said, I've asked and gotten no feedback on the question: is there a fundamental difference between PLOT and WP:N?)

I'm not against another RFC to resolve the matter once and for all, but I'm not willing to move PLOT right now because of the insistence of a few editors. There are edit wars if PLOT should be on this page, but I have no seen how PLOT has influenced any other bad editing behavior elsewhere, and that's where I'd be concerned and would want quick action. It also may be inconsistent (the examples Pixelface gives) but it doesn't mean its wrong (again, I point to the "article"/"topic" discrepancy from above that is probably the core of this and notability's problem and how they interact with Summary Style writing).

Another RFC should simply limit the outcome to 4 options: 1) keep in NOT, 2) keep as a new policy page, 3) move to WAF, and 4) remove completely. My only problem with #2 is that this goes against the current trend to avoid creating new policy and the fact that if you removed the visibility of fiction articles, PLOT is doing exactly the same thing as NOT#GUIDE or NOT#DIRECTORY, and is a good fit in these in NOT#IINFO. But in the interest of resolving this once and for, it needs to be considered as a possible option as to ensure that it still has support to be policy).

But again, to remove PLOT based on the current arguments is jumping the gun. It is a dispute on this page (and with primarily only a few editors arguing to keep it in dispute) but it is not disrupting any part of WP as far as I can see. (This is in contrast to the recent Date Delinking case that just closed by ArbCom, where contested changes were propigating across WP and led to the case). If there was evidence of PLOT being used as the only reason to affect content in a contested manner, then yes, I'd be a lot more open to its removal in the interest of minimizing problems, but without it, it is a problem we can still work at resolving without external pressure. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don;t follow your logic at all. Since it is disputed, it seems reasonable to remove it to the talk page until we get agreement on the wording. I don;t believe it is unfair to say it is splitting the community, so I would ask you to prove that assertion. I would point to the numbers of the poll itself, which tells a different story. And if, as you say there were concerns which mean
• Regarding an RFC, I could get behind that if you would agree to a moderated RFC similar to the way Misplaced Pages:Date formatting and linking poll was set up. Hiding T 13:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated before, I strongly oppose any RFC at this time that is formatted as a simple poll. The effect of such RFCs is to shoehorn editors into predetermined categories rather than to work towards consensus. Particularly since the last RFC got turned largely into a straw poll with that effect, I don't think we need more of the same. A proposal / support format allowing the community to take things in their desired direction would be much more likely to lead to consensus. Locke9k (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First, regarding the poll, we're not a democracy, so just because "no it doesn't belong" got 3 more votes out of 100+ total voters, ignoring any additional and valuable input from their comments, that's not enough to say that there's no consensus that it doesn't belong either. I know Pixelface's listings of the history of PLOT, but to be frank, up until the above poll it has enjoyed consensus on this page for a couple of years (irregardless of how it was added) save but for a handful of editors (including Pixelface) that disagree with it; a handful of editors does not make for a disputed policy. (and counter to that, I'm sure it can be argued that only a handful of editors including myself have maintained that it is still policy despite this, but again, at least from my perspective, until it was shown that there was a larger number of editors in dispute with the statement as determined by the straw poll, it appeared to have consensus, and thus maintaining it was the status quo) But I will agree that the poll points that we need to figure out what to do with PLOT but the results, as close as they are, are not sufficient to say that PLOT can stay indefinitely without question, but nor should we be so quick to remove it. I've no problem leaving it marked "disputed" while we seek the right answer as long as we have a path to get there (in this case, a moderated RFC/poll). But because one of the options is that it stays as NOT, it should remain there, marked disputed, while that RFC/poll is conducted so that it remains current working advice for editors but should not be used as policy.

To Locke9k, actually, the last started as a straw poll and became an RFC. But I think we need a straw poll to start to determine where PLOT needs to be; any further discussions on changing the wording or the like can't really continue without knowing its location, and trying to achieve both at the same time is going to make it very difficult. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

MASEM, I'm not at all sure that "until the above poll it has enjoyed consensus on this page for a couple of years". It's quite possible that there was simply grudging acceptance of a fait accompli. We may now be seeing a backlash against the fait accompli. --Philcha (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be backlash, but again, I've not seen evidence that alone WP:PLOT has "damaged" the encyclopedia as has been claims; at most, its been shown to be inconsistent. It is definitely worthwhile to mark it under dispute in order to prevent it from being used as a sole argument to influence article development and retention, but unlike, say, FICT, which was being used to remove article via fait accompli prior to the E&C cases, there's no negative mainspace impact that PLOT seems to have that necessitates us removing it while we discuss its fate. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Philcha, there needs some form on honest proposal which makes it clear and explicit that an exemption from Misplaced Pages's existing policies and guidelines is being sought for plot only articles, as this is basically the change that you are seeking, and why you think it would be a good idea. A proposal which hides or is silent about the impact of the change is unlikely to have any lasting impact, legitamacy or acceptance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think removing notplot would lead to an "exemption" for plot articles? Given that you have argued that totally separate policies and guidelines also serve to prohibit plot only articles, it doesn't seem consistent to say that removing notplot would create any exception at all. Rather plot only articles would remain unacceptable based on those other policies. If this does not seem like a reasonable conclusion based upon your previous statements, then I would appreciate a clarification. Locke9k (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely. All 3 of the core content policies require an article to contain real world coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent to ensure that they are not in breach of the principles of verfiablity, NPOV and NOR. In order to counter any arguements that plot summary only articles should have their own standalone article based on subjective criteria, the prohibition against them, and various other items that also sit outside the existing framework of Misplaced Pages's polices and guidelines, are stated in WP:NOT. The reason given, which is quite reasonable, is that fiction should be the subject of balanced coverage. What reason do you want to allow coverage that is (a) falls outside the existing framework, and (b) is unbalanced? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe that all topics covered in Misplaced Pages should be subject to the core content policies you have mentioned. I also find it hard to imagine how any fictional topic with only plot coverage could meet those policies. My objection to your argument is that it almost seems to be a straw man. Although there may be a few people arguing to create an exemption from these policies for fictional articles, that number seems to me to be very small, and not the issue of the real debate. It seems like you are painting anyone advocating removal of notplot as wanting to "carve out an exemption". On the contrary, my impression of the recent RFC and of the discussion here is that most opponents of notplot instead have the sense that notplot is making some statement or prohibition beyond those core policies. It is this extra prohibition or statement to which they object.

It is for this reason that I have been pushing people to clarify what they see as the difference between what core policies have to say about plot summary and what notplot says about it. From the responses, it appears that you and some others believe that notplot is simply restating emphasizing what is already in core policies, as an insurance policy against editors IARing the policies. You thus seem to presume that attempts to remove notplot must be one prong of an attempt to create some kind of broad exemption for fictional articles. On the other hand, many opponents of notplot seem to feel that a significant additional burden is being applied to fictional articles beyond that required by core policies. They thus seem to see attempts to retain notplot as part of an overall deletionist movement that has a general bias against fictional topics. Certainly there are some people who don't fall into these categories. There are probably a few who actually support extra burdens on fictional articles or who want to carve out an exemption for fiction. These individuals are a small minority however.

What I am thus trying to do here is carve out a consensus among the editors who believe that core policies should apply to fiction in the same manner that they apply to everything else - no more, no less. I think it is highly likely that the majority of people on both side would support that statement, and it seems that we should be able to find a consensus way to reflect that position. So to that end, I'll ask you and others to avoid making anyone's position seem more extreme than it really is. Realize that the majority of people on both sides are essentially "pro-Misplaced Pages"; they are trying to word the policies in a way that best reflects WP's core principles rather than in a way that pushes some narrow agenda. Locke9k (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the problem at this point is intransigence and filibustering. I can see a dozen policies or guidelines which could get a less than ringing endorsement (or have in the past) but we retain anyways. There is less than 60% approval for admin tenure. IF we straw polled notability we might not get a supermajority in support (especially if we phrased it as the poll for PLOT was phrased). Yet both of those policies are important to what wikipedia is as a resource and how editors and admins navigate it. A snapshot of who likes or doesn't like something is a terrible way to govern. As I see it changes were made to the main page of the NOT section (and then used to contest some deletions on the grounds that the straw poll somehow eliminated PLOT as a deletion criteria), what is the continued push for? Protonk (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Protonk, I think those arguing that we must have WP:PLOT in the face of A) it lacking consensus to even exist and B) WP:POLICY being pretty clear that things without consensus should not be policy are the ones literally filibustering. That is arguing over and over and preventing the lack-of-consensus from being acknowledged and acted upon per WP:POLICY. I mean the person that added it is asking that it be removed and there is a demonstrated lack of consensus for it to exist in NOT. Let's just please remove it and move forward. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You have all done a good job of talking yourselves into a corner, but you have still to explain why plot only articles are such a good idea. I have still yet to hear why balanced coverage of fictional topics is bad. I have not read any proposal which says that plot only articles should be exempted from Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. So far there has been no constructive proposal tabled.
When attempting to change policy, it is best practise to openly and honestly state where, why, and what is the benefit from departing from Misplaced Pages's existing policies and guidelines, rather than attempt to ignore, or worse, to hide such departures.
I think some sort of constructive proposal has to be tabled, rather than threaten to revert the wording which you subscribed to (on my talk page) only a few weeks ago. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there is no reason to disallow a pure-plot spinout article that otherwise meets our general inclusion guidelines. Balanced coverage of any topic is good. However 1) there is no good reason to single fiction articles out and 2) for major works (Star Wars, Les Mis, etc.) it might (and I'd say, usually does) make sense to spin out well-sourced plot-only articles. Not allowing well-sourced, plot-only articles means that we often have plot dominating the main article because it can't be spun out. That produces unbalanced articles. Finally, NOT#PLOT is used as an excuse to gut articles. I honestly believe the latest change (we/you made!) helps that last point considerably. But there is still a long history of NOT#PLOT being used to remove relevant and sourced material. That bothers people, including me. Hobit (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I've made no secret that I've felt that NOT#PLOT should be removed and that while the change which you made was a good one, but that I'd still favor removing NOT#PLOT. Plus the way the AfD and DrV of the Plot of Les Mis was handled has made me realize that a group of editors and admins will largely ignore the text of NOT#PLOT, claiming as long as it is around articles once deleted/redirected under NOT#PLOT will not be able to be recreated unless NOT#PLOT is removed. So here we are. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is such an article that meet WP:N that is a pure-plot summary. Well source articles tend to comprise of balanced coverage, as it would be unusual for a reliable source not to contain any real world commentary, and in any case, a well sourced article would be unlikely to be plot only, otherwise it would fall foul of WP:UNDUE. For this reason, I have never seen an article been deleted that cited real world coverage, and I doubt you could find such an example in the AFD archives. The reason why plot only articles tend to get merged or deleted has more to do with the fact if they don't have citations, then tend to attract original research, or are excessively detailed. You know yourself that plot only articles like Kender are once cruft magnets, but now know is it balanced and sourced, original research tends not to stick. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If no such plot-only article can be written that meets our other guidelines, NOTPLOT isn't needed. Hobit (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if plot only articles don't meet the content guidelines, then WP:PLOT is not needed. However, the same can be said about virtually all of WP:NOT - since they all fail one or more content policies, you would think there would be no need for WP:NOT at all. However, this policy needs to remain in order to provide clear boundries in terms of the content which Misplaced Pages should or should not support, just in case editors use one or more of the arguments contained in Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to say that they should be allowed despite the fact thay they falloutside the remit of Misplaced Pages content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That argument seems to boil down to otherstuffexists. We don't need to debate the justification for the other entrees in WP:NOT in order to assess this one. Please realize that as much as you are legitimately concerned with people overriding other policies, Hobit and others are legitimately concerned about this policy being overused. The two concerns are logically equivalent and both are realistic. Since both are good points, we need to work on drafting a consensus that addresses both. The recent rewording is a good step; however, even at the time it was clear that this was a temporary improvement, not to be taken as a final outcome. For this reason, I have suggested the above proposal to move the content of notplot into the part of WP:NOT on source material. This or something similar would retain an extra policy statement that could be pointed to, as Gavin and others want, but could significantly tone down the perhaps undue weight presently given to the entry, as Hobit and others would like. We really should be considering these sorts of alternate solutions rather than just rehashing the keep/remove debate.Locke9k (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We would have a better chance of finding the correct wording if it first removed. Either that or do a an RfC that only allows a few options. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The existing wording is quite good, unless you can think of any improvement? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(redent) No partiular wording has consensus to be on this page. Take it out and do a big RfC to find what, if anything, should be included in NOT. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is too sweeping a generalisation - it can neither be proved or disproved. If you think there a particular form of wording that is better, bring it forward, otherwise we are not addressing the problem. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If the perceived problem is that NOT#PLOT doesn't belong here, then removing it is addressing the problem. I, and others, believe the RfC showed that there is no consensus for NOT#PLOT to be here. So removing it is the right thing to do per WP:POLICY. You've not responded to that as far as I can see. Hobit (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're still arguing why PLOT should be included, but that isn't the point anymore. Why do you think it has consensus, after the results of the RfC. It seems pretty cut and dried to me. It's not "what are the pros and cons of PLOT", it's "PLOT either does or does not have consensus to be included in NOT". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that no one has put forward any particular reason why it should it be removed. I am still unclear as to what the proposal is. We still have to work out what the objectictions are. Sweeping genralisations are not helpful: we need a specific proposal to address what ever concerns there are. All the concerns about WP:PLOT that have been made explicit so far have been adressed in the current wording. If you are unhappy with the wording, I think you have to provide specific reasons why, not hide behind vague generalisations such as "it is not consensus". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason that it should be removed is that policy pages shouldn't include anything that doesn't have consensus. Simple as that. If you want to determine what has broad consensus, and which policy or guideline page it should go on, go for it. That's a separate issue. So, the specific proposal is remove PLOT, then do an RfC or whatever you want. It's silly to keep something in NOT that doesn't have consensus, because some people think that at some point in the future it will be replaced by something that does have consensus (which may or may not end up on another page enitirely). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not work that way. You have to make explicit the issue or issues which you feel are the problem. An analogy would be Kafka's The Trial]; simply saying something is wrong but not saying why is a parody of WP:CONSENSUS in the same way that saying that "Committee of Affairs" accuses K of an unkown crime is a parody of the criminal justice system. If you have a formula that will replace the current policy, then do propose it. But if you don't, then there is no charge, no crime and no dispute. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We are proposing what to replace it with: nothing. That's the whole proposal. Per WP:POLICY, stuff that lacks consensus (new or old) shouldn't in in policy. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but then you need to define consensus. Even if there was consensus here (which there never is), consensus on an obscure policy page - yes, all policy pages are obscure to 90% of Wikipedians - doesn't equal site-wide consensus. On that basis, we wouldn't have our non-free image policy, because even though it's Foundation policy, the majority of editors that come into contact with it do so because some copyright violation of theirs has been removed, and so of course they don't agree with it. But a collection of people complaining because their images have been removed doesn't qualify as site-wide consensus; and if it doesn't qualify there, it certainly doesn't qualify here. Hence why modifying PLOT rather than going for the nuclear option is by far the best idea. Black Kite 20:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Stricly plot-content articles routinely fail AfD, and when they are kept it is almost always b/c editors thresh out enough real-world significance to satisfy our GNG. That is the best demonstration of ongoing consensus that exists (far exceeding a small, WT-specific RFC) and it suggests through praxis that the current wording has general, if not unanimous, support. Eusebeus (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Some contributors seem to be under the misconception that policy must necessarily (and some apparently think continuously) be supported by consensus. Consensus is surely necessary to create new policy, and most would agree that consensus is necessary to remove or alter policy (the alternative being a form of wiki-anarchy where "motions of no confidence" would overturn "unpopular" policies from one week to the next). In this case, what the RfC determined was that there was no consensus. No consensus equates to no safe basis for changing policy.

In addition, consider that consensus is only one of the things that informs policy. There are also legal concerns, office actions, foundation issues, and a number of areas where these overlap - and no consensus can override these. For those who are wondering is this is relevant, consider that what Misplaced Pages is NOT is necessarily determined by what Misplaced Pages IS, which is defined to a large extent by the WikiMedia Foundation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Some contributors think that "If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus; possibilities include silence on the issue and acknowledgment that editors disagree on the point." Leaving the "disputed" tag in WP:NOT is one way to go, as is removing the policy statement (being silent on the issue). Hobit (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If "consensus is surely necessary to create new policy", then WP:NOT#PLOT is not actually policy because there was no consensus to create it when it was proposed. It's clearly "policy" in name only. Anyone can click "edit this page" on any of Misplaced Pages's policies, and the idea that all of those edits reflect community norms is preposterous. The top of this talkpage even says "Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic." Hiding changed this policy page, so people thought WP:NOT#PLOT was some community standard, but it wasn't. He got away with his edit it for 3 months, and then WP:NOT#PLOT was removed for the first time.

A section of a policy page must have consensus in order to be policy, not merely no consensus to remove it. A majority of people said that this policy should not have a section about plot summaries, so it can't. You say that the RFC determined there was no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT. How can you have a policy with no consensus behind it? You can't. Policies are widely accepted standards, standards that have community wide consensus. There are no legal concerns, office actions, foundation issues etc. behind WP:NOT#PLOT. The Wikimedia Foundation didn't propose WP:NOT#PLOT. Hiding did. Because of this thread at WT:COMICS, and this thread at WT:WAF. And if policies represent widely accepted community standards, it's impossible for a real policy to be "unpopular." --Pixelface (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Material which is unencyclopaedic doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. That's because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, and that in turn is a foundation issue. Show me an article that consists solely of plot summary that you believe belongs here, and if I think it's encyclopaedic, I'll concede you have a point. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Unanimous support? Citation needed. Do you have anything to back up what you're saying except bare assertions? You're claim that "strictly plot-content articles routinely fail AFD" is false. Even if it were true, it would depend entirely on which story was being summarized wouldn't it? And to describe the GNG as "our GNG" and not Uncle G's GNG is ridiculous. The "GNG" is also not policy by the way, and will never be policy. You're so far gone in the cult of Misplaced Pages, you don't even realize it. And the people scrambling to "satisfy our GNG" are playing Radiant! and Uncle G's MMORPG they invented, and those people don't even realize it either. --Pixelface (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If Wikimedia makes a declaration that PLOT should be in NOT, that would end this. They haven't done so, so comparing PLOT to policies based on their directives is a red herring. Take it out until it does have consensus. Pretty simple. - Peregrine Fisher (talk)

I haven't seen Wikimedia make many declaration on many policies recently, so perhaps we should scrap them all? (I won't comment on the use of the word "simple"). Black Kite 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(contribs) 18:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. We should scrap all the ones that don't have consensus, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And that brings us back to where we started ... you need wide not narrow consensus to change policy, and as I said, how do you measure site-wide consensus on an issue that hasn't had site-wide input? Black Kite 06:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

GNG may not be policy, and GNG may never be policy, but GNG does not need to be policy. Deletion policy says that an article's subject failing to meet the relevant notability guideline is a valid reason for deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A user thinks wikipedia is a school directory

User:Ljmb87 thinks Misplaced Pages is a place to put notableness schools. See the user's talk page for more info.--Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 00:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this policy? --Pixelface (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED and the main page

Discussions of what to feature on the main page through DYK and TFA (and probably also ITN, On This Day, and Featured Picture, but I have never been involved in those projects) often crop up over whether or not a given article, photo, etc. is "appropriate" for the main page; in these discussions, some people cite WP:NOTCENSORED. The latest incarnation of this sort of discussion at DYK is going on now at WT:DYK#Appropriate for the main page?, and User:Backslash Forwardslash has posted some links to other similar discussions within the past several months.

To be perfectly honest, I think playing the "But Misplaced Pages isn't censored" card in these disputes is wrong. Misplaced Pages is not censored, no, but the Main Page is particularly sensitive and is treated differently than article space (for example, we all know that Raul654 will not put Jenna Jameson or a picture of a seagull defecating on the main page). Besides, keeping an article off the main page is not "censorship" because we are not suppressing the article itself; it is still allowed to exist in mainspace and be linked as much as it wants to be.

Therefore, I'm wondering if a clause can be added to WP:NOTCENSORED clarifying the special status of the main page? I don't know what the exact wording of this addition should be (certainly we don't want to say "WP is not censored but the main page is!"), I'm just trying to get the ball rolling. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I very much oppose this. The Main Page should be representative of Misplaced Pages's content, of which, per wide consensus, is not censored. This "shock" or "sensitivity" factor can apply to any page which may unexpectedly have some "explicit" form of content, and to remove sensitive content from anywhere compromises Misplaced Pages's goals. There are numerous other ways already to filter content from the Internet which one may find objectionable, and we shouldn't be playing the part of the net nanny. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting any changes to what we put on the main page—there already is not consensus to put "objectionable" content there, as evidenced by the pages I mentioned above and the current discussion at WT;DYK where the majority of editors seem to oppose the Cunt (video game) hook over there. I'm just suggesting that WP:NOTCENSORED clarify that keeping something off the main page is not the same as "censoring" it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 13:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'd argue that it is censorship, I don't think there's any real consensus as to either way at the moment; it'd therefore be premature for WP:NOTCENSORED to state either way. Per what I've said at WT:Did you know, though, I agree that, even if a consensus to remove such content were established, we need proper guidelines as to what is and is accepted instead of just deciding whether or not something is objectionable at the time of its use on the main page. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping something off the main page is not necessarily censorship, the article is still allowed to exist in mainspace. Compare it to magazine stands and video stores in the United States: there's plenty of porn there, they just put it on the top shelf so it's not right in your face. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely enthused; unlike shops, there are many ways on the Internet to filter objectionable content; your same principle very much applies to anywhere where such content may unexpectedly turn up. It seems inappropriate to me for a supposedly neutral encyclopedia to be enforcing what has proven to be a vague and subjective interpretation of inappropriateness. Really, I think the best way to overcome this issue is to make the reader more aware of the fact that Misplaced Pages is not censored and of the ways in which they can filter such content; how this will work in relation to the main page I am unsure of as of yet, but merely filtering "objectionable" content is just too subjective and biased as far as I see it. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said at WT:DYK, people who have opposed "inappropriate" content on the MP usually aren't just doing it to "protect the little ones". It's also about Misplaced Pages's reputation and what part of Misplaced Pages we choose to show the world. For example, someone at the discussion there pointed out that he might be more willing to feature this article if it was also some of Misplaced Pages's best work—i.e., if it was well-written, included a section on reactions to the game, etc. But since it's not even a very good article, why bend over backwards to show people something that's going to give them a poor impression of Misplaced Pages anyway? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, the quality of content is still an independent factor from its appropriateness (although I'm not entirely sure what the criteria are for being featured on DYK). My main point is that censorship shows bias against such content, which I think could affect (and has affected?) Misplaced Pages's reputation as well. If we give the reader the option, somehow, of whether they want to view such content but not explicitly remove such content from anywhere, we could essentially put this issue to rest. It's this "somehow" which I think is the real question, and that seems to be more of a technical question of a wider scope than that of a policy page. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

←I'm gonnna have to go with Rjanag on this one. I remember there was a lot of talk about the technical side of limiting content when desired back during the Virgin Killer episode, and all that really came of it was: "You can turn your pictures off in your browser if you want". I think the main page needs to stick to main stream, prime-time, acceptable to all, content. The masturbation photos, the penis shooting sperm at a a vagina flash game, and pearl necklace articles are here for those that want to look for them. BUT - that doesn't mean we have to throw it in every visitors face on the main page. If we want to have a reputation of integrity and professionalism, then we have to "walk the walk", as well as "talk the talk". </end of rant> — Ched :  ?  17:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED tries hard to distinguish censorship from all the other countless reasons for removing content, but it doesn't come close. Look at any page's edit history, and most of the removals aren't justified by any of the exceptions to WP:NOTCENSORED other than "obviously inappropriate", which could mean anything. In practice, if you don't like something being removed, call it censorship, and pretend a policy is making the decision and not just you. Conversely, if you do like something being removed, say it isn't censorship, any more than removing "gerls luve kattse" from the cat article would be censorship; that way you aren't arguing against a policy. If you really want this issue to be decided by a policy, you probably have to limit its scope to a list of specified topics, like say sexual expression, and opinions about politics and religion, and maybe not even try to dictate with policy what's OK on the Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'm not so concerned with defining what censorship is, but just saying "keeping something off the main page is not necessarily the same as 'censoring' it from mainspace". rʨanaɢ /_contribs 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a slippery slope issue here. If we start saying "ok, front page content should not contain X,Y, or Z", it will only be a matter of time before some other group asks for more exceptions to the list. I believe the best answer here is that those responsible for providing the front page content should make sure to use best practices to consider what to include, but if there's no way around it and it is useful or important to include, then so be it. We have the general content disclaimer, and really, if we're worried about such issues at schools or the like, schools today should be well aware of the possible content of WP and can take steps to block as needed, if they feel this is the case. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there's a slippery slope in both directions; if we took this policy seriously then not only would we need pornography and vomit as Main Page featured pictures, but every removal of content would have to be justified by a specific policy – and the Manual of Style, for instance, doesn't count because it's a guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said let's decide what the main page should and should not contain. I said maybe we should clarify that keeping something from article space (censorship) is not the same as keeping it off the main page. I'm having a hard time keeping this discussion on the topic I actually asked about... rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my problem with this policy isn't limited to the Main Page; see its section in User:Art LaPella/Devil's Dictionary of Misplaced Pages Policy. But sure, we could say censorship means keeping something off Misplaced Pages altogether, not just keeping it off the Main Page (or perhaps any specific page). Art LaPella (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a consensus among the few that are watching, for this sentence: "Censorship means removing something from Misplaced Pages altogether, not relegating it to a more appropriate page." (such as not on the Main Page) Art LaPella (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't the principles behind "relegating to more appropriate page" the same as those behind full-on censorship, though? It's all based around removing something on a whim because people raise objections to it, with no real lines being drawn as to what is and isn't really appropriate. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To some extent, yes; no such real lines are drawn by the policy. It means almost anything people want it to mean. It looks like a policy, but it depends on the whim of the moment, not the policy itself. When I see the n- word go unreverted on the Martin Luther King page, then you can tell me Misplaced Pages is not censored. I think even you will agree that some things should be relegated to a more appropriate page than the Main Page; that's why we protect it, and it isn't just from vandalism or from other policy issues noted at WP:NOTCENSORED. For instance, we often disallow hooks at Did You Know; should all of them cry "censorship"? (I'll be gone for a few hours.) Art LaPella (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has brought up WP:BURO yet. It says: "Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law." So WP:NOTCENSORED should describe the Main Page consensus, not prescribe it. Although there have been some raunchy things on the Main Page, a few things have always been disallowed in a way that might be considered censorship. And the policy should reflect that consensus, not vice versa. Art LaPella (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, when I originally started this I wasn't trying to suggest that the guideline be changed to prescribe what can and can't go on the main page. I was basically suggesting that we add something along the lines of "don't cite this guideline when talking about the Main Page because it's annoying" (for lack of a better way to sum it up...no one seems to have gotten the message no matter how many times I point this out). I agree with everyone that NOTCENSORED shouldn't lay out what can and can't go on the main page; I was just trying to say that, since keeping something off the main page is not really censorship, we should make it more explicit that this guideline doesn't have anything to do with the main page and it's quite tiring to hear it cited over and over again. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 04:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

School street addresses

In this diff, User:Kingturtle explicitly disallowed the use of school addresses in their articles. However, {{Infobox school}} has a street address field, and has for years. I would like to find out if there's consensus for this change or not. I disagree with it, but don't want to revert until I find out if people agree with me or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the standard practice across Misplaced Pages is to not include contact information or addresses for institutions. The change seems to reflect that practice.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Though we do encourage geolocation, which any competent reader can regurgitate in Google or something to get back an address. But I agree that contact information is not appropriate to include. the Infobox school template is probably out of date and has that simply doesn't encourage it or use it actively. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• As I said on the talk page of the school infobox, an article about a school discusses a specific topic in a specific building (or set of buildings) at a specific location. The address is relevant and pertinent information. I would support removing Kingturtle's addition. I do agree, however, that information such as phone numbers, fax numbers, and emails addresses should not be included. --auburnpilot talk 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with AuburnPilot on this. The article is about the location of a school as much as it is about the school itself (ie it is the building and the use of the building). Removing the location would be akin to removing the birthdate of an actor because it's just a random fact. In any case, it seems like poor form to make the change and immediately begin mass edits to remove this data without having a discussion on the topic. tedder (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To those that want to keep the address - what is it being used for? If it is for locating the school, this is best served by using something that is global - that is, latitude and longitude. If it's being used for contact information (as if to send info), this probably should be left to the website of the school to provide the correct contact information. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's simply part of what the article is about. I can't see how listing the address of a school within an infobox is any different than listing the address of a building within {{Infobox Skyscraper}}. It's pertinent information. --auburnpilot talk 20:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, most people don't walk around with GPS units yet, so global location is only useful in some situations. Also, emails, phones, and website addresses can change -- the street address is a bit less mutable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as GPS, I would not consider coordinates to be even remotely acceptable as a replacement. I use a GPS unit every time I fly, and can tell you from experience, most people don't have a clue how to make sense of lat/long. --auburnpilot talk 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and addresses are more likely to be verifiable and reliably sourced. I can (and do) double-check addresses on several sources, but coords are usually synthed or original research. Yes, this is a poor argument for keeping an address, but it also reflects reality. As AuburnPilot says, it is as inherent to a school as it is to a skyscraper. tedder (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Another objection to using the website for location is that the mailing address might be the school department, and the website might leave the street address off because everyone knows where it is anyhow. (Don't know that any of these exist, but...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, street addresses are problematic, but I will concede to the consensus here that they may be included; however, I stand firm that email addresses, phone number and fax numbers are not encyclopedic, except is exceptional circumstances. Kingturtle (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No particular quarrel there -- what do you say to the person who reverted you on whether websites were encyclopedic?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)KingTurtle, I completely agree with you that email, phone, and fax numbers should not be included. tedder (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW I think addresses should be acceptable, and agree that email, phone, fax, etc. should be removable. — Ched :  ?  20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you see any reason to say "(almost)" never acceptable on email addresses and such? I don't. If there is a case, WP:IAR still applies. tedder (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the line about street addresses but left the information about email addresses and phone/fax numbers. The White/Yellow pages section could probably be worked back into the directory label, as it is rather short in its current wording. --auburnpilot talk 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• A little late to the party here (just saw the ANI thread) but I support inclusion of physical (street) address because schools are related to their local community. Real-world non-technical people would use this info, so GPS data is not useful. I don't see a need for any other contact info. DMacks (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had almost in there because I am sure there are instances I am not imagining; maybe there's a lawsuit in which a particular email address is pertinent, or a famous virus sent out from a particular email address; certainly never for contact information. Kingturtle (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we could create circumstances where an email or contact *is* important (Rejection Hotline, 1-800-COLLECT, E-mail_address#Overview, ), but the "almost" seems like a weasel word. I boldly eliminated it, as WP:NOT can be ignored if necessary. tedder (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I support the contention that phone numbers, fax numbers, and e-mails should not be included (the web page is fine). I also support including an address, as that helps to establish a location, similar to the geodata (though I don't feel so strongly about this that I would be upset if consensus was different). However, there is a difference between the standard street address, and the inclusion of an overly long street address that includes the county and decorative flags. At some point it just makes infoboxes look bad by cluttering things up. I had a discussion with one editor who agreed with this, but still was goingto include it because "it wasn't expressly forbidden" I would certainly support some limits stronger than what exist now. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My original concern about street addresses was that it seemed inappropriate to provide street addresses of places where kids are. I was concerned about pedophiles. But that concern originated about six years ago, when most schools and districts did not have websites yet. Now I suppose these addresses are easy to find. Kingturtle (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is a policy that applies to the whole project, not just schools. One way to parse this would be to allow the addresses of buildings that are notable, while exclusing the addresses of institutions and organizations. Thus, we'd include address in article on skyscrapers and other notable buildings, but we wouldn't include the addresses in articles on businesses that occupy those buildings. The logic there is that physical address is rarely a notable feature of a corporation. To give an extreme example, would we list the addresses of campuses of the University of Phoenix? Certaily not, because there are so many and the are not stable. At the opposite extreme, would we list the address of Harvard University, beyond saying that it's in Cambridge, Massachusetts? Why would we do so? If there is a particularly notable building on campus that has its own article then it might be worth listing the address. In other words, buildings have address, but not organizations.   Will Beback  talk  17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. My feelings in every respect - except I used Brown as my mental image instead of Harvard. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And re: "but think of the children" - any pedophile close enough to go to a school is close enough to use a phone book at a pay phone to find out where it is. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Phone books at pay phones? Where are those still to be found, outside of a few rare artifacts in airports and the like? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Addresses would seem reasonable; phone numbers, email addresses, etc. probably would not. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm with stifle. And frankly, we geolocate plenty of article locations, just not in an obvious way. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Spin off NOTPLOT and CENSORED

I can't help feeling that both WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NOTCENSORED would benefit from being spun off as separate pages. Compressing an entire policy into a paragraph puts an enormous weight on specific wording, reduces clarity in practice, and overloads this talk page. Can we just spin the current versions of these off, and then go from there? (This might require an RFC.) At minimum it will ease discussion both of those topics and of the rest of the page. Disembrangler (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the prohibitions in this policy are same - there will alway be editors who want them removed. The fact is that plot only articles fall outside the scope of Misplaced Pages, and with out verifiable evidence of notability, they fail all the other core content policies as well - as do most of the other articles that fail WP:NOT. Either you support WP:NOT or you don't at the end of the day. Make your stand against cruft here. United we stand, together we fall. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you name another part of this policy that's ignored as much as WP:NOT#PLOT? As shown again and again at AFD, your claim that "plot only articles fall outside the scope of Misplaced Pages" is false. As seen in On NOTPLOT, your claim is false. Gavin, Misplaced Pages:Notability is not a policy. And "cruft" is a nonsense word. You've drunken the cruft Kool-Aid and have become a cruft true believer, and now see "cruft" behind every rock. Unfortunately, you can't see beyond your invented labels. Oh, and WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't keep "cruft" out of Misplaced Pages anyway, since nobody is required to read this policy before they save a page. --Pixelface (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but how does that address my suggestion? Neither paragraph will be any less policy spun off into separate policy pages, but discussion and clarification thereof will be easier, and this page would be less overloaded. Disembrangler (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It addresses your suggestion in that all the prohibiitons on content are contained in this policy page, not scattered over many. Together set the out boundry as to what Misplaced Pages is not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, that's clearer. But I think you're wrong: several WP:NOT headings lead to articles elsewhere in summary style, and that's what I'd envisaged for plot and censored. I certainly take your point that we should try and keep policy as simple as possible; but simplicity is not merely a function of length. It's also about giving the policy enough space to be clear, appropriate links and context, and allowing clarifying discussion to work well. Yes? Disembrangler (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will note that PLOT points to wP:WAF, and the statement here is meant to be a summary of at least the key aspect that we want fiction topics to expand beyond plot summaries. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

NOT CENSORED belongs here--it's a basic policy about what goes in the encyclopedia, applying to all sorts of articles. Nor is it complicated--the application is usually very simple and unequivocal: there are simply a small minority of people who disagree with it as a basic concept, but it has almost complete consensus. NOT PLOT is another matter, because in practice it's a matter of degree, and whatever one says about where the consensus lies, it's not that unequivocal as the other things on the page. It is further confused by being interwoven with WP:FICT and a number of other guidelines, and it would be better to unify this--assuming we could agree on a compromise, which is another matter. In practice the fact that it is here has long been used as a obstructing tactic to prevent change elsewhere, and the presence of the other rules to prevent change here. I no longer argue this matter, because I see no possible way it can be settled, because I think there are too many people who will reject any compromise. (an example of this is the tinkering with the difference between "entirely" plot and "almost exclusively plot" and "primarily plot"--which have very different implications, and should not be attempted to be settled by tinkering with the wording.) Gavin, you were unable to write a single paragraph defending it without confusing it with the concept of notability, and I too am not able to do to write a paragraph about it without dealing with both.. The purpose of NOT is to say that some things are not allowed, even if they are notable. DGG (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that NOTCENSORED being uncomplicated (itself debatable, particularly in terms of scope and manner of application, see eg Main Page, Autofellatio, and Rorschach) is sufficient reason to keep it here. There is plenty of explanation, contextualisation, and recording of relevant consensus either in policy or on one unified talk page or both that would be an improvement. Disembrangler (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. How about writing an article on censorship in user space, moving it to project space when it seems to be ready, and waiting for it to get cited more and more. I think that's a relatively uncontroversial way of approaching the problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mabe, but that sounds like hard work... Disembrangler (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that NOT CENSORED should probably stay here, but I don't think its application is as straightforward as you make it. I have observed a tendency of people to argue for taboo-breaking content by citing NOT CENSORED instead of encyclopedic reasons. I.e. they are basically saying, the content must be included because you don't want it and you have the wrong reasons for not wanting it. A good example is at Talk:Rorschach test#Encyclopedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

PLOT should be spun out as DGG says. It's existence is a barrier to forming a consensus, since it divides the community. I agree with DGG that it might be hard to find another way, which is why I believe we need a moderated RFC on the issue, to ensure that everyone's voice counts as equal. On this issue we have bowed for far too long to those people, self included, who like the sound of their own voices. Hiding T 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT should be spun out into the garbage. You never should have added it to this policy page and you know it. Misplaced Pages editors for too long have blindly bowed to your whims. If only those blind followers knew why you proposed it. We just had an RFC. What's the point of another RFC if people are just going to ignore that one too? --Pixelface (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I've spun off a Place To Draft here: Misplaced Pages:Plot-only description of fictional works. If nothing else, moving this discussion to that page's talk page would make the discussion more manageable, and avoid overcrowding this talk page. However it could also permit some expansion of the paragraph into a larger quantity of prose, which by placing less weight on individual words might make the conflict more resolvable. Possibly. Worth a try, no? PS In case it isn't obvious, I envisage the lead of the new page (if it gets adopted) to be reflected here at WP:NOT, summary-style. Disembrangler (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So If I add some crazy new rule to this policy and stonewall for years, are you going to spin that off onto its own page too? When people add things to this policy page that do not represent consensus, that are not a widely accepted standard in the community, we remove them. We don't spin them off onto their own pages. --Pixelface (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting/confusing guidelines

Please note the first pillar at Misplaced Pages:Five pillars: "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." I just noticed that in complete contradiction to that first pillar, someone had added that we are "not" an almanac to this page. After I removed it asking for discussion on this apparent contradiction, another account reverted my edit claiming "someone is trying to misconstrue long-established consensus in order to promote his interpretations on some AfDs; also, the cirted page clearly says 'incorporating *elements* of almanacs'", which aside from being an obvious assumption of bad faith, is simply inaccurate as I explained in this edit summary, i.e. "by that same logic we would have Not#Encyclolpedia because the First pillar only says 'elements of general and specialized encyclopedias'". We cannot have this contradictory instructions. So, either we are not an almanac or we are. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get dragged into a lengthy discussion about this too. WP:5P, which A Nobody has been citing his way over and over on various pages outlines the generic traits of wikipedia, and these state that it incorporates elements of various types of works. Saying that it is an encyclopedia, and stating that it does not function as anything other, while incorporating elements from those other things, is clearly not in contradiction of the paragraph he keeps deleting. But enough elementary logic: his view is currently invoked in several debates which are far from finished, and his edits came immediately after a user cited this rule to contradict his reading of the five pillars. Meaning that, aside from being contradicted by logic, his edits are attempting to push an agenda into the core of wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Five pillars has said we are an almanac since it was created on 4 May 2005. Now looking at WP:NOT from the same time, I am not seeing anything about not being an almanac. Also, the disputed addition only appeared on 5 May 2009, i.e. a mere month ago. Earlier discussions, such as Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_9#Not_an_Almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_1#Is_Wikipedia_an_almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_25#Misplaced Pages:_Almanac_or_not.3F hardly reveal any consensus supporting a notion that we are not an almanac. If there was no consensus to add this contradictory shortcut to the page, it needs to be removed. Moreover, per WP:BRD, it was boldly added and probably in good faith, but now has been challenged and now is being discussed, it you should not have tried edit warring in back in while the discussion takes place. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really a rule, it is just a POV redirect to the rule about having raw statistics as an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ahhh, now I see the difference in the edits. It is about using the word "almanac" as a synonym for "raw statistics". Raw statistics are excluded from Misplaced Pages. No almanac I have, and I have 5, has "raw statistics", all have organized charts with moderately detailed explanations of the data contained. Most of the entries are country descriptions, lists of popes and presidents and countries ranked by various factors such as GNP. I would say this does not define an almanac at all, and should be removed and changed to "raw statistics". I see STATS is already covered, there is no point having a non synonym like ALMANAC used a s redirect, an Almanac is not raw statistics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that description of how information is presented in an almanac. It pretty much means all of those wonderful stub-type bilateral relations articles are presented incorrectly and should be merged to a list, with the originals deleted. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree it is stupid to say its not an almanac, when in fact the pillars say we encompass the elements of almanacs, among other things. Dream Focus 03:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going with A Nobody and Dream on this one. WP:5 states CORE PRINCIPLES of Misplaced Pages. (bold and caps mine) To say anywhere in other (struck per KingTurtles observation)policy or guidelines that we won't have elements of an almanac is simply ludicrous. It is a poorly phrased redirect, and should be removed - plain and simple. I'm not saying there's a real problem with item 3. of "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" stated as: "Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. " The key words here being indiscriminate and excessive. I'm not sure who put it (NOT#ALMANAC) in there, but it wasn't there last December, or even last March from my view of history. To be honest, it's not really important who, but it should definitely be removed. Talk about confusing to new users .. geesh. Delete with extreme prejudice. Full Stop. — Ched :  ?  05:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed. The usage here of the misleading redirect "NOT#ALMANAC" must go. Editors who do not wish the use of that term "Almanac" should rally a consensus to change the WP:5 Pillars to the WP:5 Generic Traits and before they take it upon themselves to interpret "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" in any way other than what the words wisely, sweetly, and quite clearly say. To use "NOT#ALMANAC" in that specific section in that specific manner implies that almanacs are "an indiscriminate collection of information", which they most certainly are not. Schmidt, 05:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Desagree WP has never been an almanac, and should not become one. WP:Almanac linked to this page by July 2008, so the claim that this is a "new" sort of connection is tenuous by a year. Collect (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• As WP:5 states in its introduction, the Five Pillars are based on the policies that existed at the time, but WP:5 itself is not policy. It is a summary, an essay, a quick reference page. It is by no means the final word. In fact, it shouldn't be used at all in this debate. WP:5 is not a sacred text. The way I see it, Misplaced Pages itself is not an almanac (Misplaced Pages is not an annual publication), but Misplaced Pages does contain almanacs within it. Portal:Contents/Portals, Portal:Contents/Lists of topics, Misplaced Pages:Days of the year, Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article, Portal:Current events and Portal:Baseball/Anniversaries are all good examples of almanacs and almanac styles. Kingturtle (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of almanacs only to the extent that those elements are notable topics. Almanacs traditionally contain elements that are considered "useful" (high tides, library opening times, rules of etiquette, bus timetables etc), but their inclusion criteria are less stringent than Misplaced Pages's. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What almanac has bus schedules? A National almanac with bus schedules is just a silly concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree In my experience, astronomical data is usually kept whenever such issues arise. For example, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/16 August 2008 lunar eclipse in which the consensus was to keep this article. Eclipse details are archetypal almanac material and so an absolute prohibition is not appropriate here. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree wikipedia is not an almanac and should not include almanac data, unless it is relevant to an article. But it is clear that wikipedia is not an almanac - there is no contradiction. Verbal chat 16:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Retain status quo: We aren't an almanac, and are not building an almanac. Nothing about not being an almanac says that there is zero overlap of material. And, as always, I point out that the BRD cycle does not apply to policy pages: people need to get consensus before a change, not hack and slash policy pages to satisfy their own goals and seek approval later.—Kww(talk) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think there should be a W:NOTALMANAC guideline write one, but as a redirect for Excessive listing of statistics it is a deception. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Indeed, they do and in this case the change was to unilaterally add this shortcut about not an almanac nonsense without receiving a consensus first; in fact any discussions that did find suggest no consensus supports such an addition. Thus, that must be removed and only re-added if a consensus supports its inclusion and it is pretty clear that no such consensus exists as Misplaced Pages is obviously and has been since 2005 an almanac as well as an encyclopedia. Guidelines and policy pages must have consensus for such additions FIRST, not afterwards. If someone proposed this shortcut and after thorough discussion it was added that would be one thing, but it is clearly not the case. Rather it was added and only now are we having a discussion on it. As such, the change of adding the shortcut never had any consensus to begin with. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as is - KWW is quite right - such a change is really cruftmongering in disguise. Eusebeus (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If anything adding such an addition without first seeking consensus is indeed bureaucracycruft and therefore unacceptable, which is why the consensus lacking section will be removed. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • We have a long history of rejecting articles that list such information at AfD, which is precisely the kind of consensus that this page reflects. Cruftmongering disgruntleds whining about it here cannot undo the accumulated consensus practice of the project as a whole. If you are really convinced that this idiosyncratic interpretation of the Five Pillars can be sustained, then go start up a centralised RfC on the question, linked from the main deletion page. As it stands now, the policy page is an accurate reflection of our current practices, every day reinforced by the praxis at AfD. Eusebeus (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • We have a much longer history or creating, working on, and coming here for such articles, regardless of the incredibly small minority of accounts who comment in AfDs, including the many who support such articles in AfDs as well. Adding "NOTALMANAC" back in May 2009 when the Five pillars have said otherwise since 2005 reflects an extreme minority opinion that the community at large in practice and as commented above clearly does not back in any sufficient way to justify inclusion here. And as such, the community at large is not okay with a minority viewpoint being forced or imposed upon us, especially with with no discussion supporting such an addition. Indeed the discussions I found that took place in three different years were brief and if anything indicated no consensus or in fact consensus against such an addition. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree We are first and foremost an encyclopedia. We are not a dictionary yet we include definitions of terms if they help build an encyclopedic article. In this same sense we are not an almanac yet we may include some material found in almanacs if and only if it contributes to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. ThemFromSpace 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• remove "not almanac". I've just searched back as far as Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_24 and there's exactly 1 public discussion of the subject, in archive 25 - it was brief and did not suggest a new WP:NOT item. "not almanac" is an attempt at a fait accompli, like many other restrictive policies and guidelines. --Philcha (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Looking back through WP:UPDATE and diffs to late November 2008, the earliest I can see #NOTALMANAC is "at 04:16, May 5, 2009. ". version, diff. The edit summary doesn't say specifically what the addition is, nor does it mention what prompted the addition. I'd suggest that with Philcas research, there was no consensus to add this, and that the status quo should be a version without that shortcut. diff to archived discussion We report - you decide. ;) — Ched :  ?  20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the diffs. As this is a recent addition which neither has consensus support nor reflects our other policies and practises, it should be removed immediately and only reinstated as and when it achieves some consensus and clarification as to what it means. The section to which it points does not use the word almanac and so currently the shortcut is pointless. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remove "not almanac" per Philcha and because we have lots of articles that could go just as well in an almanac or an encyclopedia. Maybe WP:RAW or something could be used instead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remmove per Ched Davis. Hobit (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove "not almanac" It says so in Misplaced Pages:Five pillars and the information can be extremely useful.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• WP should include the information in an almanac There is great overlap between that and an encyclopedia anyway, with relatively little additional in an almanac besides some tables of statistics and details on the current year's astronomical data. We might ass well formalize this, The pillars have it right, and had it right from the start, and the change in WP:NOT to say not almanac is simply against basic policy. and rationality. There is no project better placed to do this right than we are. Even paper encyclopedias would have had this information, if they could have kept it up to date. We can do so. The change was a recent change against policy. WP:BOLD specifically advises that such things are not a good idea. Trying to change basic policy by tinkering here is abusive. DGG (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• There should not be a link/redirect to "not almanac" because it's a contradiction, but long lists of statistics are very often inappropriate. We certainly shouldn't be including lists of all the results of a minor-league baseball team for the last fifty years (to take an extreme example, and not to say that this has happened). However, some users may do well to remember that this is a policy; WP:5P is not. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's right, WP:5P is beyond policy, it is an enunciation of the principles of Misplaced Pages. As DGG and our principles aver, we overlap with an almanac, and it is up to consensus where the overlap begins and ends, likely, as Stifle suggests, with an extreme example. Personally, I have no issue with people tinkering with policies, because doing so is how we learn what consensus will support, and also what our policies mean. But that freedom should be open to everyone. Hiding T 12:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral I don't like the specific prohibition, but frankly "not an almanac" is an easy way of delimiting ourselves that happens to be accurate. We aren't a listing of statistics. Where those statistics are important to a subject (Box scores or climate) we should include them or exclude them as a matter of editorial judgment. But where they are standalone or unimportant, we should (and do) remove or delete them. Just stop all of this edit warring over policy. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove As statistics are sometimes relevant to articles. Having not an almanac would be a license to remove all statistics. -Djsasso (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per all of the above. Clearly implies something that WP:5P directly contradicts. Powers 12:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've upgraded the tag on this section of the policy from "under discussion" to "disputed" since this discussion has so many "remove it" comments. --Philcha (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

About 6 editors have expressed a wish to remove something that has apparently been in policy by longstanding consensus, and this qualifies as "disputed"? I am pretty doubtful of that claim. Locke9k (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should do a big RfC, like the one for PLOT? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree w Locke9k's counting, but think that's because this discussion uses no standard way of identifying "remove" / "keep" / "modify" / neutral / "comment".

Whether we use my count or Locke9k's, I agree w Peregrine Fisher that an RfC seems the way to clear this up. But we should first format it so we can see what the result is: pretitled sections "remove" / "keep" / "modify" / neutral / "comment"; "votes" to be in numbered listed, whihc naturalyl doe snot apply to "commnets" --Philcha (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There was never a consensus. This year ONE editor unilaterally added it without discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody 03:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Would Locke care to explain how the disputed wording "has apparently been in policy by longstanding consensus", because that doesn;t appear to reflect teh facts at hand, which seem to indicate it is a recent addition with no clear consensus. Hiding T 15:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remove We are already an almanac in providing Top-10-like lists and statistical tables that are entirely appropriate and useful. I think the concern is about raw, unformatted, unencyclopedic/unuseful data; but that's already excluded under the NOT_STATS clause, so NOT_Almanac is entirely unnecessary and wrong. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove it. I think almanac content is and should be acceptable and have always seen the five pillers wording accepted as the common accepted practice. Davewild (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

textbook / academic reference

A recent edit changed "not a ... textbook" to "not a ... academic reference". I have reverted, as I don't buy the changed wording. The meaning of it seems ambiguous to me. In principle, if an academic wants to reference WP, who are we to stop them? If they did so, then in one meaning of the term "academic reference", WP would qualify. Also even putting aside that ambiguity, I don't see that the change would be consensus by any means. There is a lot of material rightfully on WP that an academic would conceivably use as a reference source, whether for an equation or for the atomic weight of lead.Locke9k (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to run, but quick comment...I kind of liked Kingturtle's edit, and in general I feel that the point is we should avoid using lots of jargon and try to keep articles accessible and comprehensible to lay readers. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the change. If taken seriously, it would mean that thousands of encyclopedic articles would become deletable because it's simply impossible to write about the topic in a way that is accessible to a general audience, and thousands would have to be stripped of most content that is meaningful to the people most interested.

The change properly reflects the existence item 5, "Scientific journals and research papers". The problem is that item 5 does not reflect actual practice, at least not in the field in which I am editing.

"Not a textbook" is a statement about the style of our articles and causes no unreasonable restrictions on the content. For example in mathematical articles it means that we don't write like this:

"Theorem 2.1 .

Every foo is a bar.

Proof: Let us assume that..."

but like this:

In 2017, Smith & Jones proved that every foo is a bar.

For articles of primarily technical interest we have two problems related to accessibility:

1. Most such articles are less accessible than possible. This is mostly due to the effort involved in getting them accessible and the lack of motivation for those able to do it. But some editors are actively opposed to white lies or vague descriptions in the lede, or to moving the material that is of most interest to experts and incomprehensible to everybody else towards the end of the article.
2. For many such articles (especially in mathematics), making them accessible throughout could not be achieved without removing information of vital importance to the experts who actually read the article in practice. In some cases it does not even make sense to make the first paragraph of the lede accessible to the general audience. It is not unusual that an editor arrives at such an article via the "Random article" function and templates it with Template:Technical.

An example for the first problem is average. Most readers would be unable to figure out from this article that for most practical purposes, the average of 3, 8 and 4 is (3+8+4)/3, and that they should really look under arithmetic mean.

For the second problem, see group (mathematics) for a (featured) article that is about as accessible as it can be. Most readers without a background in university level maths find it very tough reading. For mathematicians the article could be made much easier to read by making it less accessible. See Morley's categoricity theorem for an article that is completely incomprehensible to most Misplaced Pages readers. Very rarely a non-mathematician really insists on being told what my work is about. Then I try to give a vague impression of what this very notable theorem says. This takes about an hour.

It's a question of balance. Experts must understand that Misplaced Pages is a general encyclopedia and is not primarily for them. Even the most technical articles such as Morley's categoricity theorem need to set some context such as: "In model theory, a branch of mathematical logic ". Readers in general must understand that there are topics of which they will never have even so much as a vague idea (other than, say, "some advanced mathematical theorem"), even though they are highly notable in their respective fields.

Some editors cause disruption because they are not prepared to accept the last point: "If you can't explain it so that I can understand it, then it can't be notable." Saying Misplaced Pages is "not an academic reference" encourages them in a way that saying Misplaced Pages is not "an academic journal" does not (or, rather, should not). "Academic reference" is dangerously close to "academic encyclopedia". As a compromise, I am changing "academic reference" to "scientific journal". Even so I am not very happy with this, because it gives more weight to a point that is often misunderstood. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points, all. I would just like to point out that maybe "academic journal" would be better to use in the section header than "scientific journal", because there are non-science fields that have just as much technical jargon. For example, philosophy and anthropology both have their own registers and, while I'm sure we can argue about whether or not they are "sciences", I'm sure they wouldn't refer to their journals as "science journals". rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This works for me. I actual used that first, but then I thought it's cleaner to use an expression from item 5. It's all the same to me. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I will comment that I don't disagree with the advice, only the placement. This is strictly a style issue and probably should be placed up in the style section. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Misplaced Pages:Make technical articles accessible seems to cover the same ground and, because it provides positive guidance, does not get into the difficuties of selecting the right term to describe what WP is not ("textbook", "academic reference", "academic journal", etc.). --Philcha (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposing removing WP:NOTMIRROR#2

I'd like to propose removing the second facet of WP:NOTMIRROR, which states "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with article organisation and navigation; for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lead and selection criteria." Per results in many AfDs and discussions, it seems apparent that many lists are allowed which are exactly this, mere collections of internal links that are mirrors of official lists from other sites reformatted to use wikicode. This includes the many lists of award winners for various awards, from the big Academy award lists down through List of winners of the Walt Whitman Award‎, which is about to be kept in AfD. From consensus there and in other similar AfDs, it seems clear that such lists are perfectly acceptable for inclusion here. Therefore, it seems this particularly part of WP:NOT is no longer valid. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that the Walt Whitman list is beyond "mere", as there's more than just the internal links, but tabular data that is appropriate to include. I'd take the above reading more to point to an extended list in the form of strict "list-style" lists (using "*" before items without additional information for each item). --MASEM (t) 13:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So as long a list has more than a bunch of bullets (like perhaps Lists of thinking-related topics), it is beyond mere, even if the other columns are also primarily links and do nothing but mirror the same list on an official site? List of Academy Award-winning films, for example, adds number of noms/awards and statistics (which may or may not be OR, but for example purposes it works). What about something like List of American gentlemen's clubs, which is basically a big list of links, with pictures added to the side and grouping by state? Does the grouping and picture make it more than what not #2 is speaking of? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like WP:NOTMIRROR #2 Mere collections of internal links applies to list articles. Disambiguation pages and list articles are both listed as exceptions. I really don't know what that section would apply to. Perhaps a hypothetical article in the mainspace with multiple wikilinks like ] intended for Googlebombing. The "mere" was re-added December 7, 2007 by Leranedo. The section appears in the oldest available version of this page from September 24, 2001. Category:Indexes of articles contains 785 articles as of now, so it doesn't seem that "Mere collections of internal links" is valid anymore. --Pixelface (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That "lists of thinking topics" article looks like a possible candidate for deletion to me, as redundant to Portal:Thinking. Powers 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Elevate WP:HAMMER from essay to guideline.

I believe WP:HAMMER is sufficiently useful and normative that it should be elevated from essay to guideline. Please provide your thoughts on the matter at Misplaced Pages talk:TenPoundHammer's Law#Time to promote this essay to a guideline? Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you have commented here. Based on Misplaced Pages:GUIDELINE#Proposing_guidelines_and_policies I have taken the liberty of cutting your contributions from here and pasting them to Misplaced Pages talk:TenPoundHammer's Law#Time to promote this essay to a guideline? to keep the discussion in one place. My apologies for not noticing this sooner. Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IINFO

Some discussion has arisen at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller over the application of WP:IINFO. Some in that discussion are contending that the four examples shown in this guideline (news articles, mere lists of statistics, plot-only descriptions, and lyrics databases) are the only types of information excluded by the "indiscriminate information" metric. Would those of you active in editing this guideline agree with that assessment? If not, should the guideline be made clearer to more explicitly state that the four listed items are just examples? Powers 13:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be clear that what is listed under IINFO are the typical examples we find, but not the absolute extent of what we aim to avoid. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was, but there are couple of users in the discussion I linked who are incredibly adamant that IINFO only applies to those four examples, period; they are demanding proof to the contrary. Powers 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the guideline should be changed to include language like "including, but not limited to:" ? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's already there under WP:NOT#Content; it says "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive; see WP:BEANS." Stifle (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's exactly for what I was looking. Powers 12:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTBLOG replacement

There may have been talks about this before, but I think people should be able to put their own stuff on their user page. I made an article testing it out on a team I made up called the UWIL Flame Dogs but it got deleted. It was just practicing wiki code! It was here: User:Wilsonbiggs/UWIL Flame Dogs. If you see the deleted notice you know it was deleted. The policy says:
Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Misplaced Pages in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however.
I propose a deletion of this policy, or at least a change. Wilsonbiggs (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope not! The other discussions here centre on what is in the interests of WP. Wilsonbiggs's proposal is just a request for free webspace. --Philcha (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No need for a change. Misplaced Pages isn't here for people to get free webhosting, socialize, etc. Its an encyclopedia. If you want to practice wikicode, there is the sandbox. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

a question of policy concerning WP:SOAP and google indexing of user pages

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Yesterday, an incident was posted on the ANI board that had to do with WP:SOAP, and the big Singh banners on some users pages. I found this decision especially interesting: . Imo, this decision could set a precedent which invites WP:Soap. Anyone that wants to use Misplaced Pages to WP:SOAP just needs to copy some text from their blog to a "sandbox article" that they are writing in their userspace. Once they do that, they can put a link to their personal blog to verify that their text is not a copyright violation. If the text is only part of their article, then they don't violate WP:NOTMIRROR. So now, here is a User sandbox article that can just be something stating the author's opinion about whatever, with a link to his blog and links to other sources that might not be reliable sources.. but who cares? After all, this is the User's private space, and Misplaced Pages allows more freedom of expression in a User's personal space than in a Main article. So.. what's the problem?

The problem is that google indexes these user pages and ranks them along with the related main wikipedia articles - and a majority of Misplaced Pages articles in Main space get top billing/prime space. This user whose blog would not have been read unless someone went through 100 pages of google results (and who does that?) can now WP:Soap with links to their personal blog and other links that would not be acceptable in a Misplaced Pages article in Main Space, but are in the User's personal space - only now the user has much more WORLDWIDE coverage for whatever their personal opinions, much more than they would with just a personal blog.

The following is an example of how this can happen. After the topic of google was brought up as a factor in the WP:SOAP Ani, I googled one of the topics that BullRangifer talks about in his User Space: google on "spinal manipulation research I was surprised to see BullRangifer's "sandbox" article on Spinal Manipulation Research with links to his blog is near the top on the first page of google results. This is a PRIME place to be. Notice the titles in BullRangifers User article: Chiropractic's_Dirty_Secret:_Neck_Manipulation_and_Strokes An article with section titles like this wouldn't make it in a Main Space article on "Spinal Manipulation Research". So, I will assume that this is just a personal opinion page or notes. Misplaced Pages does have a Main Space article called "Spinal Manipulation". I looked back at my google search, and found to my surprise that BullRangifer's article comes BEFORE the main wikipedia article in Google.

I did not notice before that Misplaced Pages allowed the User pages to be indexed. I didn't think this was allowed a few years ago (but I might be mistaken on that)

This begs the question - why should anyone bother putting an article out on the Main part of Misplaced Pages, to be edited by the world, when you can put it on your user pages, say what you want, and have it indexed by google and get a prime place on search results? Stating opinions about issues/articles on Misplaced Pages is allowed on the user pages, and I personally don't really see anything wrong with it except for the fact that these pages are getting a free ride to prime time in google because they happen to be on the wikipedia space. Not only that, but I bet a lot of people see a User space article on some subject that has the same name, and think it is the Main Space Misplaced Pages article. Odds are that this has happened with BullRangifer's User Page article on Spinal Manipulation Research, because it comes before the Main Misplaced Pages article in Google. Plus, it has the same structure as an article, with an introduction, table of contents, sections, etc. The average joe wouldn't know the difference.

Imo, this is the part that is really entirely against the Misplaced Pages policy and invites WP:SOAP - the indexing of personal User pages along with the main articles. Imo, if Misplaced Pages really does not want to be used as WP:Soap or WP:Blog, it should put in statements in robots.txt to prevent the searching of User pages, and ask to have existing User pages removed as soon as possible. This is not a hard thing to do. Updating the robots.txt file would take five minutes, and I'm sure if wikipedia made a request to google to remove user pages, Google would probably do this very quickly.

I would like to know why the User pages are indexed? What is the reason? Is there any reason? I think this policy should be looked at.

Comments? --stmrlbs|talk 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Why should Misplaced Pages interfere in what Google wants to index? They're perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what they think is important.
2. There's so much rubbish & propaganda in mainspace anyway it probably doesn't make much difference.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of people don't realize that it is the site owner- in this case, Misplaced Pages- who decides what Google can index within a site. Google just indexes everything on a site within the bounds defined by the owner. Every site sets up a robots.txt statement to say what parts of their site can be indexed. Misplaced Pages's robot's file does not allow indexing (and therefore searching) of areas like deleted discussions, spam boards, and other areas of wikipedia that it does not want ending up in the results pages of Google and other popular search engines. This is why I am asking why Misplaced Pages does allow the indexing of User pages? What is the reasoning, when WP:Misplaced Pages has a very definite policy of WP:SOAP / WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not? --stmrlbs|talk 16:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Google rank off-mainspace pages lower than articles? I almost never see Misplaced Pages user pages in Google searches unless I am searching for it, so I think they do. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

try this google, then scroll down to where the wikipedia site results are: google on "spinal manipulation research. Who's first for the wikipedia site? surprising? --stmrlbs|talk 16:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't this been beaten to death enough times already? See WP:NOINDEX for just *some* of the past discussions. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it has, but if consensus has been against it in the past, it can change. In my opinion, noindexing userspace pages is a good idea — we're here to build an encyclopedia, so it's great to have high-ranking searches for that, but userspace is clearly not part of the encyclopedia itself, so why do we want it to be indexed? It's not like talk pages for articles and categories, which are intended to help build the encyclopedia collectively; instead, these are individuals doing what they believe best, with little or no input from the rest of the community. Nothing wrong with that (at least in some cases), but when someone is using Misplaced Pages as a web host, we should do everything possible to stop that, including removing the possibility that it will improve their visibility. I can't imagine what downsides this would have for the average user (how many people feel like reading my talk page or my sandbox bit on a medical device?), but it would retard abuse of the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE

We need more than just a redirect. We need a section explaining why wikipedia is not to be used as a game guide. I am having trouble reverting new editors who think that it can be used as one, as citing this policy does not work.— Dædαlus 04:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove even the redirect as it is anti-Wikipedic, i.e. goes against what a large segment of our community come here in good faith for. Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why's it anti-Wikipedic? People come here in good faith for it, and then they learn that that's not what Misplaced Pages is for. WP is not for game codes, walkthroughs, etc. That's what the whole point of WP:NOT is for: teaching people what Misplaced Pages is, if they came here for something else. Most of us come here looking for something that Misplaced Pages isn't, and pages like these are what turned us into good contributors. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic. For the most part, such information would be characterized as "trivial" by any encyclopedia, and we are an encyclopedia. We would also be inundated by such material for not only video games, but any number of other entertainment items as well, were we to change that policy. This is not saying that a videogame wiki wouldn't be a bad idea, and I don't think it would be. We could certainly offer some sort of link to its pages were it to exist, I think. But such depth of information on such subjects is not encyclopedic. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see this diff, in which a new editor who does not know policy re-instates material which violates WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE.— Dædαlus 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that even A Nobody would recognize that as not appropriate for our encyclopedia, regardless of who looks for it here in good faith. Powers 20:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I wasn't asking why gameguide material is "anti-Wikipedic"...I was asking A Nobody why the NOTGAMEGUIDE guideline/redirect is "anti-Wikipedic". I agree with the other statements above. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What is and is not encyclopedic for a paperless encyclopedia of our nature is truthfully subjective. So long as this information is verifiable and written in a neutral manner and is relevant to some segments of our community, I would rather err on the side of helping that segment of our community than not having it and not helping anyone just because some don't like it. I am far more concerned with what Misplaced Pages is than trying to limit it by coming up with as many things of what it is is not instead. I am here to build human knowledge, not restrict it in a manner that only some of our community think it should be restricted. Yes, we should not have unverifiable information. Yes, we should not have libelous information. Yes, we should not have just made up information. But really beyond that, we then just get into what some like and what some do not like. Perhaps we should not be a game guide in the sense of a "how to", but when it comes to say lists of characters, locations, etc., those appear in magazines and other publications beyond published strategy guides and are not necessarily presented in a how to beat the game manner. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment