Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problems with this policy and trimming things back

[edit]

Inspired by the above section, let's lay out some problems with this policy.

  1. The page is a bit conceptually incoherent – obviously there's any number of things Wikipedia is not, so there's no clear criteria for when to add sections beyond "a consensus of editors felt it was important enough". But editors are more likely to be motivated to add new sections than to remove obsolete sections, so there's always going to be this tendency for the policy to be bigger than it needs to be.
  2. Additionally, "things Wikipedia is not" is just a bit of a strange grouping, full stop. To pick three at random, why should our policies on censorship (NOTCENSORED), using Wikipedia for research (NOTLAB) and avoiding dictionary entries (NOTDICT) all come under the same policy? I don't think it's because they're a natural fit to be discussed together – I think it's because, at some point, someone came up with a way to conceptualise them in terms of "Wikipedia is not X" and added them here. So it's pure chance we have, say, the policy on password strength at Wikipedia:Password strength requirements instead of a sub-section here called NOTWEAKPASSWORD.
  3. Related, there's a stupidly large number of redirects, anchors and shortcuts to various sections, I believe because editors are attracted to the WP:NOT[X] form and like to make redirects for every conceivably relevant value of X. Probably any individual example of these redirects is reasonable but their aggregate effect is a sort of "death by a thousand shortcuts" where the mass of hatnotes and shortcut boxes starts making the page too busy. Plus they make it more difficult to condense and merge points that really don't need to be separate, because you need to think about what to do with the shortcuts and anchors as well.

Anyway, upshot is I had a go at condensing things down a bit and knocked off a third of the page's total size just from trimming back the content section alone. I didn't set out to actually change the meaning of anything, just to merge similar points together and cut out redundancies.

Did I break a million anchors? Probably. Did I inadvertently overturn seven RfCs on subtle points of wording? Probably. Is it a net improvement? Yeah, once the kinks are ironed out, I think so. What do you think? – Teratix ₵ 14:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to start a new Wikipedia, I am sure that we would organize our policies differently. (Even if we wanted our policies to be basically the same.) But I'm against this even just on a procedural level. It creates a lot of conflict for very little gain. The usability/readability issue is mostly addressed by good anchors, and anything else can be accomplished with an essay about whichever point of NOT needs clarification. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud the effort. It's overwhelming to try to comment on a bundle of many dozens of changes to a core policy. There are two areas where if there were be a substantial rewrite there should be a bunch of careful work:

  • The linked not a dictionary has evolved a bit to recognize that terms can, are and should be a subject of coverage. The term often either creates the subject or creates a particular view of the subject.
  • The not a "collection of data" to reinforce that as encyclopedia, our approach is to cover things in enclyclopedia articles, including prose. This might help provide guidance on the areas where Wikipedia lacks guidance (on what is OK regarding list articles) and strengthing up guidance against 99% "stats only" articles.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


It's overwhelming to try to comment on a bundle of many dozens of changes to a core policy. Very fair! If it helps, maybe think of it not so much as "these are the exact point-by-point changes we need, the RfC opens tomorrow" but rather "whoa, we can make this a lot shorter and I don't even think we broke that much". – Teratix ₵ 15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The many links to other essays, policies and guidelines etc. might be summarized in a navigation template. No clue if there already exists one. The Banner talk 16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a bundle where there no changes of substance. North8000 (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If take that approach, what it probably needs is a close review by that the bundle does not contain any substantive changes and that it really does tidy it up. And for them to state their findings. I took a first look for "does not contain any substantive changes". Maybe I missed where it was retained, but it looks like you took out the "but articles can sometimes be on a term tweak of the not a dictionary section. IMO this is substantive change, and as a sidebar, one which I'd oppose. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still there, just in a footnote. No problem with moving it back in the main text if that's preferable. Again, I haven't set out to make substantive changes, but I'm realistic: condensing down the page by a third will inevitably trample on some sensitive wording in a few places, even when that's not my intent. This is more like a proof of concept or an "artist's impression" of how much shorter this policy could be – not every detail will be faithful and accurate, but it demonstrates the core idea is workable. – Teratix ₵ 03:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing this page is is a trump card, used to shortcut discussion about whether something should be included in the encyclopedia. This is most obvious with NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. If I had one wish for how this page would be rewritten, it would be that each criterion should follow the same rules as WP:NEWCSD, most specifically #1, objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific. That is, if good faith editors can differ whether something meets the criterion or not, I believe it's insufficiently explicit to be a NOT policy element. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do admit you killed some content. 2601:447:C600:4840:67:712D:772A:F99E (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:NOTTVGUIDE need extra info?

[edit]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE is currently in the "Wikipedia is not a directory" section, stating "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." Not only that current programming schedules should be included on article about a TV station, but MOS:TVINTL also follows this guideline and other cable networks can allow current programming on their separate articles, but they should all need a reliable source to support it. If needed, can this guideline be slightly expanded? Sparkbean (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We write for a 10yr view, so the "current programming schedule" is immediately outdated information. If there is historical aspects of the schedule to be kept, that's different, but no, we aren't going to include those current schedules. Masem (t) 20:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can just view the schedules on a third-party website, I was specifically noting why MOS:TVINTL complies with this guideline. Sparkbean (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIRECTORY

[edit]

Curious to hear what others think about articles such as List of diplomatic missions in London and the compatibility with WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which states that Wikipedia should not feature "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated." At present, the List of diplomatic missions in London is by definition a White Pages style directory listing of embassies in London and their addresses and coordinates. There is no contextual information, no encyclopedic merit, and no secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

add some {{-}}'s

[edit]

In a few places, the float-right shortcuts bump each other a sizeable distance to the left. I suggest adding {{-}}, a.k.a. {{clear}}, to avoid that. Thoughts? — Alien  3
3 3 14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=1247687901"