Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not


Proposal to delete redundant sentence


The following sentence appears at the end of wp:NOTDIRECTORY:

Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted.

I propose we delete this sentence for two reasons: First, it's meaning is unclear. What is a wider context? Second, it's redundant. The first sentence of the paragraph in which it appears already allows lists in "context," prohibiting only:

Simple listings without context information showing encyclopedic merit.

There is no reason to say it again at the end of the short paragraph.
Any reason I shouldn't remove the last sentence of wp:NOTDIRECTORY? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 57#Bibliographies of why this sentence is somewhat necessary. --Masem (t) 19:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The archived discussion took place before we added "showing encyclopedic merit" to the first sentence. Is there any reason to think that a bibliography of an author's work wouldn't now be protected by that phrase? If there does remain a concern, what do you think about replacing the fuzzy last sentence with an example explicitly showing a bibliography as an acceptable list? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Masem: (1) Does the modified first sentence (see immediately above) resolve your concern. And, if not, (2) what do you think about changing the current vague last sentence to an explicit statement that bibliographies do not run afoul of this rule? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The "Simple listings" text was added on 09:58, 14 September 2015 after discussion in this WP:VPPOL archive. The intent seems to be to rule out spam lists while allowing encyclopedic lists. I guess that a "wider context" is saying that a list is ok if there is a context (wider than the list) where the list makes sense. The "creative works" is not redundant and a tiny bit of repetition is not harmful. I don't see a need to omit the sentence. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we just need a re-write to make the intent clearer. I'll propose something. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, how about adding this sentence after "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." -

Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

NOTADVERTISING shortcut


The shortcut WP:NOTADVERTISING is used twice in the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline article, and probably in other guidelines, talk page discussions and edit summaries, and links to the appropriate section in this article. It's a great shortcut that gets to the point fast. I'd like to suggest it be added to the shortcut list. 5Q5| 16:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We have had to cut down how many visible/advertised shortcuts are used on this page because they become spammy, but this does not restrict the use of any usable anchors (like WP:NOTADVERTISING) to be included as relevant. Given that we do include WP:PROMO/WP:PROMOTION we probably don't need this, though one of those two are duplicative, and we could replace one of the visible ones with NOTADVERTISING. --Masem (t) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:NOTFANDOM" listed at Redirects for discussion


A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:NOTFANDOM. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 31#Wikipedia:NOTFANDOM until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. dudhhrContribs 03:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Advertising tag


Can someone please take a look at the propriety of the application of an advertising tag here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zach_Iscol#Promotional/advertising_tag

Two editors insist on it. (As well as on things such as, as recently as today, deleting the image of the subject of the article - and deleting article talk page comments that are not theirs - I think fresh eyes in that discussion would be very helpful). I understand people may dislike a subject, but wonder whether that is the best approach here. Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:DCF0:CBEA:C4A4:EFA1 (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

NOT the Army


I realize that it'd be an impossible job to add a new section here, but if it wasn't, I think we should have WP:NOTARMY which basically would say "Wikipedia is not the Army, where everything not mandatory is prohibited". Because some editors think it is I guess, considering the insistence that following a maze of orders, rules, regulations, and procedures is preferable to getting some useful thing done.

Another thing about the Army is, there are rules against everything, but they're not necessarily enforced all of the time. But if the Lieutenant doesn't like you today, suddenly you've broken twelve rules and its off to KP (or whatever they do now) for you.

I don't know. Maybe WP:ISTHEARMY would be more accurate. Herostratus (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Is that effectively part of WP:NOTBURO? --Masem (t) 19:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe you are correct. I think, perhaps, that adding something to the effect of the following to WP:NOTBURO might be helpful, though:

On Wikipedia, that which is not prohibited is not necessarily mandatory, and that which is not mandatory is not necessarily prohibited.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, something along those lines may be helpful to add as well; don't think we need a new shortcut but I agree the concept of what you say isn't really intoned by what we have, and we probably need to be clear that NOTBURO extends this far. --Masem (t) 20:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

not the news


Hi guys, I'm a bit confused about what's going on at Chatsworth House. Here in the UK it's a very famous stately home that has existed for 450+ years. Like most places, it was closed during the several lockdowns that we've had, and it's now open again, following the end of the most recent lockdown. For some reason, the fact that it's now open again has been added to the lead.

Given Chatsworth House's long history, I don't think that the fact that it's opened again following the end of the most recent lockdown that we've had is important enough to mention in the article, let alone in the lead.

Doesn't that information, along with things like the opening hours etc., belong in the museum's website rather than in an encyclopedia article? I'm confused. If somebody could please explain, that'd be appreciated. I don't want to revert again because I wouldn't want to engage in an edit war. Thank you. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about that topic, but if you have a content dispute like this, it's best to first try to find a solution on the article's talk page (Talk:Chatsworth House) and discuss with the involved editors. If they don't reply, you can also post a message on their user talk page. But indeed it's good that you don't want to start an edit war and asked first! Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the matter, but it doesn't have anything to do with WP:NOTNEWS, which is mainly to prescribe against doing our own reporting ("Chatsworth House is now open"<ref>I just went there myself</ref>, that sort of thing. Other than that, we're supposed to refrain from printing sports scores, celebrity gossip, horoscopes, local police blotter stuff, and other things that newspapers do. Other than that, it just talks about making whole articles about recent events (TL;DR: do what you think best).
I don't think there's a rule about what you're talking about. Just hash it out on the talk page I guess. It kind of depends on whether you think people 20 years from or 100 will care. For Lesnoye Sanatorium, I put in "A forest fire, one of the many 2010 Russian wildfires of that hot dry summer, destroyed large swaths of the surrounding forest. The sanatorium was saved, but was closed from July 30, 2010 to December 10, 2010." It's not critical info but its part of the story I guess, so I don't have a problem with stuff like that on principle. Herostratus (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Our guideline WP:NOTTRAVEL states we're not a travel guide - that line gets close to that. I'd personally remove it per WP:BRD and then if someone reinstates it, take it to the talk page (unless there's already a conflict about it, in which case the talk page is the good place to start.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    It has already been reinstated twice. So yeah, talk plage is the place to go. Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    Think about from the point of view of a reader in 2030. Is it significant enough for that future reader to be interested? Interesting enough for it to be in the lead? Conversely, would a temporary closure from 50 years ago be interesting enough to put in the article?  Stepho  talk  00:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    What you're asking is the lines of WP:RECENTISM, and are the right questions to ask and what should be discussed at the talk page. I fully agree, as a lede aspects its unnecessary, unless for some reason the COVID closure drastically affected the future of the business of the site. --Masem (t) 00:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

A forthcoming "rebranding" of some media outlets


I would appreciate input from editors more familiar with "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". At CKWX (and other places), an editor has added "In June 2021, Rogers announced that it would rebrand CKWX and its other all-news radio stations under the CityNews brand beginning that fall". WP:CRYSTAL mentions "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable", and I fail to see the notability of this company's "rebranding" four months in the future, or how knowing this would in any way benefit Wikipedia's readers. Just add the rebranded name once it happens. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I think its rather fair to include mention of this as long as its coming from a third-party source. Consider that in four months, these pages will likely be renamed to reflect the renaming, so the sources now will be useful to explain why the rebranding took place, so adding those now will save time then. --Masem (t) 17:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
"In June 2021, Rogers announced that it would rebrand" is an event in the past (the announcement, not the rebranding), so that's not crystal gazing. We commonly include info on events that are likely to happen barring some sort of disaster or whatever... presidential elections and so forth. The question would be if the info is trivial or ephemeral. If say 20 or 100 years from now it'd be appropriate for the article to say "In late 2021, what had been CKWK was renamed to the current name of Grand Guiginol Media". I guess so, so might as well get started now. Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)