The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Shortcut: WT:NOT

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Wikipedia is not page.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
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

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Sections with no replies in 7 days are automatically moved. An archive index is available here.

Topic: Galleries (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May - July 2007) Topic: "Unencyclopedic" (2003) Topic: Trivia (July 2007 - ongoing; partially archived)

Contents 1 I want to make this change 2 Proposed edit to NOTNEWS 3 Wikipedia is a directory 4 A question about WP:CRYSTAL

[edit] I want to make this change

Now reads:

• "On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time."

Change to:

• "On the other hand, street prices change too rapidly and vary from place to place to be useful in an encyclopedia."

Anyone object? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not I. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont object on the condition that I hope you are right that "street prices change too rapidly". Actually I hope you are wrong, because I like the price at which I buy my weed and dont want it to go up. :0)Camelbinky (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I object because it adds no substance, and removes the important assumption that trivia is to be discouraged. ThemFromSpace 07:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edit to NOTNEWS

WP:NOT#NEWS Currently starts out: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as ...". I propose striking the first one-and-a-half or two sentences, so that the paragraph begins: Not all events warrant ...

• historical is extremely subjective, and does not contribute anything useful beyond what is contained in notability. It is also redundant given the wikilinked usage of notability.
• To launch this sub-sub-section of a POLICY off the notability GUIDELINE, is circular. It becomes ironically so when this sub-sub-section is later used to trump the very guideline that it appears (via the first sentence) to be taking as it's startng point. References to notability, as a guideline, should be secondary to the key message of this policy.
• The first part of the second sentence is waffle. It might belong further down the paragraph, but not near the top.
• not all events warrant an article is stating the obvious. (might be okay with an added adjective, but the third sentence is a good starting point, with examples)

Given the reference level to this part of the policy, even though I see it as an edit that does not actually affect the meaning of the section, I think it would be useful to gather other editors feelings, even just a quick support or oppose. --Jaymax (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

in my opinion, most of the content-related parts of NOT are an attempt to rationalize things that are not rational if dealt with by the N guideline. I'm glad you see it also. The problem you refer to in the 2nd point can';t be dealt with properly except by rewriting the whole policy/guideline on inclusion from scratch, and this will not happen, because everyone will worry about their own special interests.

But the actual difficulty with your proposal is the word "historical" it has been widely used in AfD discussions but to argue that something should be kept because it will be historical, or alternatively the opposite. I am not quite sure of the effect this will have. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the word historical is too subjective in this context and should be removed.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:BOLDly remove the first sentence and see who screams at me :) Jaymax (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was me. This is a key distinction on Wikipedia, which is also implied by WP:NTEMP. I'd oppose it's removal. I may be a traditionalist here, but notability has to be lasting and because of that it makes historical impact. I think some editors may be confusing the terms "historical" and "historic". "Historical" is a much more objective term than "historic". Historical only means that something lasts a long time, while historic says it is of importance. Being historic goes along with notability and is inappropriate to be mentioned in a section about news. Being historical is the opposite of being temporary, and as such it is a key point in defining that we aren't the news. ThemFromSpace 04:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My evil plot to drag in a dissenting view worked then :-) This dictionary at least doesn't support your definition of 'historical' (the wiktionary entry is too brief to be useful, but also defines the word as meaning 'of the past'); BUT I concur that what you are saying is the likely intent of the word. Can we replace historical with permanent or enduring perhaps? (being antonyms of temporary) Jaymax (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with enduring. It's a good word choice. ThemFromSpace 12:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Another point: "What Wikipedia is not" should equally apply to articles, and article content. Notability (the guideline referenced in the first sentence) applies explicitly to topics (articles), but not article content. However, it is not appropriate to add news events on celebrities to their articles, (or pick an alternative non-BLP equivalent) unless the significance of those events is enduring. How can we tweak NOT#NEWS to remove any implication that it is talking about articles any more than article content? ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is a directory

The wording needs to reflect the fact that to all intents and purposes Wikipedia now is a directory, at least of certain classes of subject. For example, we have articles on individual trading cards, second level amateur ice hockey teams, schools, skyscrapers, shopping malls and other classes of content which are sourced from directories and news clippings but where the subject is not and probably never will be the subject of non-trivial independent coverage as a distinct entity. This is an inevitable source of friction. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First off it does not say we are not a directory, it says "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed", which is still true. I would also say that instead of expanding our scope to subjects of dubious notability, we should instead seek to make these article's meet our inclusion criteria or delete them. ^Chillum 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. ThemFromSpace 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Directories have the goal of being all-encompassing, while we don't. If every subject in a particular class happens to be notable then we may take on an appearance of a directory for that class of subjects, but our methods of inclusion differ from directories. We don't include subjects because we are a directory, but because they are each individually notable. Having an article on one subject does not allow us to create an article on a similar subject if the second subject is not independently notable. That's a difference between an encyclopedia and a directory. ThemFromSpace 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia a directory of skyscrapers? Then why was an article on the Plaza on DeWitt not created until yesterday, by me? Turns out that it was the first building in the world to use the tubular construction later used to build the World Trade Center. And this is in spite of the fact that there are active editors from WikiProject Chicago. Abductive (reasoning) 00:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel that we already have problems caused by some editors focusing on categorising rather than writing/caring for articles. It seems they want to build an ontology rather than an encyclopedia. This leads to problems if we need to merge two closely related topics in order to get a decent, maintainable article. If they are about different kinds of things (e.g. Leeds, which is about both a settlement and a metropolitan district, since ordinary language doesn't distinguish between the two) these directory builders tend to get very angry. We shouldn't encourage that. Hans Adler 01:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A question about WP:CRYSTAL

A member of my "home" WikiProject, WP:CYCLING, has been routinely over the last few weeks and months reverting updates to cyclist biographies stating they will ride for a certain new team in 2010 by claiming WP:CRYSTAL. These cyclists have signed new contracts, and these are sourced, verifiable facts, so I don't see how CRYSTAL should apply. Another sport I follow is baseball, and I don't see that Chone Figgins and Rich Harden are still members of the LA Angels or the Chicago Cubs, so why is it wp:crystal to give the new team of Christopher Sutton (cyclist)? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourced announcements of confirmed, future affiliations is certainly not a violation of CRYSTAL. In this case, CRYSTAL would be presuming a first-basemen for a baseball team will continue to play first base for the next x years when only next year's line up is known. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - just because there is a high possibility that something will happen, does not make it a certainty. In anyc case, a bald announcement that a particular cyclist will be in a team confers no notability on its own.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The notability guidelines are concerning entire article topics, not parts of articles. See WP:NNC.

It is not a violation of crystal to write that a rider has a contract to ride with a certain team. It is the same as saying a treaty will extend for x years. Or a book released on x future date. If an event occurs that breaks the contract/treaty/shipping-date, the article can be updated accordingly. -- Quiddity (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would advise the member to, rather than revert, modify "will ride for team X in 2010" to "has signed to ride for team X in 2010" (or whatever is context equivalent - more accurate and not disruptive (note this is about WP:CRYSTAL, which is not part of the notability guidelines, and applies to content as much as topics) ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Stick with facts ("has signed") rather than speculation about the future ("will ride") where possible. If it's not possible, it probably is a CRYSTAL problem. Hobit (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)