 | 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. |  | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here. | As the title suggests, I would like to propose that the shortcuts link to their section header, instead of the specific point that they refer to. Reason: When a user clicks a shortcut, he is basically thrown into the middle of the page, with little context what page he is on. For new users, we would want them to first see the "Wikipedia is not a ..." and only then read the specific point. Thoughts? Rami R 11:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC) - So no one opposes me changing the shortcuts locations? Rami R 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Moving the "<span id..." into the subsection headers? I'd agree with that.
- Examples: Currently WP:NOTPAPER works correctly, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL works incorrectly (links to point #4, instead of the heading). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly what I meant. I'll enact this suggestion later today, unless someone objects. Rami R 10:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Rami R 12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Application of IINFO in FAs I'm currently involved in a discussion with another user (see Talk:Inchon (film)) and the issue of the level of detail in the article Battlefield Earth (film) came up. This currently enjoys featured article status but to me the article has too much detail considering that the movie is chiefly notable for its connection to Scientology and for it being a critical and box office flop. For example, the "Critical reception" section is more that 2 screen pages long and seems to include a quote from everyone who reviewed the movie, notable or not. My interpretation of IINFO in this case, and I think this is how MOS:FILM interprets it, is that a sampling of reviews to indicate the general trend is sufficient and using 2 pages to say that most critics didn't like it is excessive and unencyclopedic. Normally when someone tries to use the WP:Other stuff exists argument it's easy to refute by pointing to that link. But in this case I'm getting "Other stuff exists in a FA" which is more difficult. So the issue I'm trying to get at is whether it's just me or is IINFO not being applied as it should be in this case. And more generally, are the guidelines in IINFO being taken into account sufficiently when FA status is being considered?--RDBury (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC) - If I had to guess, I'd say that the Battlefield Earth "Reception" section has probably expanded a bit since it was promoted to FA status. It could stand to be pared down a bit to reduce redundancy. Barring that, though, the level of detail on the Inchon article appears comparable, except in the lead (which is far too long). But that's just from a cursory review. Powers T 17:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] merge dictionary I think it is a shame that people come here for knowledge and instead get confused. For example if I want to know what sown is, I find a page about a worthless to most people user group. Would be better if we had a page that explained the common meaning. What do you think? Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC) - So do you go to the library, go to the encyclopedias, take out the "S" volume, and complain when it doesn't have an entry for "sown"? Or do you just go straight for the dictionary? If the latter, then you need to visit http://en.wiktionary.org Powers T 14:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't live in the past, invent a better future. When you want to know what sown means, ask your computer and your computer should tell you without you having to figure out what category it is in. People will look first in an encyclopedia who don't know what it means and be dissapointed. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Who looks in an encyclopedia to find out a definition? Seriously? Who goes to Britannica to find out the past participle of "sow"? Powers T 16:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your assuming people know what sow or sown means. People want to go to one place to understand what a word means. The people that I'm familiar with turn to wikipedia more often than not. People who want to know what something means want to go to one place. They do not want to have to hunt around and guess whether the best place is an encyclopedia topic or dictionary term. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not assuming anything. If you want to know what a word means you use a dictionary. No guessing involved. If you go to the dictionary and find out that "sown" is a tense of "sow", and you decide you want to read about farming, you then go to the encyclopedia. Powers T 23:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you believe people think that way or should think that way? Or do you believe people who want to know what something means first go to wikipedia? Where would you go if you wanted to know what myocardial means? Some evidence lies in the number of pages viewed in the dictionary versus wikipedia. As you probably know, there is no comparison. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's not evidence at all. Just one way in which the two are different are the number of pages an encyclopedia user might visit in one session. Another way is that there are a lot of dictionaries online, but very few encyclopedias. If I want to know what "myocardial" means, I'd type it into Google and click the convenient "[definition]" link that goes right to answers.com. (Speaking of which, it sounds like answers.com is the solution you're looking for.) Powers T 13:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to know what a word means you need to go to a dictionary. Always.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to know about a topic then that's what the encyclopedia does. Encyclopedia articles are not about a word.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- If people want to know what epigenetics means, would they go to a dictionary or wikipedia? I want to know about the topic sown. Why isn't it in wikipedia? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "What it means" = dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Sown = past participle of 'sowing'. As it turns out it's not also the past participle of, say, 'sewing'; otherwise there would need to be two or more different articles on it. That's another reason why it's a bad idea; very often a single dictionary-like encyclopedia article would need two different sets of material that may overlap with other articles as well.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately merging doesn't work at all well. In an encyclopedia things with different names that mean the same thing are found in the same article, whereas in a dictionary, they end up in different articles. You can't put the same thing in a merged article and in a separate article; that's just unnecessary duplication, in some cases you would duplicate exactly the same thing dozens of times, and it becomes impossible to correct and update all the duplicates. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are radically different even though at first glance they look similar.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Solution seams simple. Just use wikipedia conventions. Primary topic and primary meaning come to mind. I don't suggest a complete merge. Just allow definitions in wikipedia using wikipedia rules, including notability and verifiable. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- It's even easier than that. We keep the encyclopedia articles in the encyclopedia, and the word articles are kept in the wiktionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- How about this solution- create an "article" for sown, or whatever word you want, but make it a redirect that sends you to the wiktionary entry. That way if you come to wikipedia looking for something you can be sent to the right place in one quick swoop without any further hard effort on the part of the reader.Camelbinky (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're talking about One million five hundred thousand redirects that would have to be maintained and added to. --King Öomie 13:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Can external links be included in Lists (as an exception to WP:LINKFARM)? When constructing a list it can be helpful to readers to include external links for listed items, especially if there is not yet a Wikipedia page for that item. Is there a consensus to allow modification of the WP:LINKFARM policy as follows? Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not: - Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines. (Exception: WP:Lists, which may contain external links for items on which there is not yet a Wikipedia article, in compliance with other WP:List policies.)
- 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 Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria.
Here is an example of a List (in progress) with links. Here is the same list without links. Scroll down in each; it seems that the former list (with external links) is much more useful to Wikipedia readers than the latter. Thanks for your input! DaleMurphy (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC) - If there is any reasonable chance that the item on the list might be notable, the link is appropriate, but it should be given as a reference, sinec it presumably is the source of information. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- No, a reference is appropriate. A link to the home page of whatever is being discussed isn't. Otherwise it's still directory-style linkspam by definition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would advice against adding external links to those lists. Many of these lists become large spamholes where not-notable instances get included, and the lists turn into internet directories. It is not only a violation of WP:NOT#LINKFARM, but also one of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] This page and the other Shouldn't WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia be a policy, and this a guideline? Seems strange to promote the negative page at the expense of the positive one. Or even better, can't we combine both pages under the title WP:What Wikipedia is? (Which currently redirects to the five pillars.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC) - All right, just reminded myself that WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia isn't much else than a summary of this page. So basically I'm proposing renaming this page by removing the "not", and adding a bit more positive information about what Wikipedia is at the start.--Kotniski (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- This page basically spells out, for the most part, what is excluded from WP as it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thus, it is necessarily negative, because of that implication. That's not to say that we should consider a "what WP is" but when you get there, you start getting into what the definitions of "encyclopedic" are, which vary drastically and the like, my guess as to why we've never had a "what WP is" page outside of the basic definition: we can all agree as to where there are non-fuzzy lines as to what WP is not, but there's not similar lines for what WP is on the other side. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I guess that makes sense, though it might be worth at least trying to think of more positive things we can say. (Perhaps we could start with that Sanger quote that was being advertised at WP:Policies and guidelines quite recently, about what Wikipedia aims to be - I'll try and fish it out.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries and vineyards in Maine, there seems to be a conflict between the wording of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the claims that articles like List of wineries in Ohio and future articles List of pizza shops in New York have a place in wikipedia under the "informational" clause of WP:LIST. If this AfD sets precedent for their inclusion, the wording of WP:NOTDIRECTORY should be clarified to reflect this acceptability of directory style articles. Otherwise this policy is not reflecting apparent community consensus. AgneCheese/Wine 07:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - A single AfD does not constitute "apparent community consensus". Deor (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is a real question over the concept of not directory, and including in a list people or companies that are sub-notable but not totally unsubstantial. We've never really come to terms with the problem of what to do with items of content of this sort that are not worth a discrete article. My current thought about the solution is there needs to be a WikipediaSupplement (perhaps better called WikipediaLocal) to deal with these, and it might take the bottom tier of barely " notable " Wikipedia articles also about local people and things, and thus be simultaneously inclusionist and deletionist--it will be a much simpler argument deciding between the two, than deciding just in or out. Everyone will be happy. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- But what about the example List of pizza shops in New York, or even List of pizza shops in Some Very Minor Town? Such a list (if current) might be very helpful for someone wanting a pizza, or someone researching the distribution of pizza shops. But should it be part of Wikipedia? Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Such a discussion is currently going on at the German Wikipedia, which is a bit more on the deletionist side compared to us. I haven't found the locus of the discussion on the wiki, if it even exists, but there was a lot about it in blogs and the media. There was a proposal the split Wikipedia into an Encyclopedia Galactica and a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I think this makes sense, and so does your more limited proposal. Hans Adler 10:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Although it was apparently too late to head off the inevitable no consensus close there, our guidelines are quite clear on the inclusion criteria for list articles, which precludes them from being used for directory content of otherwise marginal notability. Contrary to the above assertion that we have "never really come to terms with the problem of what to do with items of content of this sort that are not worth a discrete article", we actually have - it is to be removed from the enyclopedia. Lists which contain nothing but such content will thus end up being deleted anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
There are informative discussions about this topic at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#"Removing red link hate as a FAC requirement" sync and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notability_of_lists currently. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - Per WP:LIST, lists are encyclopedia articles, and as encyclopedia articles this policy applies to them just as it does to our other articles. Sure, we can have list entries on Wikipedia that are useful, but many of them run afowl of what Wikipedia is not. Some, such as List of Chinese people, are so indiscriminate and directory-like as to be both out-of place and not helpful! I would like to see a conscious effort to remove the indiscriminate and nonhelpful lists to bolster our collection of list articles as a whole. ThemFromSpace 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
|
