| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
What Wikipedia is not page. |
|
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: 30 days
 |
 | 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. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
We should clarify that, although "not a forum" is an absolute in the articles, it applies on talk-pages for off topic content, but not for discussions about improving the article. I shall cite an example:
I read the article bats. I noticed that about disease-transmission to humans, it did not note that most disease-transmission to humans is because idiots harass bats. I was not certain how to fix it, so I asked for help on the talk-page.
On the talk-page, the topic was deleted citing "not a forum". This misapplication of "not a forum" holds back improving the article. Certainly, if I would have wrote in the article "idiots getting diseases from bats deserve it because they harass bats" that would be wrong, but is was a request on the talk-page about how to clarify that most disease-transmission is from bat-harassers.
Since I gave an example of when "not a forum" is not appropriate on talk-pages, I should give an example of when it is:
"Bats are cute and cuddly. Please reply in this thread about how much you love bats."
Since the above is clearly offtopic and cannot plausibly improve the article, it should be deleted. Its deletion would be appropriate use of "not a forum" on talk-pages.
TL;DR:
If a thread is on topic and aims to improve an article, it is allowable on talk-pages because it is constructive. If a thread is merely blabbering in a off topic nonconstructive way on the talk-page, it should be deleted under "not a forum". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.189.192.219 ( talk) 10:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously it's a judgement call, and I've seen completely forum-ish contributions defended with brave claims of "oh, obviously this was intended to promote discussion that would lead to article improvement". If an editor is deleting valid talk page contribtions on spurious grounds that is a behavioural problem to be raised with them, in the first instance.
Bon courage (
talk) 10:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, ask the person who deleted the topic to actually explain why they did not consider it a proper talk page topic, without resorting to a shortcut. The best place to do this is on the talk page of the article, where other interested parties can give their opinions. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SUPERHAT is relevant in such situations, I aver. jp× g 🗯️ 10:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is the post in question that was removed citing "not a forum". Zefr ( talk · contribs) removed it. While your post is a suggestion to change the article, it is mostly opinion. We would not add any of this per WP:OP, You could just post again, but start off with "The article needs a section on mistreatment of bats." Ultimately you will need to present reliable sources for anything added to the article. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 15:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Directory is an ambiguous word, and the meaning varies with context. There are several Wikipedians, some with considerable edit counts, who do not appear to know the meaning of the word in this context, and it is not defined on the page. As an aid to encouraging people to develop a more complete understanding of the various meanings, I linked to the disambiguation page, but it would appear that Pabsoluterince does not consider this a suitable link, and reverted it as overlinking. I suggest that it is indeed a useful link, though not necessarily sufficient, and request any better ideas that will help people to refrain from misusing WP:NOTDIRECTORY as an argument for deletion where it is not relevant. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- What is the intended meaning? Why is it not explained where we use it? Thryduulf ( talk) 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is not unusual for the meaning of a pivotal term to not be explained. It is common to assume that because the meaning is obvious to oneself in the context of the original discussion, it will be obvious to others in the summary provided for general use. Interpretations of our guidance can be quite varied, and often lead to dispute. On the one hand it can be tedious to spell out the meaning unambiguously, and we get tl:dr as a result. There is also a danger to tying some things down too rigidly, as there can be other unforeseen consequences, and it can also be difficult to be sure of exactly where the borders of consensus lie, and if the closer specifies it in a way that too many participants disagree with, it will collapse. That said, I do think the intended meaning should be clear where we use it, and wherever it is found to be ambiguous enough to cause problems, meaning should be clarified. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Six examples are given, but they do not cover all the possibilities. They also only list some of the types of list article that are not wanted. There are types of list that we accept – Indexes, glossaries, bibliographies, discographies and outlines, for example, which are not directories by some definitions, but might be by others. In some ways a navigational aid such as a navbox could be considered a rather minimalist directory, and in some ways categories could be considered directories. I am reasonably confident that NOTDIRECTORY is not intended to be used as a pretext for eliminating those classes of content. Cheers, · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk): 13:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that linking to a directory of meanings of the word 'directory' resolves the ambiguity of its use in this sentence? Linking to a disambiguation page doesn't clarify the meaning of the word, it includes things like
Directory (political) and
Directory (OpenVMS command) which I think you'll agree is also not the meaning that we were going for in this sentence. I think within the context of the page, it is adequately elucidative, and that common sense and competence will prevail.
Pabsoluterince (
talk) 03:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you read my opening statement, you will see that I consider it an improvement on the current situation, not a complete fix. It would make it clear that there are more than one type of directory, though it would be more useful to define what kinds the guidance is referring to and what types it is not referring to. Common sense and competence are apparently not prevailing sufficiently, as editors are using NOTDIRECTORY as an argument to delete list articles which common sense and competence, as well as precedence and long term usage, suggest are not directories of the types we do not want. You are welcome to suggest better alternatives, perhaps you can come up with an actual solution. Cheers, · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk): 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- The question is then, what kinds of articles are being removed through misunderstandings of
WP:NOTDIRECTORY? And then does there need to be a specific caveat made for those articles. I still don't feel that linking
directory is helpful to prevent misinterpretations. For example, we don't insert the dictionary definition of ambiguous words midway through the sentence, we expect the context to be sufficient.
Pabsoluterince (
talk) 08:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- A recent example was a claim that a
Wikipedia:Index was a case of NOTDIRECTORY. The
RfDAfD was unsuccessful, but it was a timesink and was proposed by an editor who should know better and supported by an editor who should know better, in spite of them being informed of the inappropriate use of the criteria. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)- I didn't remember such an RfD, but looking at your contributions it seems it was actually an AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of underwater divers.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Quite correct Thryduulf, sorry for the error. Slip of the brain. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't remember such an RfD, but looking at your contributions it seems it was actually an AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of underwater divers.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- A recent example was a claim that a
Wikipedia:Index was a case of NOTDIRECTORY. The
- As far as I can tell, most of the WP:NOT entries were intended to curb stuff like people making articles for every street in every city in the world, or phonebook listings, or the like.
jp×
g
🗯️ 07:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- That meaning is clear from the guidance already given. The problem arises when people choose to make a broader interpretation which may exceed the intended meaning. Competence is desirable, but not always apparent, and our personal competences vary between topics. It should not be necessary to waste time defending articles which should be obviously acceptable, because some people do not find it obvious, and may need to have it explicitly defined in simple, unambiguous language, to overcome their preconceptions. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- The question is then, what kinds of articles are being removed through misunderstandings of
WP:NOTDIRECTORY? And then does there need to be a specific caveat made for those articles. I still don't feel that linking
directory is helpful to prevent misinterpretations. For example, we don't insert the dictionary definition of ambiguous words midway through the sentence, we expect the context to be sufficient.
Pabsoluterince (
talk) 08:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you read my opening statement, you will see that I consider it an improvement on the current situation, not a complete fix. It would make it clear that there are more than one type of directory, though it would be more useful to define what kinds the guidance is referring to and what types it is not referring to. Common sense and competence are apparently not prevailing sufficiently, as editors are using NOTDIRECTORY as an argument to delete list articles which common sense and competence, as well as precedence and long term usage, suggest are not directories of the types we do not want. You are welcome to suggest better alternatives, perhaps you can come up with an actual solution. Cheers, · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk): 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that linking to a directory of meanings of the word 'directory' resolves the ambiguity of its use in this sentence? Linking to a disambiguation page doesn't clarify the meaning of the word, it includes things like
Directory (political) and
Directory (OpenVMS command) which I think you'll agree is also not the meaning that we were going for in this sentence. I think within the context of the page, it is adequately elucidative, and that common sense and competence will prevail.
Pabsoluterince (
talk) 03:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I noticed the article 2028 U.S. presidential election is given as an example of an article that should exist, but it currently doesn't and requires an admin to create it. Perhaps it's a poor example and should be removed?
I would do it myself, but the last time that was attempted it was reverted. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 02:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This page doesnt include any discussion of how Wikipedia is to treat Innformation Hazards, or Information that directly effects either the reader, another person(s) or something else in the world: An example on current procedure is with rare plants such as "Hyperion", the tallest living tree, whose exact coordinates being available (or more easily accessible) would encourage vandalism/damage through tourism as has already been the case: Information here is directly a hazard, if only due to people acting on it. Wikipedia does not typically censor itself in fear of actions of its readers (How much of chemistry, medicine and physics would need to be censored?), however it is also niave to believe that posting information is purely innocent, and that it has no consequence on the world. Regarding Wikipedias refusal to be a "battleground" of politics, this too is niave if taken absolutely: Wikipedia *cannot* avoid politics of some sort, and indeed is choosing a specific political position in regards to censorship.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: however, there is no encyclopedia on earth free from the political context surrounding its creation, and other encyclopedias, especially historically, would have been expected to do their "due diligence" in regards to their expected political obligations. An encyclopedia that published accurate how-tos of bomb and poison creation for example would be quite taboo in most of the world, even if "purely informative".
A more comprehensive position is needed by wikipedia on these issues. 90.247.229.178 ( talk) 11:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- We have an extremely comprehensive position, which is outlined at
WP:NOTCENSORED -- which is that we do not do this. Your example -- that detailed instructions on how to make bombs would clearly be forbidden -- is specifically not true, as the article
pipe bomb can demonstrate. Posting information is not a purely innocent act, but neither is obstructing it, and the latter has directly led to unspeakable evil on a number of occasions.
jp×
g
🗯️ 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why is the exact location of the Hyperion tree repeatedly removed then? The other examples i know are also related to either ecology or things like doxxing individuals home addresses or names. How can doxxing be distinguished from free knowledge, by its already-accessability perhaps? 90.247.229.178 ( talk) 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think it can be argued that due to the nature of proliferation, the sharing of information has caused just as much evil as censorship, if not more: Every time someone shares fentanyl synthesis methodology and equipment knowledge to their seller friends "proliferation" is done with evil intent and consequence... or is it? Since this "evil" as judgement depends already on political views: Censorship being evil, in an instance, is also reliant on political views. It cant be escaped. 90.247.229.178 ( talk) 19:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The following AfD is discussing the applicability of WP:NOT to the question of whether 153 lists of airline destinations should be deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 ( talk) 17:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. It is understood that freely-licensed files should ideally be stored on Wikimedia Commons as per WP:NOTFILESTORAGE (a subsection of this policy page). Nevertheless, courtesy of a 2012 consensus, full-resolution images of copyrighted architecture from no-FoP countries can be hosted here, on the basis that English Wikipedia servers are in the U.S. and that only U.S. law should be respected here (not laws of all other countries).
I do not question the enwiki's FoP policy itself (even if the boilerplate template on top of WP:Freedom of panorama claims the practice is not a formal policy). What I am concerned is that there is a tendency to turn enwiki into a file storage for such unfree public buildings. At one point, NickW557 expressed some concern to an active Philippine contributor of local images of public buildings of the Philippines (which does not have FoP for anything) that the images may be running in violation of the Philippine law, despite enwiki only needing to respect U.S. law. (some off-topic: enwiki is the most-accessed by Filipinos among all Wikimedia websites, 9 out of 10 Wikimedia visitors or readers here visit enwiki, only a handful visit tlwiki and virtually none on all other Philippine language editions)
Again, I am not questioning the 2012 consensus (it is up to France-based ADAGP or the Philippine authorities and architects to question that), but rather it is more logical to only permit at least 3 or up to 5 local images per building, to avoid the tendency of using enwiki as a file storage site for unfree buildings. A simple search for Burj Khalifa images reveals we only have 3 full-resolution images of the tower, but I think that should be the upper limit. These three images should always be used on at least one article, to not run violating WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. We also have three images of Burj Al Arab, which IMO is still OK (IMO it becomes not OK if we have 6 or 10 images of the same building).
An alternative suggestion: WP:NOTFILESTORAGE should be added clarification to avoid some conflict with WP:Freedom of panorama. It is worth noting that the 2012 consensus (RfC) is still not an official policy as per the boilerplate template of WP:Freedom of panorama.
A similar concern was previously brought here but there was no substantial inputs regarding local unfree buildings: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 59#Clarification on NOTFILESTORAGE. The past discussion was generally concerned on personal images issue. Ping some of the involved editors of the said past topic that may interest this current topic: @ Matrix, Iruka13, WhatamIdoing, JPxG, and SMcCandlish: JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 08:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to think that file storage poses a significant burden, in terms of hosting costs or server performance or user experience among users of the site?
- My understanding is that the answer to this question is "no", which would seem to imply that there is no worthwhile reason to go around torching photo albums (there are certainly instances, e.g. every article Epicgenius writes, in which it is helpful to have more than three illustrations of a building).
jp×
g
🗯️ 08:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Tend to agree (and ultimately it is not practical for a project in one jurisdiction to attempt to comply with ever-changing different rules in every jurisdiction on earth). However, the OP has a point that we probably need some kind of limits on this. If someone uploads 100 images of the same building in a non-FoP country, that doesn't really seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. The idea that the "images should always be used on at least one article" might be workable, as long as it's within some sensible time-frame (i.e., do not create a dumb wikilawyer loophole by which someone can remove an image they don't like, then go have it deleted the same day before anyone else who care about it or the article has time to react; or see an image uploaded then immediately have it deleted before there's a chance to integrate it into an article). I don't really have a solid opinion on what a sensible timeframe would be. A week? A month? A year? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ JPxG the question on file storage and its impact on Wikimedia's servers and other technical things can be answered perhaps on Meta wiki.
- @ SMcCandlish I assume there would be no concrete timeframe. The risk is there in which a typical user dislikes the current image and goes locally uploading his image of the same building that he touts as better. Then some FFD process starts on claim that the now-disused older image is no longer used. Perhaps FFD may resolve whether which image is more suited in an article, but in practice it is needless as a waste of users' time. I may suggest an upper limit of not more than 10 images of a same building, inclusive of the building in its final stage of construction. I already suspect we have more than 5 images of the Philippine Arena itself, many again from Patrickroque01. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 08:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- JPxG, some relevant clues on Wikimedia servers / file storage may be found at the following pages
from Wikitech and
from Meta wiki.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 09:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- The question about file storage is already answered at Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. The basic rule of thumb is that unless one of the devs directly says that we need to stop doing something (something very specific, not just "too much disk space") for performance reasons, then we should not worry about it.
- Also, to make sure everyone has a clear idea of how much disk space we're talking about: If the devs ever say that we're short on disk space because of a couple hundred photos, I will personally mail a nickel to the office so that they can buy a few more gb disk space. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I assume that the storage used for Wikipedia files and for Commons files comes out of the same budget, so would have the same total capacity, and would be allocated as needed, so using one or the other should not affect performance in any noticeable way. Multiple copies at multiple Wikipedias would be relatively inefficient, but unlikely to be a real problem. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Tend to agree (and ultimately it is not practical for a project in one jurisdiction to attempt to comply with ever-changing different rules in every jurisdiction on earth). However, the OP has a point that we probably need some kind of limits on this. If someone uploads 100 images of the same building in a non-FoP country, that doesn't really seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. The idea that the "images should always be used on at least one article" might be workable, as long as it's within some sensible time-frame (i.e., do not create a dumb wikilawyer loophole by which someone can remove an image they don't like, then go have it deleted the same day before anyone else who care about it or the article has time to react; or see an image uploaded then immediately have it deleted before there's a chance to integrate it into an article). I don't really have a solid opinion on what a sensible timeframe would be. A week? A month? A year? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I propose NOTFILESTOAGE be amended to align more with Commons' INUSE policy, with the following change:
Please upload only
files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to
Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
to
Please only locally upload
files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be moved to Commons unless they meet the
deletion policy. The use of a small number of personal images on a user page is permitted as long as the user is or was an active participant. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to
Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
(differences in bold)
The main issue with the current NOTFILESTORAGE is that it is too narrow in scope. Someone could locally upload anything without a Wikipedia page, and NOTFILESTORAGE technically says "delete that" (though I admit this doesn't happen in practice). Something that is more common is that someone locally uploads (or uploaded in 2006) a user page image, then someone takes that to FFD. Depending on the closing admin, some may decide to "delete per
WP:NOTFILESTORAGE" or "keep per
c:COM:INUSE, move to Commons". This is not a theoretical problem, it has happened a few times, just
search "INUSE" on the FFD archives. My proposal tries to eliminate this by recommending user page images be moved to Commons per above. Note there was a
previous discussion on this matter, though that resulted in no consensus. —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- If we add this, it needs to be clear that it is a small number of freely licensed personal images can be uploaded...
Masem (
t) 17:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's pretty self explanatory, that all files uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons must be freely licenced, but there's no harm in adding it. —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 17:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's pretty self explanatory, that all files uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons must be freely licenced, but there's no harm in adding it. —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
- Pinging previous participants: @
Iruka13,
WhatamIdoing,
SMcCandlish,
Vaticidalprophet, and
JPxG —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 17:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC) - It's not clear to me whether you intend to say that local (enwiki) uploads of a personal/user page images is acceptable, or if you intend to say that Commons uploads of personal/user page images is acceptable.
- The comment about "freely licensed" has reminded me that there are risks associated with that. When
this photo of a Wikipedia editor got transferred to Commons, it started appearing in advertisements. Perfectly legal, but maybe not what editors would really want to have happen to them.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Good point. Aside from that and other clarification suggestions, the general direction of this revision idea seems reasonable. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- All photos on Wikipedia are already freely licenced (otherwise they can't be uploaded here). Yes there is the argument that we could be giving more attention to the image by moving it to Commons and categorising it, but anyone could do that on any website since the license is free. The uploader takes that risk by uploading the image in the first place. —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 16:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)- The English Wikipedia allows fair-use uploads, which are not freely licensed.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 17:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
WhatamIdoing: That's not relevant here - fair use files have to adhere to
WP:NFCC, and one of the conditions is that they have to be used in an article. User pages don't count here. Yes, there are files that are free in the US but not their source country and hence can't be transferred to Commons, but that is a small minority of files that can be ignored (also see above thread). —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 09:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)- You wrote "All photos on Wikipedia are already freely licenced (otherwise they can't be uploaded here)". I have corrected that information, for the sake of anyone who might read it later and not have as complete an understanding as you do. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
WhatamIdoing: That's not relevant here - fair use files have to adhere to
WP:NFCC, and one of the conditions is that they have to be used in an article. User pages don't count here. Yes, there are files that are free in the US but not their source country and hence can't be transferred to Commons, but that is a small minority of files that can be ignored (also see above thread). —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
- The English Wikipedia allows fair-use uploads, which are not freely licensed.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 17:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The word "locally" will create confusion. The rest is technically not bad, but cumbersome. .. mb "
(e.g., personal photos (except photos of participants))
" - It seems to me that in those isolated cases when they try to delete an image using NOTFILESTORAGE, you need to appeal to
c:COM:EDUSE: if the file can be used for educational purposes, it should not be deleted. In cases where the file is nevertheless deleted, but you think that it shouldn’t, you should discuss this issue on the pages on file recovery (?)/dispute the result (?). — Ирука
13 19:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not just photos of the participants themselves; we have a lot of photos of editors' pets. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you think Language education in the United Kingdom#Broadcasting is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list? In my opinion, this list is a clear violation of "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources", as it has virtually no sources and very little context/explanation, but it seems like an IP editor has a different opinion ( ). If you agree that this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, would it be a good idea to extend the list of the examples with something related to lists of works? Or just add another shortcut to the first example in addition to WP:NOTPLOT? Bendegúz Ács ( talk) 23:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like a clear case of IINFO to me. Regarding adding an example to the policy, I don't think that's necessary; it should be enough to cite IINFO and the meaning of the word 'indiscriminate'.
Sunnya343 (
talk) 16:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- In what way is the list indiscriminate? It is explicitly a list of language education topics in the UK, which discriminates between items on that topic and items not on that topic. It also subdivides (discriminates) the topic into subtopics on specific applications. Clearly further discrimination is possible, and may be desirable. but I do not see an absence of discrimination. · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk): 04:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe I've been getting NOTDIR and IINFO mixed up. NOTDIR seems to be applicable:
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed
andSimple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit
. In this case we appear to have a list of every TV and radio program on language education in the UK, at least up to the 1990s. So sure, it's discriminate, just as a list of all McDonald's restaurants in the UK is discriminate. Sunnya343 ( talk) 17:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- Thanks, now that I read WP:NOTDIRECTORY (and WP:LISTCRITERIA), it indeed seems more applicable here. However, I do find it somewhat hard to distinguish between these two: "indiscriminate collection of information" vs. "directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". Perhaps the text could be updated to clarify the difference, for example: WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to lists, while WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to regular, paragraph-based content/prose. Bendegúz Ács ( talk) 19:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe I've been getting NOTDIR and IINFO mixed up. NOTDIR seems to be applicable:
- In what way is the list indiscriminate? It is explicitly a list of language education topics in the UK, which discriminates between items on that topic and items not on that topic. It also subdivides (discriminates) the topic into subtopics on specific applications. Clearly further discrimination is possible, and may be desirable. but I do not see an absence of discrimination. · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk): 04:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
What Wikipedia is not page. |
|
|
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: 30 days
|
|
| 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. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
| Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
|
| This page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
We should clarify that, although "not a forum" is an absolute in the articles, it applies on talk-pages for off topic content, but not for discussions about improving the article. I shall cite an example:
I read the article bats. I noticed that about disease-transmission to humans, it did not note that most disease-transmission to humans is because idiots harass bats. I was not certain how to fix it, so I asked for help on the talk-page.
On the talk-page, the topic was deleted citing "not a forum". This misapplication of "not a forum" holds back improving the article. Certainly, if I would have wrote in the article "idiots getting diseases from bats deserve it because they harass bats" that would be wrong, but is was a request on the talk-page about how to clarify that most disease-transmission is from bat-harassers.
Since I gave an example of when "not a forum" is not appropriate on talk-pages, I should give an example of when it is:
"Bats are cute and cuddly. Please reply in this thread about how much you love bats."
Since the above is clearly offtopic and cannot plausibly improve the article, it should be deleted. Its deletion would be appropriate use of "not a forum" on talk-pages.
TL;DR:
If a thread is on topic and aims to improve an article, it is allowable on talk-pages because it is constructive. If a thread is merely blabbering in a off topic nonconstructive way on the talk-page, it should be deleted under "not a forum". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.189.192.219 ( talk) 10:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously it's a judgement call, and I've seen completely forum-ish contributions defended with brave claims of "oh, obviously this was intended to promote discussion that would lead to article improvement". If an editor is deleting valid talk page contribtions on spurious grounds that is a behavioural problem to be raised with them, in the first instance.
Bon courage (
talk) 10:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, ask the person who deleted the topic to actually explain why they did not consider it a proper talk page topic, without resorting to a shortcut. The best place to do this is on the talk page of the article, where other interested parties can give their opinions. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SUPERHAT is relevant in such situations, I aver. jp× g 🗯️ 10:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is the post in question that was removed citing "not a forum". Zefr ( talk · contribs) removed it. While your post is a suggestion to change the article, it is mostly opinion. We would not add any of this per WP:OP, You could just post again, but start off with "The article needs a section on mistreatment of bats." Ultimately you will need to present reliable sources for anything added to the article. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 15:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Directory is an ambiguous word, and the meaning varies with context. There are several Wikipedians, some with considerable edit counts, who do not appear to know the meaning of the word in this context, and it is not defined on the page. As an aid to encouraging people to develop a more complete understanding of the various meanings, I linked to the disambiguation page, but it would appear that Pabsoluterince does not consider this a suitable link, and reverted it as overlinking. I suggest that it is indeed a useful link, though not necessarily sufficient, and request any better ideas that will help people to refrain from misusing WP:NOTDIRECTORY as an argument for deletion where it is not relevant. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- What is the intended meaning? Why is it not explained where we use it? Thryduulf ( talk) 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is not unusual for the meaning of a pivotal term to not be explained. It is common to assume that because the meaning is obvious to oneself in the context of the original discussion, it will be obvious to others in the summary provided for general use. Interpretations of our guidance can be quite varied, and often lead to dispute. On the one hand it can be tedious to spell out the meaning unambiguously, and we get tl:dr as a result. There is also a danger to tying some things down too rigidly, as there can be other unforeseen consequences, and it can also be difficult to be sure of exactly where the borders of consensus lie, and if the closer specifies it in a way that too many participants disagree with, it will collapse. That said, I do think the intended meaning should be clear where we use it, and wherever it is found to be ambiguous enough to cause problems, meaning should be clarified. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Six examples are given, but they do not cover all the possibilities. They also only list some of the types of list article that are not wanted. There are types of list that we accept – Indexes, glossaries, bibliographies, discographies and outlines, for example, which are not directories by some definitions, but might be by others. In some ways a navigational aid such as a navbox could be considered a rather minimalist directory, and in some ways categories could be considered directories. I am reasonably confident that NOTDIRECTORY is not intended to be used as a pretext for eliminating those classes of content. Cheers, · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk): 13:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that linking to a directory of meanings of the word 'directory' resolves the ambiguity of its use in this sentence? Linking to a disambiguation page doesn't clarify the meaning of the word, it includes things like
Directory (political) and
Directory (OpenVMS command) which I think you'll agree is also not the meaning that we were going for in this sentence. I think within the context of the page, it is adequately elucidative, and that common sense and competence will prevail.
Pabsoluterince (
talk) 03:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you read my opening statement, you will see that I consider it an improvement on the current situation, not a complete fix. It would make it clear that there are more than one type of directory, though it would be more useful to define what kinds the guidance is referring to and what types it is not referring to. Common sense and competence are apparently not prevailing sufficiently, as editors are using NOTDIRECTORY as an argument to delete list articles which common sense and competence, as well as precedence and long term usage, suggest are not directories of the types we do not want. You are welcome to suggest better alternatives, perhaps you can come up with an actual solution. Cheers, · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk): 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- The question is then, what kinds of articles are being removed through misunderstandings of
WP:NOTDIRECTORY? And then does there need to be a specific caveat made for those articles. I still don't feel that linking
directory is helpful to prevent misinterpretations. For example, we don't insert the dictionary definition of ambiguous words midway through the sentence, we expect the context to be sufficient.
Pabsoluterince (
talk) 08:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- A recent example was a claim that a
Wikipedia:Index was a case of NOTDIRECTORY. The
RfDAfD was unsuccessful, but it was a timesink and was proposed by an editor who should know better and supported by an editor who should know better, in spite of them being informed of the inappropriate use of the criteria. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)- I didn't remember such an RfD, but looking at your contributions it seems it was actually an AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of underwater divers.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Quite correct Thryduulf, sorry for the error. Slip of the brain. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't remember such an RfD, but looking at your contributions it seems it was actually an AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of underwater divers.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- A recent example was a claim that a
Wikipedia:Index was a case of NOTDIRECTORY. The
- As far as I can tell, most of the WP:NOT entries were intended to curb stuff like people making articles for every street in every city in the world, or phonebook listings, or the like.
jp×
g
🗯️ 07:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- That meaning is clear from the guidance already given. The problem arises when people choose to make a broader interpretation which may exceed the intended meaning. Competence is desirable, but not always apparent, and our personal competences vary between topics. It should not be necessary to waste time defending articles which should be obviously acceptable, because some people do not find it obvious, and may need to have it explicitly defined in simple, unambiguous language, to overcome their preconceptions. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- The question is then, what kinds of articles are being removed through misunderstandings of
WP:NOTDIRECTORY? And then does there need to be a specific caveat made for those articles. I still don't feel that linking
directory is helpful to prevent misinterpretations. For example, we don't insert the dictionary definition of ambiguous words midway through the sentence, we expect the context to be sufficient.
Pabsoluterince (
talk) 08:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you read my opening statement, you will see that I consider it an improvement on the current situation, not a complete fix. It would make it clear that there are more than one type of directory, though it would be more useful to define what kinds the guidance is referring to and what types it is not referring to. Common sense and competence are apparently not prevailing sufficiently, as editors are using NOTDIRECTORY as an argument to delete list articles which common sense and competence, as well as precedence and long term usage, suggest are not directories of the types we do not want. You are welcome to suggest better alternatives, perhaps you can come up with an actual solution. Cheers, · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk): 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that linking to a directory of meanings of the word 'directory' resolves the ambiguity of its use in this sentence? Linking to a disambiguation page doesn't clarify the meaning of the word, it includes things like
Directory (political) and
Directory (OpenVMS command) which I think you'll agree is also not the meaning that we were going for in this sentence. I think within the context of the page, it is adequately elucidative, and that common sense and competence will prevail.
Pabsoluterince (
talk) 03:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I noticed the article 2028 U.S. presidential election is given as an example of an article that should exist, but it currently doesn't and requires an admin to create it. Perhaps it's a poor example and should be removed?
I would do it myself, but the last time that was attempted it was reverted. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 02:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This page doesnt include any discussion of how Wikipedia is to treat Innformation Hazards, or Information that directly effects either the reader, another person(s) or something else in the world: An example on current procedure is with rare plants such as "Hyperion", the tallest living tree, whose exact coordinates being available (or more easily accessible) would encourage vandalism/damage through tourism as has already been the case: Information here is directly a hazard, if only due to people acting on it. Wikipedia does not typically censor itself in fear of actions of its readers (How much of chemistry, medicine and physics would need to be censored?), however it is also niave to believe that posting information is purely innocent, and that it has no consequence on the world. Regarding Wikipedias refusal to be a "battleground" of politics, this too is niave if taken absolutely: Wikipedia *cannot* avoid politics of some sort, and indeed is choosing a specific political position in regards to censorship.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: however, there is no encyclopedia on earth free from the political context surrounding its creation, and other encyclopedias, especially historically, would have been expected to do their "due diligence" in regards to their expected political obligations. An encyclopedia that published accurate how-tos of bomb and poison creation for example would be quite taboo in most of the world, even if "purely informative".
A more comprehensive position is needed by wikipedia on these issues. 90.247.229.178 ( talk) 11:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- We have an extremely comprehensive position, which is outlined at
WP:NOTCENSORED -- which is that we do not do this. Your example -- that detailed instructions on how to make bombs would clearly be forbidden -- is specifically not true, as the article
pipe bomb can demonstrate. Posting information is not a purely innocent act, but neither is obstructing it, and the latter has directly led to unspeakable evil on a number of occasions.
jp×
g
🗯️ 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why is the exact location of the Hyperion tree repeatedly removed then? The other examples i know are also related to either ecology or things like doxxing individuals home addresses or names. How can doxxing be distinguished from free knowledge, by its already-accessability perhaps? 90.247.229.178 ( talk) 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think it can be argued that due to the nature of proliferation, the sharing of information has caused just as much evil as censorship, if not more: Every time someone shares fentanyl synthesis methodology and equipment knowledge to their seller friends "proliferation" is done with evil intent and consequence... or is it? Since this "evil" as judgement depends already on political views: Censorship being evil, in an instance, is also reliant on political views. It cant be escaped. 90.247.229.178 ( talk) 19:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The following AfD is discussing the applicability of WP:NOT to the question of whether 153 lists of airline destinations should be deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 ( talk) 17:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. It is understood that freely-licensed files should ideally be stored on Wikimedia Commons as per WP:NOTFILESTORAGE (a subsection of this policy page). Nevertheless, courtesy of a 2012 consensus, full-resolution images of copyrighted architecture from no-FoP countries can be hosted here, on the basis that English Wikipedia servers are in the U.S. and that only U.S. law should be respected here (not laws of all other countries).
I do not question the enwiki's FoP policy itself (even if the boilerplate template on top of WP:Freedom of panorama claims the practice is not a formal policy). What I am concerned is that there is a tendency to turn enwiki into a file storage for such unfree public buildings. At one point, NickW557 expressed some concern to an active Philippine contributor of local images of public buildings of the Philippines (which does not have FoP for anything) that the images may be running in violation of the Philippine law, despite enwiki only needing to respect U.S. law. (some off-topic: enwiki is the most-accessed by Filipinos among all Wikimedia websites, 9 out of 10 Wikimedia visitors or readers here visit enwiki, only a handful visit tlwiki and virtually none on all other Philippine language editions)
Again, I am not questioning the 2012 consensus (it is up to France-based ADAGP or the Philippine authorities and architects to question that), but rather it is more logical to only permit at least 3 or up to 5 local images per building, to avoid the tendency of using enwiki as a file storage site for unfree buildings. A simple search for Burj Khalifa images reveals we only have 3 full-resolution images of the tower, but I think that should be the upper limit. These three images should always be used on at least one article, to not run violating WP:NOTFILESTORAGE. We also have three images of Burj Al Arab, which IMO is still OK (IMO it becomes not OK if we have 6 or 10 images of the same building).
An alternative suggestion: WP:NOTFILESTORAGE should be added clarification to avoid some conflict with WP:Freedom of panorama. It is worth noting that the 2012 consensus (RfC) is still not an official policy as per the boilerplate template of WP:Freedom of panorama.
A similar concern was previously brought here but there was no substantial inputs regarding local unfree buildings: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 59#Clarification on NOTFILESTORAGE. The past discussion was generally concerned on personal images issue. Ping some of the involved editors of the said past topic that may interest this current topic: @ Matrix, Iruka13, WhatamIdoing, JPxG, and SMcCandlish: JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 08:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to think that file storage poses a significant burden, in terms of hosting costs or server performance or user experience among users of the site?
- My understanding is that the answer to this question is "no", which would seem to imply that there is no worthwhile reason to go around torching photo albums (there are certainly instances, e.g. every article Epicgenius writes, in which it is helpful to have more than three illustrations of a building).
jp×
g
🗯️ 08:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Tend to agree (and ultimately it is not practical for a project in one jurisdiction to attempt to comply with ever-changing different rules in every jurisdiction on earth). However, the OP has a point that we probably need some kind of limits on this. If someone uploads 100 images of the same building in a non-FoP country, that doesn't really seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. The idea that the "images should always be used on at least one article" might be workable, as long as it's within some sensible time-frame (i.e., do not create a dumb wikilawyer loophole by which someone can remove an image they don't like, then go have it deleted the same day before anyone else who care about it or the article has time to react; or see an image uploaded then immediately have it deleted before there's a chance to integrate it into an article). I don't really have a solid opinion on what a sensible timeframe would be. A week? A month? A year? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ JPxG the question on file storage and its impact on Wikimedia's servers and other technical things can be answered perhaps on Meta wiki.
- @ SMcCandlish I assume there would be no concrete timeframe. The risk is there in which a typical user dislikes the current image and goes locally uploading his image of the same building that he touts as better. Then some FFD process starts on claim that the now-disused older image is no longer used. Perhaps FFD may resolve whether which image is more suited in an article, but in practice it is needless as a waste of users' time. I may suggest an upper limit of not more than 10 images of a same building, inclusive of the building in its final stage of construction. I already suspect we have more than 5 images of the Philippine Arena itself, many again from Patrickroque01. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 08:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- JPxG, some relevant clues on Wikimedia servers / file storage may be found at the following pages
from Wikitech and
from Meta wiki.
JWilz12345 (
Talk|
Contrib's.) 09:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- The question about file storage is already answered at Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. The basic rule of thumb is that unless one of the devs directly says that we need to stop doing something (something very specific, not just "too much disk space") for performance reasons, then we should not worry about it.
- Also, to make sure everyone has a clear idea of how much disk space we're talking about: If the devs ever say that we're short on disk space because of a couple hundred photos, I will personally mail a nickel to the office so that they can buy a few more gb disk space. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I assume that the storage used for Wikipedia files and for Commons files comes out of the same budget, so would have the same total capacity, and would be allocated as needed, so using one or the other should not affect performance in any noticeable way. Multiple copies at multiple Wikipedias would be relatively inefficient, but unlikely to be a real problem. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Tend to agree (and ultimately it is not practical for a project in one jurisdiction to attempt to comply with ever-changing different rules in every jurisdiction on earth). However, the OP has a point that we probably need some kind of limits on this. If someone uploads 100 images of the same building in a non-FoP country, that doesn't really seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. The idea that the "images should always be used on at least one article" might be workable, as long as it's within some sensible time-frame (i.e., do not create a dumb wikilawyer loophole by which someone can remove an image they don't like, then go have it deleted the same day before anyone else who care about it or the article has time to react; or see an image uploaded then immediately have it deleted before there's a chance to integrate it into an article). I don't really have a solid opinion on what a sensible timeframe would be. A week? A month? A year? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I propose NOTFILESTOAGE be amended to align more with Commons' INUSE policy, with the following change:
Please upload only
files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to
Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
to
Please only locally upload
files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be moved to Commons unless they meet the
deletion policy. The use of a small number of personal images on a user page is permitted as long as the user is or was an active participant. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to
Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
(differences in bold)
The main issue with the current NOTFILESTORAGE is that it is too narrow in scope. Someone could locally upload anything without a Wikipedia page, and NOTFILESTORAGE technically says "delete that" (though I admit this doesn't happen in practice). Something that is more common is that someone locally uploads (or uploaded in 2006) a user page image, then someone takes that to FFD. Depending on the closing admin, some may decide to "delete per
WP:NOTFILESTORAGE" or "keep per
c:COM:INUSE, move to Commons". This is not a theoretical problem, it has happened a few times, just
search "INUSE" on the FFD archives. My proposal tries to eliminate this by recommending user page images be moved to Commons per above. Note there was a
previous discussion on this matter, though that resulted in no consensus. —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- If we add this, it needs to be clear that it is a small number of freely licensed personal images can be uploaded...
Masem (
t) 17:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's pretty self explanatory, that all files uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons must be freely licenced, but there's no harm in adding it. —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 17:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's pretty self explanatory, that all files uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons must be freely licenced, but there's no harm in adding it. —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
- Pinging previous participants: @
Iruka13,
WhatamIdoing,
SMcCandlish,
Vaticidalprophet, and
JPxG —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 17:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC) - It's not clear to me whether you intend to say that local (enwiki) uploads of a personal/user page images is acceptable, or if you intend to say that Commons uploads of personal/user page images is acceptable.
- The comment about "freely licensed" has reminded me that there are risks associated with that. When
this photo of a Wikipedia editor got transferred to Commons, it started appearing in advertisements. Perfectly legal, but maybe not what editors would really want to have happen to them.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Good point. Aside from that and other clarification suggestions, the general direction of this revision idea seems reasonable. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- All photos on Wikipedia are already freely licenced (otherwise they can't be uploaded here). Yes there is the argument that we could be giving more attention to the image by moving it to Commons and categorising it, but anyone could do that on any website since the license is free. The uploader takes that risk by uploading the image in the first place. —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 16:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)- The English Wikipedia allows fair-use uploads, which are not freely licensed.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 17:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
WhatamIdoing: That's not relevant here - fair use files have to adhere to
WP:NFCC, and one of the conditions is that they have to be used in an article. User pages don't count here. Yes, there are files that are free in the US but not their source country and hence can't be transferred to Commons, but that is a small minority of files that can be ignored (also see above thread). —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
uselesscontributions} 09:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)- You wrote "All photos on Wikipedia are already freely licenced (otherwise they can't be uploaded here)". I have corrected that information, for the sake of anyone who might read it later and not have as complete an understanding as you do. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
WhatamIdoing: That's not relevant here - fair use files have to adhere to
WP:NFCC, and one of the conditions is that they have to be used in an article. User pages don't count here. Yes, there are files that are free in the US but not their source country and hence can't be transferred to Commons, but that is a small minority of files that can be ignored (also see above thread). —Matrix(!) {
user -
talk? -
- The English Wikipedia allows fair-use uploads, which are not freely licensed.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 17:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The word "locally" will create confusion. The rest is technically not bad, but cumbersome. .. mb "
(e.g., personal photos (except photos of participants))
" - It seems to me that in those isolated cases when they try to delete an image using NOTFILESTORAGE, you need to appeal to
c:COM:EDUSE: if the file can be used for educational purposes, it should not be deleted. In cases where the file is nevertheless deleted, but you think that it shouldn’t, you should discuss this issue on the pages on file recovery (?)/dispute the result (?). — Ирука
13 19:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not just photos of the participants themselves; we have a lot of photos of editors' pets. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you think Language education in the United Kingdom#Broadcasting is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list? In my opinion, this list is a clear violation of "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources", as it has virtually no sources and very little context/explanation, but it seems like an IP editor has a different opinion ( ). If you agree that this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, would it be a good idea to extend the list of the examples with something related to lists of works? Or just add another shortcut to the first example in addition to WP:NOTPLOT? Bendegúz Ács ( talk) 23:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like a clear case of IINFO to me. Regarding adding an example to the policy, I don't think that's necessary; it should be enough to cite IINFO and the meaning of the word 'indiscriminate'.
Sunnya343 (
talk) 16:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- In what way is the list indiscriminate? It is explicitly a list of language education topics in the UK, which discriminates between items on that topic and items not on that topic. It also subdivides (discriminates) the topic into subtopics on specific applications. Clearly further discrimination is possible, and may be desirable. but I do not see an absence of discrimination. · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk): 04:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe I've been getting NOTDIR and IINFO mixed up. NOTDIR seems to be applicable:
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed
andSimple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit
. In this case we appear to have a list of every TV and radio program on language education in the UK, at least up to the 1990s. So sure, it's discriminate, just as a list of all McDonald's restaurants in the UK is discriminate. Sunnya343 ( talk) 17:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- Thanks, now that I read WP:NOTDIRECTORY (and WP:LISTCRITERIA), it indeed seems more applicable here. However, I do find it somewhat hard to distinguish between these two: "indiscriminate collection of information" vs. "directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". Perhaps the text could be updated to clarify the difference, for example: WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to lists, while WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to regular, paragraph-based content/prose. Bendegúz Ács ( talk) 19:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe I've been getting NOTDIR and IINFO mixed up. NOTDIR seems to be applicable:
- In what way is the list indiscriminate? It is explicitly a list of language education topics in the UK, which discriminates between items on that topic and items not on that topic. It also subdivides (discriminates) the topic into subtopics on specific applications. Clearly further discrimination is possible, and may be desirable. but I do not see an absence of discrimination. · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk): 04:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)