Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 32

WP:NOTDICDEF

By extension, does WP:NOTDICDEF exclude sentences giving only the name of the article topic in a non-native language? Presumably the sentence can be retained if it is of cultural significance. But if it is just a translation, then to me it doesn't seem an appropriate addition. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is hard to respond to without an example to make clear what you mean. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-native to whom?

Are you talking about what was addressed in this thread: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 71#Inclusion of names in alternate scripts? -- Quiddity (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For random examples, that might be related to your question, see the good list at Harry Potter in translation, and informative subsection at List of Asterix characters#Getafix. However, for what some people consider debatable (and-is-currently-being-edit-warred-over-with-much-drama) see Goblet drum translations. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean non-native to the language of the article. As a specific example, the culture section of the Mars article contained the sentence, "It is known as al-Mirrikh in Arabic, and Merih in Turkish" (since removed to the talk page for discussion). I am finding this type of language translation common in many articles. To me it provides nothing about the cultural meaning of the word and may even be redundant with the article's languages box.—RJH (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is some attempt to display etymological links between a name in different languages, that could be encyclopedic (in which languages is the planet named after a god of war, for example?), but simply listing the name in various languages does seem a bit frivolous. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional Notcensored paragraph

(The paragraph in question: [1])

Ludwig, other editors, as well as myself, have expressed reservations about your addition. In an attempt to avoid edit-warring, can we keep the discussion here? Thank you. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that the paragraph is largely redundant with the 2nd paragraph we currently have, and strikes the wrong balance. Language like "if and only if" is wikilawyer bait for would-be censors, and "their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate" is wikilawyer bait for those trying to turn Wikipedia into a shock site. The 2nd paragraph achieves about as good a balance as I think we could ever hope to have; "include content based on its suitability to the article; do not remove it solely based on its offensiveness".--Father Goose (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Throwaway85, this is not my paragraph - as near as I can tell this paragraph was added a few months ago while I was on wikibreak. If you are opposing it because you think I wrote it, please disabuse yourself of that notion.

Father G: as I expressed earlier, my main concern is not over the particular wording (which could probably use some adjustment), but rather over the nuance of inclusion vs. exclusion. As I see it, there are two ways this idea can be interpreted:

offensive material should not be excluded from wikipedia, so long as it is 'appropriate' to the article.
offensive material should not be included in wikipedia, except where it is 'appropriate' to the article.

the current phrasing leans towards the first statement, particularly given that editors generally tend to quote only the last phrase - "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. - giving the impression that removing such material is frowned on in almost all cases. This leads to the kind of wiki-lawyering that you're talking about, but in favor of including progressively more offensive material.

the second statement strikes me as much closer to the spirit of wikipedia policy.

Now, I agree there is overlap between the paragraphs, but if you want to delete the third paragraph I think we ought to revise the second to reflect the idea that offensive material should not be used except where it is necessary and/or pertinent to the topic, and then should be used with an eye towards minimizing offense. I think that you will find this true of every serious encyclopedia in the world: they do not censor content that needs to be covered, but do not indulge in more offensive material when they can get the same idea across with less offensive material. Perhaps blending parts of the third paragraph into the last two lines of the second paragraph; something like:

Content that has clear value to the article may always be included, so long as it is chosen to minimize offense to the extent possible. Material that meets these criteria should not be removed merely on the grounds that it is considered objectionable.

would something along those lines be acceptable? --Ludwigs2 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Who decides what constitutes "clear value" and what extent constitutes "the extent possible"? That sounds like a recipe for endless debates. The paragraph in question is problematic, too, since it it would be pretty much impossible to determine who "typical Wikipedia readers" might be. I have no idea whether I'm a "typical" Wikipedia editor or not, but I value the anti-censorship policy tremendously and would prefer not to see it weakened in any way. Maybe I'm missing something, but it occurs to me that the strong stand the community has taken against censorship over the years has been one of the key factors in making Wikipedia a potentially credible resource for information. Even with the best intentions in the world, if we start chiseling away at the policy we're liable to end up with a lesser encyclopedia. Rivertorch (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, I was not under the impression you wrote it, I was merely reverting your re-addition of it. It's a difficult issue. The if and only if bit is what gets me, as it opens the door to wikilawyering, and distracts us from our true purpose, which is to build an encyclopedia. I've made no secret of my belief that an honest attempt to improve articles will take care of the majority of these issues regardless of policy. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"should be used with an eye towards minimizing offense" -- that's the key part of your position, but including it would turn NOTCENSORED into SOMEWHATCENSORED.

When I evaluate whether content "is appropriate to include in a given article", I do consider whether offense is being served over the need to include to include the material -- i.e., if it looks like someone's just trying to bend the bounds of good taste and gross people out in exchange for little or no improvement to the article. I think most people evaluate content on this same basis as well, even if they fully support the principle of NOTCENSORED. This is why we have little content that really is disgusting, except when there's no way to avoid it. So we have pictures of genital warts in that article because a lot of readers will want to (or god forbid, need to) know what a genital wart looks like. Whereas I think nobody needs to know what vomit looks like -- we've all seen it, so including a picture of puke in that article is just gratuitous.

Given that we self-police very judiciously already, adding explicit instructions to NOTCENSORED to "avoid offensiveness", regardless of the reason, will cause our content to suffer.

Just have faith that the system works, and has worked well for a long time without the disputed third paragraph. Don't try to fix what ain't broken.--Father Goose (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

FatherG: I understand your point. all I can say is I wish all wikipedians shared your perspective (I do, in fact, though I will admit I admire the evenness of your keel, which I can't always manage for myself). Speaking frankly, though, this is a generic problem on wikipedia. If we exclude miscreants for the moment, the vast majority of wikipedians are basically thoughtful and reasonable, but a minority are - within certain topics - completely unreasonable, largely resistant to communication, and both active and vocal about it. while I appreciate the value of open policies, policy should be encouraging the first behavior and discouraging the second behavior, not the other way around. Frankly, this isn't even an issue about censorship (which was a bad choice of wording to begin with). The goal here is to enable wikipedia to include anything that needs to be included to create a better encyclopedia, not to prevent wikipedia from censoring material regardless of encyclopedic value. in the hands of a reasonable wikipedian this section works the way it should in spite of itself, because a reasonable wikipedian will do exactly what you do and import common sense and common consideration into the discussion. an unreasonable wikipedian won't, sad to say, and I've even seen wikipedians (a good number of them - I can provide diffs if you like) argue that we should never do as you say you do, because it's against policy.

So what I'd say to you is that if you're being honest, and you do consider whether offense is being served over the need to include to include the material, and you think that's the correct way to behave... then it seems to me you'd want an inclusion of this sort in policy. For most editors it would just be a reminder of what they already do; for unreasonable editors it would forestall an unreasonable interpretation of the policy. --Ludwigs2 10:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that those miscreants are never going to be responsive to policy. They will, however, wikilawyer it when it serves their needs. That's why I prefer policy that gives sensible Wikipedians the maximum amount of freedom to choose the result most appropriate to the circumstances.

Censorial individuals are just another type of miscreant; they too are not "here to build an encyclopedia". Giving them even a single line in policy that can be misconstrued to serve their needs is just going to make our job to get a "good result" that much harder. What's in the first two paragraphs right now, I feel, sums up Wikipedia's position perfectly without denying us any of the flexibility we need to resolve each individual content discussion optimally. Sadly, there's just no way to legislate idiots out of existence.--Father Goose (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... I noticed that you completely sidestepped my main point, which was that the policy should reflect a practice that we both think is normal and healthy for the encyclopedia. I'm not sure why you would do that, and I'm not interested in one of those "blah blah blah" discussions were each side simply repeats their belief without even a token of consideration for what the other side said. If you want this to be an honest discussion you know what to do. however, if this is just political posturing I think we've both clearly stated our sides, and we can leave this for others to weigh in on. --Ludwigs2 17:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I beg to differ there; I simply feel the current two paragraphs allow us to uphold "normal and healthy" principles better than more specific language would. I retain an open mind toward new wording, but I'm actually quite impressed with how well the current two paragraphs achieve what I feel is the right balance between censorship and unnecessary vulgarity, so few changes are likely to improve the balance further. Even, for instance, the words "unnecessary vulgarity" would upset that balance.

I perhaps could accept some wording along the lines of "no vulgarity for its own sake", but I am certain that some would-be censors would then try to characterize all vulgarity as unnecessary, and on some level, they'd be right. But from an encyclopedic point of view, they'd be wrong.

Perhaps my thinking here is also colored by the assumption that censors are more common than gross-out artists (on Wikipedia, anyway). I think this is why we have NOTCENSORED instead of NOTVULGAR in the first place; the former is a greater threat to our ability to produce a good encyclopedia. So I prefer to have our policy focus primarily on the issue of anti-censorship, since measures against vulgarity are easy enough to enforce in the present policy environment -- but censorship is a persistent and well-organized threat, not just on Wikipedia but throughout society.--Father Goose (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, to my mind a good encyclopedia should always be conservative (and trust me when I say it pains me to say that - I rarely disagree with anything on NPR). It should provide thorough information while taking pains to avoid challenging people's understanding or viewpoints. An encyclopedia should inform, but shouldn't step over the line into trying to 'educate' people. There may be more censorial types than pushy NOTCENSORED types on wikipedia, but the pushy NOTCENSORED types are clearly much more likely to engage in trying to cure people of their puritanical stuffiness, and are much more likely to abuse the encyclopedia for that purpose. its just not wikipedia's job to break people of their old-fashioned values. It's easy to keep censorial types from removing material that is needed for the encyclopedia through normal content discussions; it's currently next to impossible to reign in someone who has decided it is his obligation to free people of their moral limitations. I guess we just disagree. --Ludwigs2 18:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the project's core goal, I would challenge the notion that there are more "free speach at any cost"ers than "eww no it's gross"ers. I think there's a fairly even mix, as most of the notable debates in recent times have shown. Nothing should be included to make a point; we already have that policy in place. The debate centers upon what degree of offensiveness is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Whereas you argue we should minimize it as much as possible, and I sympathize with your position, I argue that it should hold no bearing. There's probably close to a billion people who would be offended by the "Mohammed cartoons", but we include them for encyclopedic value. Similarly, we include the "naughty" version of the Virgin Killer album cover, because it is necessary in showing why it is controversial, a key component of its notability. I think we have struck the right balance: We don't go out of our way to offend people, but we don't go out of our way not to offend them, either. That's the way it should stay. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

first, you've got the claim reversed - I think we all agree there are people on the conservative edge than on the liberal edge. we disagree about which is more damaging to the encyclopedia

second, while I understand that strawman arguments seem to be a core principle of wikipedia debates, let's try to avoid them. no one in this debate would argue for the censoring of the 'mohammed cartoons' (to use your terminology), and while the Virgin Killer album cover is more debatable, I'd probably support its inclusion - I'd have to look at the arguments more carefully. More to the point, this question isn't about making hard-and-fast rules that would make people's lives miserable; it's about including language that supports a more conservative, discrete approach wherever such will not interfere with the encyclopedia.

This is, I think, the sixth time I've needed to explain this point to you, throwaway - if you misrepresent my side of the argument again, I will begin accusing you of doing it intentionally, and probably use fairly strong language while doing it. please save us both that trouble. thanks. --Ludwigs2 19:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of starting off on the right foot with our upcomming DR, I will refrain from addressing your accusations above. As far as your claims regarding policy needing to be more conservative, I really don't see any need for it. The current policy works fine, and I wouldn't want to handicap editors any further. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps

Content that has clear value to the article may always be included, so long as it is used in a manner that will minimize offense to the extent possible. Material that meets these criteria should not be removed merely on the grounds that it is considered objectionable.

DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What does "so long as it is used in a manner that will mimize offense" mean in practice? That could easily be interpretted as collapsing any offensive image by default, and I think that's going too far. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, all of this may be moot. Remember that Wikipedia policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. The current consensus on Wikipedia is that it is not censored, and this policy should simply accurately reflect that consensus. Even if a few people in this discussion page want to make Wikipedia 'somewhat censored', we cannot possibly change Wikipedia WP:notcensored policy to that degree without a Wikipedia-wide RFC. Locke9k (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed censored. The article on Child_pornography does not contain a single picture and I do not think anyone would want it to. There are many ways that an image would add information to the article, but most would be illegal. Stating that Wikipedia is not censored is a lie.--Anka.213 (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between not censoring things people may find disturbing and not uploading images that will land you in jail for a decade. That's really not much of an argument. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Would the images have been there if child pornography were legal? Ok. I agree that most reformulations would cause more problems then it would solve. This one's just out of curiosity. (I was aware that the above post was stupid)

PS. Pornography is an example which I would consider slightly censored in the way that (i think) Ludwigs2 is aiming for. DS. --Anka.213 (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're into very big hypotheticals here, because it'd have to be legal throughout the world -- even just viewing a page with child pornography will put a copy of it in your cache, and in many (most?) countries, that counts as possession, and is illegal.

I'm really astonished we have the "Virgin Killer" image on-site. I'm certain some prosecutor somewhere could secure a conviction of someone just on the basis of having viewed that article. We're playing a game of ~~chicken~~ chickenhawk with the law there. All it'll take is one prosecutor who wants to make an example of someone or something (perhaps of Wikipedia), and the shit will hit the fan. I'm not just talking about the "Internet Watch" business from a year ago; it's my belief someone could actually go to jail over it. The fact that we've retained the image isn't the fault of NOTCENSORED, which says "don't break the law"; it's due to an inadequate fear of how unpredictable the law can be regarding obscenity and especially child pornography. I think it's a time bomb for us.--Father Goose (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The international legal issues are really difficult to handle - wikipedia has (and will always have) an American bias in that regard. frankly, images that most wikipedia editors think are necessary and appropriate (e.g. the images on the penis or vagina pages) would be illegal in huge sections of the world (most muslim countries and probably China, which has some stringent rules on pornography). opening the wikipedia page on penis in the presence of women in Saudi Arabia might be punishable by death under a narrow interpretation of Islamic law.

at any rate, I think the legal issue is a red herring. The fact of the matter is, most wikipedia editors use restraint and common sense when dealing with images on wikipedia - this is in fact a form of censorship, but not something objectionable. My real concern with this policy snippet is that it is sometimes used by editors who lack restraint and common sense to beat back editors who argue for restraint and common sense. what I would like is to get some reference to restraint and common sense embedded in the policy to keep editors (those who might be inclined to push the envelope of good taste) from using NOTCENSORED as a bludgeon to get their way. --Ludwigs2 10:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a competition?

I came across this MfD, which was deleted, and a few users mentioned "wikipedia is not a competition". I was surprised that this policy doesn't mention anything like that. Has adding something like this ever been proposed, or even discussed? What are some opinions on Wikipedia is not a competition?--Stinging Swarm ^talk 07:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While competition in accumulating barnstars is an unnecessary distraction—that AfD seems to show a consensus on this—I'm not certain that forbidding all types of competition should be set in policy. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND already rejects the most destructive type of competition. What else is really needed? / edg ☺ ☭ 12:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll have to put WP:Wikicup up for deletion too.^[joke] davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Swarm is after something more like "Wikipedia is not a Snark hunt." But sometimes I suspect it is. --Ludwigs2 16:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspected that first :P Throwaway85 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that basically sums it up. Come on, does it not make sense?--Stinging Swarm ^talk 20:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hah! goona play the boojum, are you?

--Ludwigs2 21:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Having not read much Carroll, I find the reference utterly incomprehensible. From what I glean, however, that's kind of the point. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This issue is irrelevant for this policy: what happens outside article space is of no concern here. ("what happens in Wikipedia:, stays in Wikipedia:. ") There are numerous "List of wikipedians by... "s. Some of them were under attack as well. The main argument is that many these pages are statistics. And wikipedia is and will be a matter of various competition, most formidable being that of wikiholics and rat races around each millionth article. There is no way you can ban them, hence your resistance is futile. - Altenmann >t 00:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I will say, I kind of like the idea of a Wikipedia is not a snark hunt section. some general warning about charging off on incomprehensible quests to achieve dangerously non-existent goals. Unfortunately I think people would keep throwing it at me, so it's probably best to leave it out. --Ludwigs2 01:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a snark hunt, I like. Is thhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&action=edit&section=8ere any way to make sense of Wikipedia is not Soul Train? I'd like to cite that, but it would help if it meant anything... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

that would be a section explaining that wikipedia is not a place to demonstrate how much cooler you are then everyone else. --Ludwigs2 02:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

eh, I couldn't resist. let's see what response it gets. --Ludwigs2 02:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Threw a little blue in there for ya. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to find the sub-culture where editing Wikipedia translates to coolness. I'm ready to cash in on all these years of sitting in a room with a computer! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

close enough. Mouseover is worth it. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

←@Altenmann: There's a whole section of this policy related to other namespaces. In response to the rest of the comments...wow. Just wow.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 05:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this section specifically says : " The following policies apply to Wikipedia's governance and processes". If you look into the "wikipedia" namespace, you will find whatsnot: games, personal rants fashionably called "essays", humor, ... To struggle to get rid of these is just as pointless as to fight against, say, posters, photos and other "irrelevant" things from walls of cubicles of software engineers. - Altenmann >t 07:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia is not here to keep people from doing stupid stupid things. - Altenmann >t 08:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, Altenmann. I'm not on some quest to rid Wikipedia of any of those things. I don't even think the list of editors by edit count would violate the the statement "wikipedia is not a competition". The suggestion would be closer to the concept of WP:WIN. On another note, I really like WP:SNARK (which is the shortcut I made up), which seems like applies more closely to WP:RANDY-like incidents, that happen all the time and are very disruptive. It's actually a good idea.--Swarm^Talk 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like several people got you wrong. Please try to get into minds of the retards like me, and try to come with a better, less ambiguous "catchphrase" for your suggestion. Please notice also that in the policy the catchphrase is followed by detailed explanation how it must be understood. - Altenmann >t 22:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a suggestion. It was even below that. I wasn't demanding that my "ambiguous catchphrase" be inserted. I was simply looking for opinions on the general concept of "wikipedia is not a competition". I thought the general concept of "competition" speaks for itself, being, by definition, "The act of striving consciously or unconsciously for an objective" and doesn't allude to the removal of "games, personal rants fashionably called "essays", humor" in any way. Apparently, I was wrong. It would apply to Wikipedia's "process". I suppose it would cover the concepts of "Wikipedia is not a snark hunt", where Wikipedia is not about succeeding in convincing others of your point, also covering the concept of WP:WIN --"Disputes over content or behavior are not meant to be "won". They are meant to be resolved per consensus, with all users here for the betterment of the project at all times willing to yield to consensus."-- so even if you disagree with the other side of the discussion, you should yield to consensus anyway.--Swarm^Talk 18:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Snark

I like this paragraph, but does it really need to be on this policy page? It'd make a fine essay, but I don't see how it's policy material.

Be aware that WP:SNARK is already taken.--Father Goose (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave that up to others to decide. I thought the idea was both fun and on point, and NOT is arguably the most fun and pointy policy page we have. And no one can claim this is self-serving, since I suspect that some people would love to point me to this section (yes, my sense of humor often overpowers my sense of self-preservation; it's a wonder I'm still alive). I don't think this bit is on a level with SOAP or NOT#OR, clearly, but it has its uses, and I think it's on par with IINFO and the NOTMANUAL/NOTHOWTO/NOTTRAVEL group (in the general vein of 'don't fill up Wikipedia with useless wads of text')

whatever consensus says. If we decide to keep it, maybe we can steal SNARK from the user-space essay it points to now. --Ludwigs2 07:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it's also easy to overlook it in a huge page like this. I feel it'd probably get more of the attention it deserved if it had its own page.--Father Goose (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It might actually work better as an essay for now, and seeing what the community thinks of making it policy later. Just worried about policy creep. We don't really want people whipping out WP:SNARK as a way to win arguments. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no way it's going to be policy, regardless of whether it's on a policy page. The nearest actual rule we have is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and in cases where a person is just arguing, arguing, arguing on talk pages, as long as they're making apparently good-faith arguments in a civil way, it's inappropriate to block them. "Don't hunt snarks" is good advice, like WP:DEADHORSE or WP:REICHSTAG, but it's not a matter for policy.--Father Goose (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be right about it getting its own page then. We are, after all, here over a policy argument concerning WP:NOT. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So, Ludwigs, can I ask you to move this section onto an essay page? I don't want to be the thorn in your side over issue after issue, but it's not a matter for policy, so it just doesn't belong on this page.--Father Goose (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in writing the essay just at this moment; I may get to it later. If someone else wants to start it I have no objections. feel free to remove the section if that's the consensus. --Ludwigs2 06:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Game server?

According to many editors here, it is OK for editors to use WP for game playing. If so, this policy needs to be changed to reflect it. Crum375 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_networking.2C_or_memorial_site and WP:UP, the use of words like 'excessive' or 'extensive' is notable. i.e. cutting some slack at times is a good thing and we can all get along. Unfortunately these words are not quantifiable, hence the need for MfD to determine what community consensus is on borderline examples. I see no need for policy change. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for creating an encyclopedia, but incidental activities that don't consume huge amounts of bandwidth or server space are probably not worth worrying over. heck, given that we dedicate so many resources to pointless bickering and squabbling, I'm actually kind of pleased that someone is wasting wikipedia resources for something pleasant and enjoyable. more power to them. --Ludwigs2 02:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If so, the policy should amended to reflect it, so if another user's game playing page is up for deletion, it won't be based on WP:NOT. Crum375 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

but that would take all the fun out of getting away with it.

--Ludwigs2 03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa whoa, haven't you heard? the folks at Wikipedia Review have figured out it's all one massive MMO. To think we thought we were buiding an encyclopedia. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we thought of that first: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG. They just appropriated and (presumably) poisoned the idea. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It would have been nice to see someone have the balls to use the words "levelling up" and "grinding" for new weapons, but hey. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Department of Fun is where the games are listed (over 35 of them, if you click [show] in its subsection).

The general rule is (or at least was) that games are welcome if they have any kind of encyclopedic overlap (word games, writing games, info-scavenging games, etc). Hence playing chess/battleship/poker/sodoku/etc is not covered.

However, previous deletion precedent is searchable, and shows most were kept. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut consistency

Anchors are used inconsistently. For example WP:NOT#ESSAY vs WP:NOT#NEWS.

Also: WP:Shortcut "The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page; instead, they generally should list only one or two common and easily remembered redirects."

We list far to many alternates and options. I propose to go through and insert consistent anchors for the various NOT# Terms, and then suggest some rationalising of which shortcut redirects are template-box-listed once full-duplicates are identified. I'm not (of course) suggesting removing any actual redirects; rather there might be a handful of new ones for any listed what-its-nots that somehow didn't get a shortcut.

Any objections? ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Link headers, not sub-points. See also this similar recent thread: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_31#Make shortcuts_to_section_headers instead_of_specific_points. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, which standard form is better WP:NOT#ADVERTISING or WP:NOTADVERTISING (again, just for the on-page list, both shortcut redirects should probably exist) ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How about consistent double linking: ie. WP:NOT#XYZ always goes to the XYZ Text sub-point anchor, WP:NOTXYZ goes to the section header containing XYZ, and we list the WP:NOTXYZ form in the 'links here' template boxes? As a policy, sometimes it's useful to link directly to the policy text being used to clarify a discussion. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That still leaves us with needing to list both shortcuts in the shortcut box. I'd be just as happy to completely deprecate the use of anchor-style shortcuts (NOT#XYZ).--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not preserve (with consistency) the NOT#XYZ form and the anchors, but NOT list them, and put some collapsed text in the talk page headers on the standardised redirect approach? 'What links here' shows that the great majority of shortcuts are not listed in the template boxes currently. ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I wouldn't get rid of shortcuts that are already being used, but I'd -- as I said -- deprecate their use.--Father Goose (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering if my driver here isn't just my brushes with those who quote WP:NOTNEWS - or rather, allude to without quoting. Perhaps the news(indiscriminate) and journalism(original thought) could be regathered under 'Wikipedia is not a news outlet' or similar; given the frequency with which this aspect of WP:NOT is cited? That would be more useful to people being referred to NOTNEWS, and would make me more comfortable with the idea of dropping the anchors generally. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea.--Father Goose (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Loosen up price text

Price is important in describing a product. Price puts the product in a certain category. Many product articles on wikipedia contain MSRP or the original announced price. Can we change the text to loosen the guideline so that this sounds more acceptable? Current text:

Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation.

Perhaps change to:

Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, historical discussion of economic inflation, and other reasons that meet wp:notability.

On the Ipad article someone deleted price info because of WP:NOPRICE. I reverted the change. Price is important to understand what market segment the product is in. Price is discussed in many articles about the ipad so it is obviously very notable. What suggestions do you have? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this: [2]? I agree that NOPRICE has long been a bit off the mark. The iPad's list price is a rather significant trait -- we just don't want people listing "here's where you can get it cheapest".--Father Goose (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Very good! Thanks! :-) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made one (hopefully uncontested) change - it is not just non-review media source mentions, but critical commentary on the price (eg, the iPad has been stated to be overpriced for what little it does, so that's good. ). Without the "critical" aspect, a slight mention of a price without additional context could be interpreted as an allowance for price (eg a news report that drops the price of an average car that was stolen). --MASEM (t) 07:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmaybe. The price of a product is often one of its most significant traits, so I'd rather err on the side of allowing it, as long as it doesn't drift into OR-type price comparisons, which I think is pretty explicitly counseled against. "Critical commentary" is the kind of language that doesn't have a ready definition, so I foresee Wikilawyering over it. But I won't remove it for now; I'd rather see a specific case that demonstrates whether the wording produces the wrong outcome, so as to have a clear idea of what further rewriting is necessary.--Father Goose (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood on the "critical commentary" being iffy given how it's used at NFC. But, the MSRP is not a number we include just because it is there, because it can change too. Here's an example of what I mean where I think we want something more than just rattling off price. this article asserts that the Zhu Zhu pet is a fraction of the cost of a real hamster; that's a reasonable presumption to include costs. this one mentions the price as recession friendly, another good reason to include. However this one just mentions their price, but not anything else about it; if the product only had this latter type of price mentions, then the MSRP isn't really important. --MASEM (t) 08:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble grasping that one. Having to find critical commentary isn't easy. For example who said the IPAD was over priced? The price is important in itself without critical commentary because it establishes the market segment for the product and allows comparison with other similar priced product. Just because the MSRP can change is not a reason to exclude it, although the cellphone template suggest only listing the original announced price. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of prices is not what we're here to do, even if we're not explicitly stated that comparison. On the other hand, if part of a products' benefit or failing is its cost relative to similar competing products, based on the input of secondary sources, then there's reason to describe this (which I've seen both ways for the iPad). --MASEM (t) 14:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, shit, now I want an electric hamster. Or maybe a gerbil.--Father Goose (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a slight reword, bumping down "critical commentary" to just "commentary" but noting that passing mention is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds about right.--Father Goose (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

link?

mabye link this to WP:BIC? the pages seem to have almost the same point. 99.149.126.135 (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify this? Where in this article is "almost the same point" as that essay? Skimming through I can't see it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is time for NOTHOWTO to go

I am replacing this section from the archives because there was a very wide diversity of opinions expressed and the question was not resolved before the section was archived. 99.27.203.165 (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The archives are filled with complaints about WP:NOTHOWTO, but I could not find a single argument in support of that exclusion. And then today I saw that WikiHow, the first alternative listed on this project page under the NOTHOWTO section does not allow commercial re-use of their contributions unlike our CC-BY-SA license. It is time to end the stupid restriction on instructional information. Who is with me on this? 99.27.200.154 (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Two far-better solutions: 1) Find out why wikiHow won't allow commercial use without prior authorization, and get them to change their mind, or 2) create a new How-To wiki and see if people prefer editing it than WikiHow. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are either of those better? The default instruction for encyclopedic quality is comprehensiveness. 99.27.200.154 (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What search term did you use to search the archives? Searching the archive for "nothowto" I find a total of six hits, hardly "filled with complaints". Can you provide some reasons,why you feel how to information is encyclopedic? Ridernyc (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading through the 6 hits, I don't think a single one of them is a complaint. One or two asking for clarification,the rest used as discussion points about other parts of not. Ridernyc (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I searched on "how to", "how-to", and "howto" please. 99.27.200.154 (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mind providing some links to these complaints ,or you could just tell use why you feel "how to" information is encyclopedic. Ridernyc (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was intrigued to find on nostalgia.wikipedia.org that how-to-guides were once accepted. See http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to and http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/How-tos. Also see Wikipedia:How-to (historical). Fences&Windows 03:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I support NOTHOWTO. Whatever problems WikiHow has are no reason to begin opening the can of worms that would be how-to guides on Wikipedia. One goes to an encyclopedia to learn what a cake is, not how to pick out eggs and bake without gluten and lick the beaters without injuring oneself. Powers ^T 13:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I also support NOTHOWTO, and seeing the quality of content on WikiHow only strengthens this. Instructional guides quickly head into original research and are POV minefields. Let's stick to 'what'. Fences&Windows 15:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. How-to content has no place in WP. We need to stop it from coming in, not change the rule to let it in. The rule is good. mike4ty4 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia. How-to guides are not encyclopedic, and they are prone to original research. If you want to learn about bicycles then go get an encyclopedia, if you want to know how to repair a bicycle then the encyclopedia is not the correct book. We need to stay within the already vast scope of our project. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I forget if it was the RS/N or the OR/N but there was once a question (raised twice, and both times I was pretty much the only one answering, and gave same answer both times) about information added to an article related to sungazing (perhaps that was the article itself) that explained from a book on sungazing how to actually do it (safely, as claimed by the book). It wasnt OR, and the book was a RS, but thanks to NOTHOWTO I and one or two others supported the exclusion of the information both times it was raised as violating our ethos that we are not a "how-to" guide and that if vandalism occured and wasnt corrected for even a few minutes someone could follow wrong instructions and seriously get injured. This is an example of why NOTHOWTO must remain in order to protect the safety of those who would follow our instructions, and the Foundation from a lawsuit. Without NOTHOWTO there wouldnt have been a policy/guideline instruction that would have prevented the information to remain (not that we need one, common sense is enough to tell you we shouldnt be telling people how to look at the sun, safely or not).Camelbinky (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And Powers, ca you tell me how to et mah tongue unshtuck from the beatersh? :-)Camelbinky (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I don't have a problem with NOTHOWTO, nor with any other content restriction on Wikipedia, since the Wikimedia Foundation gives away the MediaWiki software to anyone who wants to start their own wiki. The free availability of MediaWiki for any purpose means (in a larger sense) that the WMF does not really forbid anything. Every wiki community is free to restrict itself in any way it likes, even arbitrarily. However:

Justifying NOTHOWTO on the basis of its utility for eliminating some content disputes is a weak argument. The content which Wikipedia does allow is also a "can of worms" for content disputes. Wikipedia succeeds because we have mechanisms for resolving disputes, not because we manage to avoid them. If the Wikipedia community wanted to publish procedural knowledge, we surely could. We would handle the additional disputes like we handle the existing disputes.
Could we persuade Jimbo to use a different modifier than "all" when he says "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." Clearly we are not trying to give every single person on the planet the sum of all human knowledge.
Excluding procedural knowledge from Wikipedia is, I believe, elitist. It presumes Wikipedia's audience consists of leisured gentlemen scholars who never need to get their hands dirty, who learn primarily for their intellectual amusement and possibly to impress their peers with their command of useless trivia. Procedural knowledge, in contrast, is the domain of doers: technicians, the working class, and especially the poor who cannot hope to address their glaring material needs with intellectual abstractions. I don't believe elitism is fundamentally wrong, nor that it needs any justification (elitists are free to be elitist if that's what they want to do), but it does contradict Jimbo's stated ambition to provide Wikipedia to everybody on the planet in their native language. Most of the world's population is poor by the standards of the average Wikipedian. The poorest billion live on $1 per person per day or less; the next-poorest two billion live on $3 or less. One imagines that the information these people will consider important is quite different than the information the average Wikipedian considers important. Wikipedians who are well-fed and comfortable can talk about how procedural knowledge is "unencyclopedic", and this argument might even mean something. But I suspect the argument would make less sense to a starving Ethiopean.

--Teratornis (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Foundation has the goal of providing the sum of all human knowledge, but not through Wikipedia alone. Wikipedia is but one of the Foundations many projects in furtherance of that goal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the Foundation is not an encyclopedia but is a collection of projects that include an encyclopedia. The foundation has a wider scope than our project does. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is true, but not even Wikibooks, the most likely WMF outlet for procedural knowledge, wants large subsets of it. See What Wikibooks is not. Thousands of non-WMF wikis exist because the WMF does not want to publish the sum of all human knowledge. However, as I mentioned, the WMF gives away the MediaWiki software that other people can use to publish the sum of all human knowledge. --Teratornis (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok Teratornis, so when a vandal makes the portion of the sungazing article on how to actually sun gaze read something other than what it should and my kid goes blind because he went on Wikipedia, read it, and did it the way it was written, I'll remember that it was your idea to put "how-to" knowledge on Wikipedia. You want to be responsible for a blind kid? That's just one legal problem we'd have to deal with. Drop this issue, we've shown conclusively it is a bad idea and it just wont ever happen.Camelbinky (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, WP's general set of disclaimers (see bottom of the page) assert that advice listed on WP should not be taken as profession, so to argue that we aren't a HOWTO to prevent us from being sued is not appropriate.

The simple answer is that when you start getting into HOWTO for more common activities, such as making chicken soup, there are thousands of recipes that would then need to be included since they are all valid HOWTOs. We can describe that chicken soup is often made from chicken broth or chicken bones boiled in water, with noodles, vegatables, and seasoning, as that's encyclopedic, but we can't tell them to add 4 quarts of broth to 1/2 cup of noodles and cook for 4 hrs. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that disclaimer is enough to prevent the Foundation from being sued then you havent studied law or the history of tort litigation in the United States. Yes, we CAN get sued; and even if the Foundation didnt decide to just settle (which chances are they would) the legal fees would be staggering compared to how small the budget is. It is a legitimate argument and alot better than "we'd have to add lots of chicken noodle recipes". The legal is issue is the paramount issue, we can not go around telling people to do things that we dont have control over what the wording is and whether or not it is safe, disclaimer or not. The fact that I have raised that issue here would itself be brought into evidence in court that there was a foreseeable incident and it was preventable. Just the fact of me bringing this up means if we got rid of howto and say my son got blinded, yes I could sue the Foundation; and given that my net worth dwarfs the budget of the Foundation chances are I'd bankrupt the Foundation even if I had a lost cause (and I wouldnt, I'd win, trust me). Hypothetically speaking of course, please dont try saying "Camelbinky is making legal threats".Camelbinky (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

ZOMG! Save the children!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't think "how to" articles would work, "how to" content within articles might sometimes be appropriate. Encyclopedia Britannica is an Instruction Manual: List of guides on "How to do things" in the EB (see esp. pages 28-29). And while they may not fit Wikipedia's definition of an encyclopedia, see also How to Encyclopedias. (I reiterate my assertion elsewhere: elevating articles on major topics underlying fundamental principles major policies like Encyclopedia for WP:5P and WP:NOT or Knowledge for m:Vision or educational content (def:=?) for m:Mission and m:Values to Featured Article status should probably be a high priority.) Oh, and MASEM and Camelbinky, do you have any good chicken soup recipes by the way? :-D You could add them to WP:CHICKENSOUP or Chicken Soup for the Wikipedian Soul. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Many topics are best explained by a detailed description of how to work with them or use them. As for encyclopedicity, consider the illustration in Diderot's Encyclopedie , which were specifically intended to convey this level of detail. The provision is necessary to keep out extreme cases, but the wording should be looked to and it should be interpreted rather narrowly. The fear of legal adverse events should be left to the foundation--I think it rather remote, but if they want to prohibit something on the grounds of legal exposure, it is they and not us who do it. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Advertising

I disagree with Wikipedia's policy of no advertising. I think it's hurting the articles a lot.

Say for example, a few months back, I was reading the VPN article, researching the best way to create a VPN for a certain company. It really wasn't that much help, as I already knew what a VPN was, and most of the ideas surrounding it. However what would have benefited me was a list of the different companies that make VPN software. Who is better. What are the advantages, what are the disadvantages, which to use in what situation. Costs. Exactly what an ADVERTISEMENT would have.

I believe if Wikipedia was a bit more relaxed with it's advertising policy, and allowed itself to act more as a collection of existing solutions and how they functioned, Wikipedia would be far more helpful to many folks who are looking for real world application —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.122.98 (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sites which provide exactly that sort of service. Wikipedia exists to provide a different type of service. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fansite

Can we say something about Wikipedia not being a fansite. For example Physical fitness and nutrition of Bruce Lee is filled with poorly sourced promotional material. It'd be nice to have the policy state this to inform fanatical fans that what they're doing is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Shawnc (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia for promotion is clearly against policy. This clearly includes use of Wikipedia as a fansite.JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fans may post sourced statements from biased sources, and may be hesitant to agree that their presentation is promotional. Stating explicitly that Wikipedia biographies can not resemble fanpages may send a clear signal for this particular context. Should we simply rely on the more general "Wikipedia is not for advocacy" in this case? Shawnc (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists

I've been editing a lot of lists, and I've come across ~~Lists of lists of weapons~~List of lists of weapons.

I discovered there is no end to this list phenomenon. I know that people say that lists are featured, but I think we really need to get rid of lists for all and for once. No one can use the argument that featured lists should stay, because if we allow them to stay, then other lists will appear, and the cycle of lists will restart.

Most of the lists are really just a repository of links. Although they are not external, they are internal.

The argument that these give better content than categories is very tenuous. Categories have a tree structure.

Categories are a lot easier to maintain.

Lists are hard to update.

Lists are hard to create, whereas just appending the category is to an article will show the article where the will be located, on the category pages.

If we get rid of lists, the course of action would be to save what we can and incorporate them into relevant articles. Lists are not too useful.174.3.98.236 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: this post is a duplicate of another at the Village Pump --Cybercobra (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In theory lists of random stuff fail WP:NOT. The problem is, there is no agreed definition of what a non-random list is. There is a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists#Notability_of_lists, which in theory should try to define what are the inclusion crtieria based on verifiable evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

See the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. There are things lists can do which categories cannot do, for example annotation of entries, and inclusion of topics which do not yet have articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a useless guideline, as it does not provide any inclusion criteria for either categories or lists, and does not provide any definition of what a non-random list or category is. Instead, it says categories and lists shoudl not be deleted just because they overlap. Yet categories and lists are deleted everyday for precisely this reason, i.e. they do not have any encyclopedic purpose because they are random collections of stuff. I agree with Cybercobra that there is a lot of listcruft out there that fails WP:NOT, and I think it is partly due to to weak guidelines.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did Cybercobra say that? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant me.174.3.98.236 (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There are afew useful lists in Wikipedia, but most of them serve no useful purpose. Many lists get filled up with unsourced links which at best are non-notable and at worst are spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

174's is one of the most inane proposals I have seen, and almost doesn't deserve a response, but just in case this ever pops up again it would be nice to have some precedence, so I'll give it a try. Categories are not automatically better than lists because lists give the editor more flexibility in what to include; a category is truly just a list of links, whereas a list can include plenty of supporting information. See, for instance, List of Nobel laureates: a list like this is much more useful to a reader, who can scroll around and look at things rather than having to click a hundred links. As for being "easier to maintain", that is also false: a list is in one location and can be watchlisted, whereas categories are scattered across articles and there's no way to "watch" what is added to or removed from a category. The whole argument presented above belies a complete failure to understand how categories and lists work. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Loosen up price text

Price is important in describing a product. Price puts the product in a certain category. Many product articles on wikipedia contain MSRP or the original announced price. Can we change the text to loosen the guideline so that this sounds more acceptable? Current text:

Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation.

Perhaps change to:

Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, historical discussion of economic inflation, and other reasons that meet wp:notability.

On the Ipad article someone deleted price info because of WP:NOPRICE. I reverted the change. Price is important to understand what market segment the product is in. Price is discussed in many articles about the ipad so it is obviously very notable. What suggestions do you have? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this: [3]? I agree that NOPRICE has long been a bit off the mark. The iPad's list price is a rather significant trait -- we just don't want people listing "here's where you can get it cheapest".--Father Goose (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)