The project page associated with this talk page is an officialpolicy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please reviewpolicy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember tokeep cool when editing, anddon't panic.
Hi, I noticed there's a lot of whitespace on this page that could be easily fixed by moving the shortcut boxes related to headings to the left of the images, rather than above the images. This is an example of what I mean:
The first part of almost all of these section is also filled with hatnotes, so in most cases this wouldn't even change the width of the actual text below the hats.FaviFake (talk)15:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the desktop version on a desktop computer, you're using the desktop version on a mobile phone.I'm trying to improve the desktop version, as the mobile version on mobile phones doesn't have this issue. The desktop version doesn't have the issue on a mobile device, but it's not supposed to be used on mobile.FaviFake (talk)19:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No because stacking images with header templates as you've done can causes formating issues for other editors. I don't think MOS really applies to policy documents, but it advises against this (seeMOS:SECTIONLOC). Maybe the shortcut box could be moved down, but I don't think that would make any difference. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
causes formating issues for other editors Could you be more specific? All i'm proposing is moving the images so they're above the shortcut boxes. Maybe the shortcut box could be moved down Yes, but this would narrow the space that's left for the actual paragraphs. If the images are instead placed above the hatnotes, in most cases the shortcut box won't affect the width of the paragraphs. (See my first example in OP.)FaviFake (talk)13:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having images in a policy is actually helpful (e.g., for memory recall/recognition). But perhaps a different image/size/aspect ratio could be chosen. Maybe one these less-tall options would appeal to you:
Yes, I didn't wish to remove them. I was just asking if the shortcuts could be moved to the left of the images (instead of the current situation: above the images) as to not waste more space due to the{{-}} template. I agree that both the images and the shortcut boxes should be kept.FaviFake (talk)16:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... But most of the text that would be sandwitched is just in hatnotes! For example,here there's just a lot of vertical wasted space, andhere's my proposed change. Note that the actual text of the policy isn't sandwitched at all inboth cases. Rather, the additional wasted space on theright of the hatnotes is now also efficiently used! So we're eliminating two different whitespaces in most paragraphs with no meaningful text sandwitching :DFaviFake (talk)17:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues viewing the image. Maybe try incognito mode?Of course sandwitching is generally bad, but so are paragraphs' worth of whitespace. I just think sandwitching thehatnotes is better than keeping all the whitespace.FaviFake (talk)18:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion: @FaviFake, the logged-out example you gave is exactly how the page renders for me; the Anarchy section is the only section on the entire page that has any significant amount of whitespace. Sometimes CSS can cascade in weird ways, so it might be a clash between your browser and your account settings (custom CSS, enabled gadgets, etc). I agree with @ActivelyDisinterested, there's no need to go against the MOS just to get rid of a bit of whitespace.WP:AINTBROKE and all.
File:Een spreker bij de Speakers' Corner in het Hyde Park, Bestanddeelnr 254-1992.jpg I've changed the image to this one, since at least it seems there's always whitespace on that specific section, no matter the device or editor. I also likeFile:Orator at Speakers Corner, London, with crowd, 1974.jpg FaviFake (talk)16:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the section “Encyclopedic content,” this article says “information should not be included solely because it is true or useful.” How can Wikipedia aspire toNOT be a source of truth? How in the world can somebody willingly support the promotion of known falsehoods? This is a ridiculous claim and I don’t get how anybody in their right mind can find this acceptable. Clearly this article needs some serious changes and reevaluation.NotAGrApe73 (talk)22:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of that statement is not that Wikipedia should include known falsehoods, but rather thatsolely being true does not guarantee inclusion - the rest of the page outlines the type of content that is generally not included.Nikkimaria (talk)23:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, it is true if and only if a reliable source says it’s true? That’s still illogical. There’s nothing about a source being arbitrarily labeled “reliable” that suddenly gives them access to absolute truth. If I had to take a guess as to why someone should believe you, I would probably say that they would believe you because you have solid reasoning to support your conclusion. That can always be argued about, though, so it’s not very useful. One thing that cannot be disputed, though, is that you have said something, and this is what is verifiable about a source, not whether their claims themselves are true. This is one of the few fundamental problems with Wikipedia. It equivocates verifiable claims with verifiable truth, which is not accurate at all.NotAGrApe73 (talk)12:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we actually don't know absolute truths as that would require us to use original research to know what is the absolute truth, instead, we use reliable sources to understand what can beverified and generally accepted as truths by those reliable sources. In that manner, we are summarizing what we know we can verify that a broad consensus of reliable sources say should be true, with the expectation that the absolute truth is mirrored by that, but as perWP:V our goal is verifiability, not truth.Masem (t)12:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you verify, without using original research, nor circular reasoning, that those sources are actually reliable? The only thing verifiable is that they said what they said, but articles don’t say “this is what they said,” they say “this is what is true.”NotAGrApe73 (talk)12:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are deemed reliable because a consensus of Wikipedia editors has deemed them so. That is how the entire site works, on the shoders of and the decisions of editors. Not bureaucrats, not administrators, not founders and co-founders of long ago. If this method isn't to your liking, then perhaps there are other sites out there that would be a better fit.Zaathras (talk)12:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not about me. It’s about whether you are misleading (or permitting the misleading of) people for simple, easily fixed issues. If I were to abandon Wikipedia and all the perfectly decent articles for some other obscure encyclopedia just because of the few articles that try to support nonsense, I’m going to have way less information, it’s probably still going to be inaccurate, and the rest of the world will still use Wikipedia, so it helps nobody.
Also, I’ll take your silence in response to my question about whether you can prove their validity as a no. Editors don’t determine the reliability of sources. A person could be a flat earther, and then he could deem a flat earth forum a reliable source. I think you and I would both agree that this is not accurate. Now I’m not saying that any source could be deemed reliable by anyone—there are rules, after all—but what I am saying is that people don’t have authority over reliability and validity, those are temporary objective characteristics that have their own values regardless of what editors say they are. And what if someone is totally normal at first and would at that point be deemed reliable, but then goes completely nuts? By your rules he would still be reliable.
As I said previously, it is totally fine to say “John Doe said this,” but it’s not fine to say “this is objectively true(John Doe said so),” simply because we can’t know objectively, at least not on WikipediaNotAGrApe73 (talk)12:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we have consensus-based discussions if the reliability of a source comes up, instead of one person making that determination. We look at what the source says its editorial policy is, who is on their staff and if those people are known experts in the field they represent (as determined from other reliable sources), what other sources have said, and broadly look at their published products to see if they are straight junk or actually appear legit. We can also compare what they publish to what other known reliable sources have published, and if they are basically saying the same things, we can reasonably presume that they are a reliable source too. And even then, its a continuous process as some sources can go unreliable, or move from unreliable to reliable, due to changes in ownership or editorial process.Masem (t)12:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is a source that is reliable is not always accurate. Even if their science is reliable, even if they care, even if the people who are choosing their sources are actually doing their job without bias, even if they are being completely impartial in disputes, and even if their ownership and editorial processes are good, there is still room for inaccuracy. As an encyclopedia, we shouldn’t seek to include any information that could be considered false beyond a reasonable doubt (reasonable doubt would be mostly doubts based on the fact that the brain hasn’t been proven accurate). So far I haven’t seen anyone actually provide any objections to the idea of requiring editors to directly mention that a datapoint is cited, and I obviously find nothing wrong with it, why is that idea being combatted?NotAGrApe73 (talk)13:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns are without merit. The encyclopedia functions, and functions well, for the vast majority of readers out there. 100% of the people cannot be satisfied 100% of the time, so if you fall in the extreme minority that is unsatisfied, so be it.Zaathras (talk)21:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There we go again, the most reliable source (the majority of users, that is) dictates reality, even when it’s afallacy to claim they are. And everyone who objects to you is merely fringe. Thus, you apparently have no ties to accuracy, and can say whatever you want. Problem is, I’m not you, so that nonsense isn’t convincing to me. Even Wikipedia itself acknowledges that there are numerousobjections. The vast majority of Wikipedia users don’t even know that Wikipediacan change in the first place, so it would be ridiculous to assume that they somehow know everything about Wikipedia and despite this still approve of the politics of WikipediaNotAGrApe73 (talk)13:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia works based on summarizing reliable sources, and not trying to assert any objective truth, we've had to establish over many many years what our baseline is for reliability. We have opted to use sourced that present clear evidence, that have editorial controls, that include peer reviews and recognized by peer sources as reliable, and numerous other safeguards to make sure that what we can include to meet verifiability is also as likely close to the truth as we can possibly get without engaging in our own original research to decide what is truth. When views are presented without this type of support behind it, it is very hard to consider it verifyable and thus we can't include it.
Now, I know we do have a problem that sometimes minority views thatcan be documented in reliable sources sometimes get treated as fringe views by certain editors, but that I don't think is what this discussion is focusing on.Masem (t)13:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If your baseline is so-called “reliable sources,” you are undeniably going to display inaccurate information. The assumption that the policy of a source immediately makes everything they say accurate is ridiculous. You say you aren’t trying to assert objective truth, but rather that you try to get asclose to the truth as possible through sources. If you can’t figure out objective truth, what makes you think they can? Perhaps you can attempt to reject the idea that certain people will be able to get close to the truth depending on how they act, and rather just acknowledge that they are trying to get close to the truth, not directly to objective truth (just like you). You can do that by just quoting them rather than asserting their claims as facts, since it is completely verifiable that the quotation is true (via citations) and there is no case in which untruths would be desired, the best decision would be to just do that.NotAGrApe73 (talk)14:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I guess my main problem with this is how easy it is to twist. If you can just say something false and back it up with “actually, according to this page, inclusion doesn’t have anything to do with truth,” then there is a serious problem.NotAGrApe73 (talk)12:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the OP can't get "how anybody in their right mind can find this acceptable", maybe they should consider the possibility that they don't understand what "this" is.EEng03:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to be slick and dismissive here with this "just a redditor/4chan" attitude, but EEng has been an editor for 16 years. They have far more standing in this discussion than an anon IP or a red-linked "new" user. So kindly drop this tangent please.Zaathras (talk)15:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a vast amount of information that is true and useful but shouldn't be included, bus and train time tables for instance, such information is simply not encyclopedic. As to truth v verification, as with the scientific method Wikipedia is built in the latter not the former. It's what is known. Current knowledge may very likely be wrong, but at the moment it's the vest that's agreed upon. The OPs issue doesn't appear to actually be about either of these issues though, but rather that Wikipedia states as fact the mainstream view. This is the nature of Wikipedia by design, if you want something else I can only suggest a different website. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is true that there is a fire hydrant on the opposite side of the street from my house and this can be verified in city records, but it is not encyclopedic.older ≠wiser13:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I don’t know about that timetables example. Second of all, you are indeed correct that my problem with Wikipedia is that it treats sources as authorities on truth. They objectively aren’t (unless we are talking about some system they are literally the authority on, which we rarely are). There are some things that can only be practically supported without sources, like fundamental laws of logic and math. And some things can be supported with sources, but their popularity should not be falsely equivocated with accuracy like it is in all Wikipedia articles. At the very least this fact should be clarified in a policy somewhere.
And the reason I care is because I don’t believe you should give up on whatever stops working for you. Think of how many things would still be wrong if people didn’t try to help people who are blind to their own problems? Also, there are some other practical reasons that I mentioned in another reply. You might be able to find themNotAGrApe73 (talk)12:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't treat sources as truth, but we do repeat what is the mainstream view as fact. That's the purpose of Wikipedia. I went don't rely on sources then what would be expressed is the TRUTH as understood by the editor who wrote the article, and editors are not reliable sources. This is also the basis forWP:FALSEBALANCE, editors can't be relied upon to judge what is neutral so Wikipedia relies on sources to say what is neutral. What you or I believe is neutral or true is going to be based on on own biases, by using reliable sources (as judged by criteria and the view of other reliable sources) Wikipedia minimises the impact of our personal views (or at least tries to). --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to. Because what happens when you have selection bias against another valid opinion? Then you have bias, and that bias comes directlyfrom the sources. Also, you know how ridiculous that sounds? “We don’t treat sources as true, we treat them as fact.” That’s clearly a contradiction. You can rightly acknowledge that they arenot fact while still using sources, all you have to say is “the source says this.” That’s 20 characters, and it can be verified as a fact by just clicking on the source and reading it. It doesn’t matter if the mainstreamviews it as fact, they can’t prove it as fact as long as it can be disproven through discovery of new evidence, and unless we are talking about hard truth, like math, it always can.NotAGrApe73 (talk)23:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will always 'fail to'by some measure, it is totally impossible to exclude your own personal bias. That's why Wikipedia's policies and practices try to minimise that personal bias by looking at external sources. Will that include some personal bias yes, but it is totally impossible to exclude your own personal bias. That's why Wikipedia's policies and practices try to minimise that personal bias by looking at external sources. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t eliminate bias by using someone else’s bias (and compounding on your own by controlling whose bias can be expressed). You eliminate it by simply using all biases collectively. If you envision biases as negative and positive magnitudes in a number line that reflects standing on certain issues, there are only two ways to reach 0 (or neutral standing), including nothing at all or including both positive and negative biases on that subject. Since the former is out of the question, only the latter is left remaining. Thus, Wikipedia iscapable of eliminating bias systematically, but it instead chooses to accentuate it.
Note that even if you use this approach, you are still supporting all biases in their corresponding magnitude, so fringe theories are automatically clarified as such because their bias has less of an effect on the number line. And at the same time, if a theory has less support but still has merit, users can see this for themselves, rather than Wikipedia having control over how people are permitted to view issues. So I’m not endorsing misrepresentation of issues, I’m supporting accurate representation of issues, which should result in accurate conclusions assuming the readers are logical thinkers.NotAGrApe73 (talk)14:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your link to images of timetables isn't what I was discussing, having images of timetables in an article about the nature of timetables is valid. Having a table containing the timetable of a specific bus route in an article about that bus route wouldn't be. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to say that if I had an article about a specific bus route, not bus routes in general, and then included the time table for that specific bus route, it would be irrelevant? I don’t quite follow.NotAGrApe73 (talk)23:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is objectively wrong. There are no pages on specific bus routes, as far as I know, but if one existed I believe it would be very relevant to talk about the time table for that specific bus route. If I were you, I probably would’ve said that if there was a time table for another bus route on that article, or a time table for bus routes on articles that don’t have anything to do with public transportation, or an exhaustive log on every single time table in the time table article, that perhaps that would be irrelevant. But not the time table for a bus route whose time table is pretty much its defining characteristic.NotAGrApe73 (talk)13:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I got from that is that people are prone to bias, and it is for this reason that we need to clarify to any readers that what they are reading is simply quoted from sources whose validity cannot be objectively confirmed. There is no way of proving that what they claim is not bad science, which is not inherently a problem, but when people choose to skip over that disclaimer, then you have articles where people claim something as a fact which is actually less cut-and-dry than it is portrayed asNotAGrApe73 (talk)13:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at your talk page I find it difficult to see how discussions with you are going to be fruitful @Hob Gadling, @Tgeorgescu, you have some experience with this editor, who seems to only edit talk pages, not articles.Doug Wellertalk19:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ReadWP:NOTFORUM, Wikipedia isn't here to change your mind. The purpose of editing Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia based on independent secondary sources. You've been given large leeway on this matter. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P does not mention anything about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia solely based on secondary sources. It’s just an encyclopedia. Sure, it may be based on secondary sources, but you have started worshipping them likeWP:The Truth. Also, you are not Wikipedia, so that statement (Wikipedia isn't here to change your mind) doesn’t apply to you, and I was asking a simple question about the foundation of your claims that I am… I guess insane or something? Surely you must have a reasonable support for that, otherwise you would be making pointless, unsupported accusations, and if you are willing to do whatever you want to try to discredit me, I don’t see how you would be a reliable speaker.
Also, according to the page on policies (WP:PG), they are intended to describe best practice, and should be applied with reason and common sense, not arbitrarily, so given that this conversation is on a talk page for a policy that is literally about meta-topics, I doubt a page talking about normal, non-meta-articles (which are distinct from projects) should be applied quite as indiscriminately.NotAGrApe73 (talk)12:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Burn me at the stake then. Sorry for requesting approval rather than changing things without permission. The only things that I’ve felt actually needed changing are on locked pages, due to being “controversial” (as of course truth is subject to controversy, it’s not objectively true or anything) and I’ve only just joined a few weeks ago. Also, how do you expect me to actually attain the reputation to not be considered shunworthy if all my suggestions are attacked and not given meaningful consideration due to bias? Your pre-decided judgement of my validity relies on circular reasoning.NotAGrApe73 (talk)23:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to accommodate every POV or every demand or every syllogism.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary is not wrong. It’s based on English. What does sound silly is “The Merriam-Webster Dictionary is wrong, because it doesn’t have any citations.” As a community project, you have to accommodate the opinions of the community, not just the ones that you agree withNotAGrApe73 (talk)13:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have only just joined WP, the first step is not to be trying to demand changes to key policies, but instead trying to learn how these policies and guidelines work.Masem (t)01:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’ve made some edits here and there anonymously, but it had become annoying to be incapable of correcting errors because of cell tower IPs being blocked, so I figured I should create an account. I hadn’t had much activity on talk pages prior to now, however.NotAGrApe73 (talk)13:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been learning. There are some pretty commonly used policies. I also know that the policies are guidelines and best practice, rather than hard-and-fast-rules. Also, I’m not “demanding” anything. I’m making cases for the policies’ emendation, which have mostly been soundly rejected without fair consideration.NotAGrApe73 (talk)13:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P5 says they are not. They are consistently enforced, but copyright is enforced because of the law, and I have seen sections of Wikipedia articles that are not sourced (not to mention, sometimes sources are not relevant, like in the context of math and logic, where they are simply objectively true, not based on what a source says about them). That is besides the point, however.NotAGrApe73 (talk)14:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finally someone who gets it. Many have tried for years to get the article about theSewer cover in front of Greg L’s house moved to mainspace, with no luck. Unfortunately, it languishes as a userspace draft, even though it is completely accurate! There is even a photo!! These troglodytes have no idea about what the truth really is. Sad.Mathglot (talk)09:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll leave the main-spacing to the professionals. I only want accuracy. Also, I wouldn’t want to take credit where credit is due. They actually invented the term “cavemen” to describe themselves.NotAGrApe73 (talk)00:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simple really. The opposite of 'truth' is 'not truth.' A perhaps interesting discussion but not a philosophy discussion for this page or for Wikipedia talk pages, we exist to describe the documented philosophies of truth, not to decide among them. Whatever your philosophy of truth may be, and your philosophy how it may be found, Wikipedia does not exist to answer those questions for you. Or perhaps you have no philosophy of truth, merely hoping it is revealed to you. Wikipedia will not insist you accept a revealed truth. You can read about them though, you may begin withTruth and look at its related philosophy pages, andReligion and its related philosophy pages. --Alanscottwalker (talk)11:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not trying to figure out what “truth” is. That’s obvious, even though some people are apparently confused by it. This is a talk page, and it’s for talking about improving the article, so that’s what I’m attempting.NotAGrApe73 (talk)13:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not isn't an article. It is an internal Wikipedia page, explaining core policy, arrived at by community consensus over decades. If you don't like it, tough. We aren't going to change it to suit your endless vacuous pseudo-philosophising waffle.AndyTheGrump (talk)14:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, Wikipedia policy doesn't concern itself with abstract (and possibly unanswerable) questions regarding 'truth' as an abstract. Instead, it attempts to reflect consensus amongst the types of sources that the community, over many years, has decided are most appropriate for a tertiary summarising encyclopaedia. Readers are of course free to hold their own opinions on the merits of this, but it would seem apparent that only a minority see it as a general issue, given how often they come back for more. We are unlikely to change our stance on this due to the often politically-motivated whinging of those relatively few who would prefer that Wikipedia was something else entirely. NotAGrApe73, Go start your own online 'WeKnowTheRealTruthipedia' if you think readers would prefer it. Good luck...AndyTheGrump (talk)
@Fram I get that is the sense in which it is used, I just think "an anarchy" is highly idiosyncratic and pretentious way to put it when both versions express the same idea. We already haveWP:NOTANARCHY (notWP:NOTANANARCHY) and I don't seeany change in meaning that results from the change in language, but it matches with how people actually use the term in everyday speech (look at ngram stats, google scholar, google books, etc). That people avoid saying "an anarchy" is evidence in the fact that "state of anarchy" even existsKatzrockso (talk)11:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the vast majority of uses of "anarchy", it is not a countable noun. The same is not true for "tyranny", for which the most popular definition make sense to pluralize (government -> governments). See[1] for Ngram. Google Books search[2] turns up largely uses from pre-1900 (if you scroll a few pages, you will seldom find anything recent - I had to go 11 pages before I found another text from this century), while "anarchy" does not. "Not anarchy"[3] is all post 1900 (1 in 1901), while "not an anarchy"[4] turns up 7/10 from before 1900, 1 of the recent ones citing Wikipedia! Goes to show how idiosyncratic of a use it is this very policy.Katzrockso (talk)13:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recently,WP:U5 was repealed afterRfC consensus, so therefore this part must be reworded. Since U6 and U7 are slightly more specific, the section may need to be rewritten. Any ideas on how to fix this part?2003LN622:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AnRfC in January 2025 was posted to establish whether aviation destination lists violateWP:NOT. The RfC found that the discussion 'reached a clear consensus that neither of the articles in questions violates WP:NOT.'
Two AfDs were opened this month, both of which are still ongoing at this time, that cite the January RfC as 'WP:DESTNOT'. However, some state that DESTNOT was a broad consensus for all destination list articles and some state that it was specific to the two articles questioned at the DESTNOT RfC.
@FOARP, an administrator, stateshere that 'WP:DESTNOT... the RFC was clearly about two specific articles, not a general RFC.'
@Stifle, an administrator, statesin another AfD 'per the clear consensus at WP:DESTNOT.' In relation to the AfD, this is meant broadly.
Other examples:
@Rosbif73states that 'the RfC mentioned above as "WP:DESTNOT" was very specifically about one destination list for a large airline and does not apply to all destination lists.'
@SportingFlyerstates that 'lists do not violate NOT per a recent RfC.'
Two administrators (among others) are stating different things about the same RfC closure, which presents a problem. I respect both admins and other editors who have cited DESTNOT, despite my disagreement with using a redirect for an RfC, I feel anWP:ESSAY would serve the purpose better. This won't be able to happen when the consensus itself is in question.11WB (talk)00:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personal request: Due to the contention of the larger issue surrounding these lists, I think it would be preferable for an uninvolved administrator to close this RfC. Thank you.11WB (talk)01:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haverequested a close from either an uninvolved administrator or an experienced uninvolved editor. I have no prejudices against either as long as the close represents the consensus and doesn't cause interpretation problems later on, like theWP:DESTNOT close has.11WB (talk)14:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have so far in those AfDs gone with how the consensus closure was worded, which is option 2. However, for the purpose of neutrality, I am from this point on, not going to say either is true, until a consensus has been reached here. I don't believe this RfC conflicts with either AfD currently opened by @FOARP. If an administrator believes it does however, I have no issue with this RfC being closed.11WB (talk)00:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - When theWP:DESTNOT RfC was opened, some context was provided as part of the question: "No prior discussion has jointly addressed the twotypes of lists." and "RfC planning donehere. I acknowledge that I've begun many discussions onthis topic, but I hope this one clarifies the main dispute about NOT which has arisen in debates going back to 2007." Both statements clearly indicate that the RfC was opened to discuss the topic broadly. This is further evident in the"RfC planning discussion" that was provided in the context as a link to all participants in the prior discussion. Reviewing comments in the discussion, it's also clear that it is the type of articles and content being discussed - not two specific articles. I understand that some were disappointed by the result of the RfC, but to now attempt to narrow the scope of a discussion intended to be a broad discussion on the topic is disingenuous.Avgeekamfot (talk)
Option 1 This is one of many times NOT has been used over the years as a trump card to circumvent local consensus of people maintaining and using the article in question. Ties should always go to not-NOT, unlike core policies like V and NOR.Jclemens (talk)04:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 In particular, having that RFC opened at WT:NOT implies the question was being asked of the larger picture of airport destinations, which the input on that RFC appeared to follow.Masem (t)04:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Broad in scope, but not necessarily applicable to every single article/situation. The reason I say that this is broad in scope is because although the question was fairly narrow, the responses were quite broad. There were no comments like "Generally, I'd choose ____. but for this one special, specific subject, I think we should do the opposite". Instead, the comments sounded a lot like "This is always acceptable" (or never acceptable, for people on the other side). By way of reducing these disputes, I suggest that we consider two changes to this policy:
Provide an ordinary dictionary definition ofindiscriminate at the top ofWP:IINFO.Merriam-Webster's would work: "haphazard, random". This might help editors who think we're using the word in the sense ofpromiscuity ("She's got a reputation for being indiscriminate in granting sexual favors"), and who therefore think that the point behind IINFO is to protect Wikipedia's purity.
Add a sentence that uses airport/airline destinations as an example. It might say something like "Wikipedia does not want a page describing a random jumble of unrelated flights, but it does want organized information about which airlines fly to which destinations, and which destinations are connected to which airports".Perhaps that combination would help editors understand the point here and reduce the use of this section as a magic word for bypassing theWikipedia:Editing policy's edict that as a general rule, more information is better than less.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly option 2 (but it will inevitably influence similar discussions) (invited by the bot) The wording of the question was clearly and explicitly about those two cases. Secondly, as such, it had narrower participation befitting a decision about two articles/cases and not the wording and broader participation that would be required for a broader decision. But certainly when another similar example arises, a "there was a similar case" argument can certainly be used to influence the decision, but that's the extent of it. Sincerely,North8000 (talk)19:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were 58 editors in that discussion. That's not our usual definition of "narrower participation". I believe that the median RFC has fewer than 10 editors responding.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that option #1 basically says "we officially decided to greenlight all lists of destinations that airlines offer". That would certainly draw more participation than a decision about 2 articles.North8000 (talk)21:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creating lists for all airlines would be silly. Presumably you meant all major airlines?
FOARP at the prior RFC said that lists such asList of British Airways destinations are indiscriminate ("haphazard, random"; made "without care or making distinctions, thoughtless"). But nobody is going to make a separate list of each small airlines or the destinations at very small airports. All of the complaints about an "exhaustive listing of ephemera that changes week-to-week" don't apply to a majority of airports, because most airports are small, and most small airports don't see frequent changes. Complaining about an "exhaustive listing of ephemera of two airline and four destinations, which change every few years" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, but it appears to be the facts we're dealing with for many airports. The complaints are all targeted at the very largest airports in the world, but the proposed rules would primarily affect small airports, simply because there are more small airports.
Option 1 I would agree the original question was about specifics, but the discussion that followed and the close were not. This doesn't preclude such articles being taken to AfD they still need to be verifiable, etc. But they are not NOT. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°00:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: The RfC question was explicit on the scope, as was the wording of the close:clear consensus thatneither of the articles in question violates WP:NOT (my emphasis). Admittedly some of the participants in the RfC addressed the broader scope in the discussion, which no doubt explains why some editors believe that the RfC consensus can be applied to lists other than the two explicitly mentioned. But the mere fact that we're sitting here discussing what the result means is a sure sign that this is still a divisive question that hasn't been properly settled. For example,a recent VPP discussion garnered majority support for the viewpoint that airport listsdo violate WP:NOT, though the question hasn't been put to a formal RfC yet.Rosbif73 (talk)08:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lengthy thread. When an RfC with the correct wording takes place, like @FOARP has eluded to, and the consensus becomes crystal clear, those that didn't !vote for the option with the consensus, are going to be unhappy. There is no easy way to resolve this problem. This RfC is certainly not trying to achieve that.11WB (talk)13:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuinely sorry for not doing more research beforehand. This RfC had at most a day of personal thought. It has unfortunately annoyed at least a few editors, which doesn't sit well with me and I take responsibility for that of course. If I may, I would be happy to work with yourself and others who are trying to seek a resolution to this issue.11WB (talk)19:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: It's blindingly obvious that that entire discussion was about those two specific articles. While that may set a precedent, it should not be taken as blanket policy as that wasn't what was asked.Danners430tweaks made19:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many of the responses were - but that wasn't the question being asked. The responses could well be taken as a way to influence a subsequent RfC if one was needed (indeed, it's kind of what's being mooted as we speak) - but that specific RfC wasn't asking a general question, it was asking a specific question.Danners430tweaks made19:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: That RFC asked a narrow question, and the community gave a broad answer. Looking pedantically at the wording of this RFC, I'd say that "the previousWP:DESTNOT consensus" (i.e., the community's answer) was broad in scope. It's only/mainly the previous DESTNOTquestion that was specific to the two articles.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 It's blindingly obvious that responses were about the concept generally and few people thought that any decision there would apply only to those articles. Had the discussion been closed the other way, obviously that would have been used toward removing content from other articles as well. The only reason the wording was with specific articles listed was because the initiator was forum-shopping a topic that had already been discussed many times before and they were angling for a different result yet again. That user had recently nominated one of those articles at AFD and subsequently lost a deletion review, so they brought it to WT:NOT to seek a broader change since they had brought many similar articles to AFD as well. There is no reason to consider that the topic generally fails WP:NOT, nor should the issue be reopened again.Reywas92Talk19:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1.Destinations are a key aspect of the operations of airlines and airports is a fairly typical comment from one of the entries supporting these lists. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)20:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, but actually option 1. The RfC was obviously about the two articles, but why on earth should the precedent not be pointed to in AfD's? A shortcut for it might be a bit pretentious, though.JustARandomSquid (talk)20:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I have to choose, I'll go withoption 1 under the assumption that consensus for these two articles equates to consensus for any other similarly situated article.JustARandomSquid (talk)20:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems clearly option 2 - but may be retried and may influence other discussions. The close language seems clearly specific that the scope is those two articles "This discussion reached a clear consensus that neither of the articles in questions violates WP:NOT." But I note the article is also phrasing consensus as a nose-count and notWP:CONSENSUS at "the consensus was very clearly, over 2:1". It seems nobody made aWP:CLOSECHALLENGE about that, but the reasonably long close for the surprisingly long RFC did not say anything about the mentions to NOTDB, NOTTRAVEL, and NOTDIRECTORY. So it might reasonably get retried or reasonably be thought something to bring up at other articles. CheersMarkbassett (talk)00:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The closer @LokiTheLiar,defended their closing statement, which I definitely respect them for doing. DESTNOT was a long and drawn out RfC. I would go as far as to say that a CLOSECHALLENGE wasn't submitted because, as is evident here, editors were fatigued with the larger issue and were probably just satisfied with the close regardless of the option they chose.11WB (talk)00:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but their position or not doesn't relate to the language of the close. It was a "reasonably long close", but ... Since the close was stated on the basis of vote counting and not aWP:DETCON 'judgement of the quality of arguments through the lens of Wikipedia policies' (with some inputs discarded perWP:DISCARD), or noting that the editors had reached an agreement, then the unaddressed policy items might reasonably appear as new questions since there is no prior RFC position about them. The scope of the close are that it's for the two articles and has no policy positions. CheersMarkbassett (talk)22:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 That's just blatantly what it is because that's the RfC question itself. You can't expand an RfC by saying "but some of the people discussing in the RfC made responses about a broader answer". And? They should do an RfC about that broader question then. This RfC wasn't about that. Period.SilverserenC21:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 in the spirit ofWP:NOTBURO:Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. Editors considered the broad genre of articles when participating in the RFC, and not just the two articles mentioned.S5A-0043🚎(Talk)01:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - For the very simple reason that the RFC said it was about the two articles, the close said it was about the two articles, and the closer confirmed that it was when asked about this ("At the time I intended the close to apply to those two articles specifically" - seehere).FOARP (talk)15:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 There seemed to be little or no suggestion that BA and LHR were special or unique and so the outcome is naturally a reasonable precedent for other major airlines and airports.Andrew🐉(talk)18:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, what about the precedent for the 20 or so AfDs that have occurred since that RfC that have all closed as Delete/Redirect/Merge for these destination articles, many of the discussions specifically on arguing forWP:NOT grounds,Andrew Davidson? Does that not then claim that consensus has changed?SilverserenC19:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with those other discussions but if there's some inconsistency then I suppose it's because there isn't a consensus on this general matter; instead there ispolarisation. Anyway, I'm answering the question that has been put "because that's the RfC question".Andrew🐉(talk)19:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. There are other reasons to delete/redirect/merge those airline articles besides NOT. They are often poorly sourced or poorly constructed and are not necessarily needed as standalone articles or in that format. 2. The nominator makes a gish gallop of arguments with many simultaneous nominations, and many people including me have not taken the time to response to all of them. I would actually agree that the airline destination pages need format changes or general improvement and am not fighting so hard to retain them in the state many are in, but they do not violate NOT. 3. These local discussions tend to be much smaller and attended by the same people, while the ones with more votes have more keeps. — Reywas92Talk19:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. The RfC question and the close were limited in scope to the two articles. If we're going to set precedent through the scope of comments editors made during the discussion that weren't explicitly covered by the RfC close, then we might as well treat any large-scale discussions where participants advocated a position out of the scope of an RfC as precedent...such as the more recent discussion mentioned above that has a supermajority in favor of removing airline destination lists by default.JoelleJay (talk)03:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Broad. The majority of the comments in the RFC were unambiguously discussing the general case, and it would be completely illogical (and arguably an NPOV violation, although that's a little bit of a stretch) for a list of destinations for one airline/airport to be within Wikipedia's scope but lists for all other airlines/airports to not be. That's not to say thatevery such list is appropriate, e.g. a separate article is not needed forWestray Airport orIsles of Scilly Skybus for example but it would be ridiculous to argue that including that information on the article is unencyclopaedic, which also argues that separate destination lists for larger airports/airlines that have been split out for size reasons are encyclopaedic information.Thryduulf (talk)10:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - the plain reading of both the question and the close was that it related to two particular articles. Nobody could have criticized the chosen examples for cherry-picking, because they in fact defined the scope of the discussion, but that means they also define the scope of the consensus. If a broader consensus was self-evident from participants' comments, it should have been reflected in the close. Trying to divine what people intended with their responsesafter the close is a poor alternative to simply asking them to participate in another RFC that asks the actual question. —Rutebega (talk)21:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 perUser:Rutebega. The correct way to modify Wikipedia policy is to start a clear discussion with clear intent to do so. That's not what happened in the previous discussion about a few articles. Trying to say "actually, that was a policy discussion, just most people didn't realize it" isWikipedia:Gaming the system. Wikipedia policy discussions areWP:NOTCOURT and do not automatically enforceprecedents set at other articles. Wikipedia policies are based onWP:CONSENSUS. Past discussions are useful, but less so when they aren't clear, recent, or broad. If you want to write policy, start aclear policy discussion.Shooterwalker (talk)17:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 /Broad interpretation. Many editors have focused on the fact that the question asked and the close may have been more tailored to those two specific articles, which is a fact that nobody disputes. However, the question and close do not constrain the scope of the discussion and there is substantive evidence (Avgeekamfot, Masem) that the scope of the discussion was already intended to more a little bit broader than the narrow "these specific two articles" interpretation is taking it. Either way, the community overwhelmingly gave responses in terms of the much broader debate over these lists. If you went in and changed the wikilink from those two articles to any other two articles would that haveany bearing on the resulting discussion? I think the answer is no, virtually no comments would be unintelligible by changing the "these two specific articles" in the question. That indicates that, yes, the consensus that resulted truly was a broader consensus on the question. My question to the editors who are suggesting option 2: do you think that if a closer went into that discussion without knowing what thequestion was, they would have come back writing a close that was narrowly tailored to two specific articles?Katzrockso (talk)20:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - Process is important. If I nominate an article for deletion, it doesn't result in deletion of conceptually similar articles even if several people in the AfD say it should. If you want to delete them, formally add them to the discussion. An RfC that explicitly asks about two pages, with consensus formed explicitly about two pages, it applies to those two pages even if participants would like it to apply more broadly. In the exact amount of time it's taking to runthis RfC, you could've just asked the broader question. —Rhododendritestalk \\15:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "consensus formed" I'm referencing the closing statement (clear consensus that neither of the articles in questions violates WP:NOT with nothing at all about broader application. Again, if folks would like it to apply broadly, make a proposal that says it applies broadly. It would take just as much time as this follow-up. There's no excuse for trying to extend an RfC about two concrete articles to be more broad via a follow-up RfC when you could just use plain language to propose that change. The only reason I can think of to take the wikilegal approach of trying to extend the consensus of a narrow RfC is that being plain and simple about a proposal wouldn't succeed. Personally don't care much one way or the other about the destinations lists, but not a fan of these great feats of wikiprocess when a plain proposal would take no additional time or effort. —Rhododendritestalk \\18:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP didn't realize that there was an RFC being drafted on that subject. I agree with you that the closing summary is narrower than the discussion responses.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Although one might sometimes be wary of localised discussions setting precedent that doesn't enjoy sitewide consensus, thus wasn't that. It was not an AFD, but a well-attended RFC, making the !vote above this one moot. That RFC decided a general principle on a specific article that airline lists are not a violation of the guidelines, and there is no logic at all to the notion that this principle might apply there but not elsewhere. — Amakuru (talk)19:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I don't really know if this has actually happened before to be honest, an RfC for another RfC is definitely a first in my time actively editing. I am hopeful this will resolve some question marks around the larger issue!11WB (talk)01:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I probably wasn't the best editor to start this RfC, however I feel that only editors who know of the larger issue would be able to reasonably do so. Regardless, it is done now. Any other suggestions regarding wording to keep the opening neutral are welcomed!11WB (talk)01:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - isn't another, more detailed and clearer RfC on the topic of airport destination tables being worked on? Seems like a better way to deal with this topic to me.--Eldomtom2 (talk)02:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case, I am not aware of that whatsoever. I simply noticed an issue regarding the interpretation of a consensus, and with it being cited so much, felt the need to establish what the consensus actually was. This RfC is for this specific issue. Whatever the larger issue may be, that RfC can take care of it at that time.11WB (talk)02:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RFC - The question here really wasn't well thought out, just like the previous one that led to this point which (very misguidedly) combined two completely different questions about two different articles. I really wish people would stop holding these RFCs with badly-worded question that the fans of airlines then dog-pile into so they can run up a score for whatever the most extreme interpretation of the RFC question is they wish to endorse. We need a clearly-worded RFC, putting beyond doubt the question being asked. Not whatever this mess is.
We don't need an RFC on what a close patently says. If people want to amend that close, letthem hold an RFC.
This discussion is going to end up being option 1 with a lock because the only people who are even going to read the question are fans of airlines who already decided their position on this long ago (i.e., that lists of airline services are entirely exempt fromWP:N, andWP:NOT). Well played.FOARP (talk)21:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two recent AfDs were on destination lists with inadequate sources. Regardless of how this RfC is closed or how the previous one was closed, if a destination list article is badly sourced, it can be taken to AfD without issue. At that point, NOT becomes irrelevant. I !voted the way I did in those AfDs because of the sources, not because of NOT.11WB (talk)22:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I was leaning against inclusion, read the RfA, and saw how strongly that consensus was running in favor of a broad construction, and stated that here.SarekOfVulcan (talk)22:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not crazy about the construction of this RFC either. If we're going to discuss how to treat a topic area, let's discuss that. The past discussion around a few articles becomes evidence, not an assumption that it's already policy.Shooterwalker (talk)17:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have to be very careful with how I word this, so that it doesn't appear asWP:CANVASSING one side of the discussion. I have noticed some editors commenting here who are clearly against one option, and rather than leaving a response for an option in the survey, have instead decided to label the RfC itself as bad. So far, both options have been selected by participants in this RfC, so I would encourage those that do think one option is right over the other to go ahead and partake in the survey. (I am not advocating for any particular side with this comment.)
There are discussions taking place elsewhere, such asthis one, for future RfCs on the subject. Whilst criticism of this RfC is valid, it is important to remember this RfC was set up to answer a specific question I had, which I believed was causing confusion at AfD (for me at least), not to close the lid on the larger issue.11WB (talk)14:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Regarding closure): This RfC has had a high turn-out which I am grateful for, and I wish to apologise again to those who I may have upset by not having had any prior discussion to making this post. Especially to @FOARP and @Danners430, who have each done extensive work with this particular ongoing debate. To any participants, or editors who are just coming across this RfC, I would appreciate any guidance on when would be the best time to make arequest for closure. I originally hoped for a minimum of a fortnight (November 24), with a month optimally (December 10). Any replies are welcome!11WB (talk)19:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely should have done more research and I believe that may have been part of the reason @FOARP expressed more annoyance, knowing that I do actively participate at aviation AfDs. That is entirely on me.11WB (talk)20:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @11WB. I suggestwithdrawing the closure request. I’ve been following RfC’s for about a year now. Your RfC is attempting to get to a really interesting question about how to apply one RfC to similar articles. However closing this would require some serious RfC-foo. There’s little consensus on how to resolve RfC’s with little consensus. I recommend letting this RfC go to archive (as was suggested) and proceeding with the more specific, clear RfC so there’s no ambiguity on what the expected outcome is. I’d personally object to every airport on the planet having a list of destinations but it’s not at all clear if that’s what the result of a general interpretation would be. I hope that’s a helpful suggestion (not an admin, just an RfC-nerd)Dw31415 (talk)17:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I requested a close so that a new RfC can be opened promptly, most likely by @Danners430.This should provide some context. Several editors do not believe this RfC was very helpful, so a quick close, rather than waiting more time for archiving to take place, I think would be preferable here. I respect that @Danners430 or another editor will start an RfC that has had adequate planning, and that will approach this issue with a better worded question.11WB (talk)17:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC does need to be closed formally, as it is trying to get a consensus on a previous ambiguously worded close message. A close will be able to put a lid on DESTNOT properly. Any RfC that follows will then be able to tackle the wider issue.11WB (talk)17:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, yes I do intend to open a broader RfC to discuss whether route tables should be included in airport articles, as a broad discussion. However remember there’s no deadline - best to do things properly than rush. That’s not me taking any stance here, I don’t have the experience to make that call… just that I’m happy to wait if need be.Danners430tweaks made18:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. This RfC has had sufficient turnout and isn't as one-sided as was predicted. I think an experienced closer will be able to determine the consensus in a satisfactory way.11WB (talk)18:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about whetherWP:IINFO would benefit from a basic definition of the word indiscriminate. In conversations, it frequently feels like anything "you" like is indiscriminate, but anything "I" like is obviously encyclopedic content. I'm thinking about a change along these lines:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Wikipedia should not have indiscriminate lists or articles, meaning that they should not be haphazard, confusing collections of random information collected without making any distinction between content that is appropriate or inappropriate and without giving thought to its organization. To provide encyclopedic value,data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in§ Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or evenverifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:
The words "haphazard, random" are taken from one of the definitions ofindiscriminate in theMerriam-Webster dictionary, and the rest from Wiktionary's definitions as "Not marked by discrimination or discernment; (by extension) confused, promiscuous" and "without care or making distinctions, thoughtless".
As examples, I'd give:
YSelena singles discography – Nobody's going to be confused about what belongs in this list, and they clearly gave some thought to its organization (e.g., by making a separate article for albums).
NSome songs heard online in 2025 – Random, haphazard, nobody knows what belongs in/out of this list, etc.
Two questions:
Do you think this definition/concept is approximately correct?
Do you think it (or something better) would be helpful in practice?
I think "without making any distinction between content that is appropriate or inappropriate" is approximately correct. I'm not sure either confusing or poorly organized is part of the intended definition - ifList of US presidents was sorted reverse-alphabetically by middle name, the list would still be appropriate and not indiscriminate, even though the organization is bonkers. And although I have no objection to adding "without making any distinction between content that is appropriate or inappropriate", I'm not sure it would help any.Nikkimaria (talk)02:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only offer my understanding of what "indiscriminate" means. Everyone has a different experience of articles that areWP:IINFO, and we may be focused on different problems.
Indiscriminate means that the article title is so broad as to be unworkable, such asList of men orList of books.
In most cases, these topics might be vaguelyWP:VERIFIABLE or evenWP:NOTABLE, enough to stretch the idea that this is genuinely a topic covered in reliable sources have. But the scope is such aWP:SYNTH created by cherrypicking a minority of sources that it really should be organized differently. In other words,WP:IINFO is for content that that is poorly framed, but probably does end up in Wikipedia under a different scope.Shooterwalker (talk)18:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing should be removed as an indiscriminate and ill-defined set of petty prohibitions. The current text is a random collection of pet hates – lyrics, plot details, stats and software histories. The proposed rationalisation seems toocreepy in that it tries to outlaw something that no-one wants to do. If someone wants random junk then they can click onrandom article which is high on the standard menu. If someone creates a specific list or category then it will have a point, even if this seems hard to discern. So, there's obviously a continuous spectrum of such ideas and different people will draw the line in different places.Andrew🐉(talk)20:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think my proposal will accomplish the opposite: Rather than restraining editors from creating articles about ordinary, accepted subjects, it will hopefully, over time, restrain editors from claiming that ifWP:IDONTLIKEIT then it's "indiscriminate".
I think that the specific "pet hates" were real back in the day: someone wanted to create articles that were just song lyrics (also what becameWikiquote); lots of people wanted to create plot-only articles that were nothing except extensive plot summaries; someone wanted to collect baseball statistics; several people wanted full copies of release notes. Those were mostly settled 20 years ago, and it rarely comes up now.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of NOT is written general statement of what WP is not, and thenexamples or common cases where those apply. Those are not meant to fully outline where the soecifuc NOT applies and nowhere else but to give flavors of where there are common problems. So all those cases under IINFO are not pet areas, but cases we know frequently have problems with indiscriminate info in the past and can easily document.Masem (t)20:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done 15:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)}FaviFake (talk)17:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like the contrast created by using the authoritarian old man to illustrate the point about anarchism.Tosca-the-engineer (talk)17:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectWikipedia:DONOT has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 28 § Wikipedia:DONOT until a consensus is reached.SeaHaircutSoilReplace14:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NSome songs heard online in 2025 – Random, haphazard, nobody knows what belongs in/out of this list, etc.
