Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

We don't need this

I do not think we need this essay/guideline/whatever. We don't need a document for each possible kind of thing that exists in the world that we don't want to list. Between WP:OR and notability and WP:V there are lots of reasons for people to get rid of this content through WP:PROD or WP:AFD.

Also, the kind of people who SHOULD read this kind of thing never WOULD so why bother crufting WP up with yet another rule page.

There is no community consensus for this so I am removing it from the list of notability criteria infobox. -- cmhTC 23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing it from said infobox. However, I do think this is a useful page to direct newbs to. Its an essay, and essays are a useful part of wikipedia. But its not a guideline, and should not be treated as such. Essays either explain someones opinion, or explain policy, or both. This one explains policy, but it isn't policy. Fresheneesz 07:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cmh. Why is this an official guideline? We already have WP:NOT and WP:NOR to cover exactly these types of things. I'm not opposed to keeping the page, but geez, an official guideline? Must everything be cast in "notability" terms? · j e r s y k o talk · 01:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this worked great as an essay. The meaning of the official policies you've mentioned is all too often lost, this essay casts them accurately in a way that's easier to relate to. But as with other things lately, I'm not sure if this really works as well as policy. That's not what it was written to be used as. --W.marsh 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This would work well, without references to notability, as a subsection at WP:NOT (if condensed first). Or an essay, sure. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep this as an essay

I propose we keep this as an essay, put up the essay tag, and remove the proposed guideline tag. Takers? Fresheneesz 07:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

There seems to be some confusion among readers of this talk page as to what a guideline is and what an essay is. Please take a look at WP:POL, which states that a guideline is anything that is (1) actionable and (2) conensual. An essay, on the other hand, is (1) NOT actionable, and (2) consensus is irrelevant. Despite what some people seem to think there are no more formal qualifiers for either.

This page is actionable; I don't think anybody disputes that. What remains, then, is the question whether this is consensual. It is so, for two reasons. First, nobody has actually argued that Wikipedia is for things-made-up-in-school-one-day. And second, checking the Whatlinkshere, we see that NFD is heavily in use over AFD, and that articles related to things-made-up-in-school-one-day end up deleted for the reasoning explained on this page. This page accurately describes our present process, and that makes it a good guideline for future process.

I have seen several objections or allegations that simply aren't very convincing...

  • It is somewhat redundant with existing guidelines. While true, that's not a problem; many guidelines and policy pages overlap, for instance the policies Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If people want to {{merge}} this page to clear up redundancy, I would have no objection.
  • It is alleged to be used maliciously. However, both Meegs and I have checked on recent AFDs and have seen no evidence of that. Regardless, on a Wiki, any page can be misquoted maliciously; the proper response is to tell the misquoting person to stop that.
  • Some people don't like the title. Fine with me, this is about the content of the page, I would have no objection to a rename. For instance, Wikipedia is not for things you made up yourself.
  • Some people say the content of the page reads unprofessionally. That is not an argument against "guideline" status because being written well is equally important to an essay. Thankfully, this is a Wiki so you can edit the page and improve the wording you object to.
  • It is alleged to be used for biting newcomers. In fact it is not; to state so is pointing out symptoms rather than causes. What 'bites' some newcomers is the deletion of the article(s) they wrote. The problem is that newcomers frequently write inappropriate articles. I find telling someone that he made it up not insulting, and can think of worse pages such as WP:PN and WP:DICK.

Any other comments? >Radiant< 09:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This page isn't really "actionable" as I see it - but I'm not quite familiar with the specific meaning of that term. The main problem I see, is that this 1. reads like an essay (unprofessionally) 2. is opinionated 3. relies fully on other guidelines and policy (not simply overlaping - completely redundant). Of couse, point 1 and 2 are fixable, but to fix it so that this reads like a guideline, you would need to destroy the essay-style. The essay was good, and I wouldn't want its style destroyed. Fresheneesz 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I object to the content of this page as it purports to judge exclusion of information already excluded by other policies by a notability criterion. We have WP:NOR and WP:NOT to prohibit these types of contributions, neither of which bases inclusion or deletion on notability. In other words, it seems to be adding an additional criterion, notability, to preexisting policy that does not require "notability" per se. Certainly, a contribution covered by this guideline would be a good example of what Wikipedia is not. Perhaps it should be merged there with references to notability removed. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We frequently have guidelines (such as this one) to complement policies (such as WP:NOT). The reason this was split out is that frankly such articles appear quite often. >Radiant< 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The existence of this page is understandable. However, my concern is not with its existence, but with its placement under and concern with "notability" guidelines, which adds a new criterion for inclusion/exclusion of such material. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • This is not, however, a new criterion. The category of notability guidelines has existed for about a year now (before that, everything was in the main guideline category). Our oldest notability guideline (WP:BIO) dates from 2003. >Radiant< 14:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, the notability guidelines are not new. However, this particular guideline is subsumed entirely by NOR & V and would fit nicely as a subsection of NOT. The same cannot be said for many of the other notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Thus, my concern is with the use of notability as an additional, redundant criterion for exclusion of information that is already excluded by other policy. I don't mean to argue against the use of notability criteria in other areas, but only as it is used in reference to this guideline. Do you have an objection to attempting to make the substance of this article part of WP:NOT? · j e r s y k o talk · 14:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The entire concept of notability is largely subsumed under NOR and V (and WP:VAIN and WP:AD). NFT is a clearer version of some of the notaility criteria and I think it's reasonable to include it as an explanation.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not too happy with merging. True, it's pretty redundant; but WP:NOT is huge, and some parts of it apply often enough that we need to troutwhack people with them (e.g. WP:WINAD and WP:ENC). >Radiant< 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't suggesting merging, only saying why this essay is useful. NFT is a nice healthy trout on its own.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Hi.

I noticed this in the "example": "...and the world at large already knows about the craze from the Education Week article." What if they didn't, but all other criteria listed were met? 74.38.32.128 07:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

5 months an no response :( mike4ty4 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's a response: I think it gets into a gray area there. If I understand you correctly, you are asking, what if it has already been reported and the research has been done and all that, but the subject is just not particularly well-known? That would fall under WP:Notability, which is an extremely subjective area. Generally speaking, what will happen if an article is well-sourced but not particularly notable is that a deletionist will nominate it for deletion, and then a couple different things could happen. If the article isn't total BS, and the defenders are persistent, generally the article will be kept even if there are only a couple of legit sources. But if it is something that is shamelessly self-promoting, or the defenders of the article don't care, or if they are rude, etc., it will be deleted.
That's not official policy, but that's generally how it works :D
Any particular reason why you ask? --Jaysweet 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.

I remember this one time when I made up the term "MS-DOS CE" for the MS-DOS emulator from Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 Server/Vista. It lasted quite a bit of time, but when I got back to being a more involved Wikipedian, it was gone. --Blah2 00:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is instruction creep

Making this a guideline is instruction creep. This essay is entirely covered by NOR, NOT, and V. It is not written in the serious manner that other guidelines and policy are. This shouldn't be a guideline - its an essay. Fresheneesz 00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That is incorrect. This page is necessary as a response to the fact that people frequently do use Wikipedia for things made up in school one day. m:instruction creep refers to rules for the sake of rules, as well as needlessly complex rules. This is neither. (Radiant) 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly about "something made up in school one day" passes the NOR requirement? Fresheneesz 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Something made up in school one day is not research, and in most cases isn't particularly original either. (Radiant) 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Anything that was made up by someone that isn't sourced is original research. Sorry, but you're just wrong here. WP:NOR says it in its first sentence. Fresheneesz 02:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You're missing my point. If a new user makes an article that is "Original Research" by wikidefinition, but is neither "original" nor "research" in the way most people actually use those words, then pointing that user to WP:NOR will only serve to confuse that person. >Radiant< 13:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe you underestimate the power of reading the first sentence of a link. Fresheneesz 04:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well......

well, if we follow this guideline, then shouldn't almost all of the joke religion articles be deleted (Example: Pastafarianism)? Maddox 01:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Notice all the published references for that article... I don't think you've entirely grasped this guideline yet. See the section "The right way for things made up in school one day to get into Wikipedia" --W.marsh 01:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this "notability" criteria?

In what way does OR have anything to do with notability? Obviously things made up in school won't be verifiable (which is why this page is entirely redundant as guideline), but .. notability doesn't enter into this. Stuff made up in school does not need to pass any notability criteria - its just not accepted. Fresheneesz 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Obviously, things made up in school one day aren't notable. >Radiant< 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Condescending title

While I feel that this is an important guideline, I think the title might anger some new users if we give it as a reason why their article was deleted. Maybe we should change it to "Wikipedia is not for "cool ideas" or something? GhostPirate 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The title was really intended for when this was an essay... that's one of the consequences of converting stuff intended to be essays into guidelines, I guess. The title should probably be changed, but I'd like the old one to live on somehow... maybe store the old essay under the old title somewhere for historical value. --W.marsh 22:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Neutrality in 'Resist the Temptation'

Most areas of this articles are well-written, but there is a clear bias in the "Resist the Temptation" section.

  • "One common temptation for young editors is the urge to share new phrases, fashions, or ideas that they or their friends have invented." Is verifiability required of Wikipedia guidlines? I ask because this is an unsubstantiated and somewhat insulting generalization. I personally have never felt this 'common' temptation. Are there any numbers or administrators' stats indicating that the majority of fad articles originate from young editors? Are the ages of most Wikpedia editors even known?

Ageism persists in this article: "To understand this, think about what gives money its worth. A bank which accumulates trust that it can pay (make good on) the amount written on the bill is the source of that worth. When there is no bank like that, everybody carries money in gold coins. You wouldn't expect your friends to work for Monopoly money, would you?"

  • I am unsure if this is an accurate analogy for verifiability. The idea that a bank must be trusted in order for people to store money in it is a well-chosen analogy, in that it parallels the trust people place in Wikipedia, because they know all content is verified.
  • Do mentions of "Monopoly money" and "gold coins" elucidate the idea of verifiability? These two sentences are extraneous. Furthermore, their tone is incredibly condescending. It implies that the audience is incapable of understanding large words, or knowing how a bank works.
  • "Adolescence" is defined by Wikipedia as the period from age 12 to age 19 or 20. It is absurd to assume that a majority of editors in that age group do not know how a bank operates.

This section of the article characterizes adolescents (including myself) as trivial, ignorant, and lacking in common sense. It also implies that an adolescent's vocabulary is far too limited to include terms such as "invest". Nomenphile 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the ageist criticism, though I don't think the title necessarily needs to change (you can be old and still go to school and make up something stupid to put on Wikipedia). I'm going to go ahead and remove the "young" from "young editors." Doesn't need to be there, and it's not convincing anyone not to be an idiot just because it says "young editors." On the contrary, some old idiot might think it is okay because this doesn't apply to them :D --Jaysweet 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Suddenly we can be biased about the wording of something which distinctly includes "school" in the title. It does not characterise adolescents as all being in a general stereotype not worthy of editing. Doesn't anyone know how much vandalism comes from school/university IP's??? Seriously, if ever "ism" can be pointed out wikipedia would have to go *against* its neutral point of view policy to avoid offending people. Wikipedia is not Politically Correct (TM) and never will be. Ageism... who on earth came up with that one???? Ansell 03:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I don't give a damn about political correctness for its own sake. I only care about how the target audience is going to perceive this page. My concern here is that by basically saying, "You probably did this because you are a kid," you are being confrontational.
Absolutely a lot of the vandalism comes from schools, and absolutely a lot of it is young editors. But here is my contention: I see a disadvantage to including "young" (someone referred to this page might think they are being picked on because of their age rather than realizing they are being an idiot), and you have not specified any advantage to including the word "young" in that sentence. If you can tell me one practical advantage of including the word "young" in that sentence, then I will drop it.
Who is the target audience for this page, anyway? If you want to preach to the choir, then yes, pointing out how much vandalism comes from schools is fine and good, but I don't see much of a point. If the target audience is malicious vandals, then it's just silly, because they don't care.
I assumed the target audience was people who generally acting in good faith, but who are a little misguided -- particularly, young editors who maybe don't quite grasp the point of Wikipedia. Maybe some of you have forgotten what it's like to be young, but when I was in high school, nothing pissed me off more than someone telling me, "You'll understand when you're older." Right now, I feel this page kinda reads like that.
Fixing all of it would be difficult, because some of the allegedly "ageist" text is sort of important for getting the point across. But I don't see any point of the word "young" in the sentence I edited. None at all. As I said, tell me one practical advantage and I will drop it.
(P.S. Thank you so much for addressing this on the talk page, I actually do really appreciate that! I am sure we can reach some kind of consensus.) --Jaysweet 15:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
(P.P.S. Though I must say I resent the Edit Summary text you have used. "Load of junk"? Come on, man... Sheesh...) --Jaysweet 15:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I was a little annoyed about "extreme PC concepts" that day but either way, I still think that the page has its unique position and scope because of both "school" in the title and "young(er)" in the text. Changing it to "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" eliminates its unique scope, and would actually be a contradiction to the attribution policy as everything, even the reliably published stuff "was made up one day". In its current state this page actually supports the attribution from reliable published sources by pointing out the single most common attribution mistake that is made. The advantage I see is one that you have already made a point against, ie, that this is such a common case that it warrants a page designed to be easy to reference when needed. Ansell 06:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right that the "made up in school" part is unavoidable... but I'm still concerned the general tone, and the frequent reptition of a focus on young editors, could come across as somewhat condescending to young people. I dunno, I just think about when I was a teenager, if I did something dumb and somebody explained that it was dumb, that might change my mind -- but if somebody told me to stop being a dumb teenager, I'd think they were a jerk and do it even more :D
You know... this would be a radical change to the whole essay, and probably nobody is willing to do it (I'm not!) but one thought might be something more along the lines of "Wikipedia is not for things you made up with your friends one day." I mean, if there were computer labs in pubs, I have a feeling we'd have just as much of a problem with "things you made up with your drinking buddies one day" :D And I know there is a pretty decently huge problem on WP with "things you thought were funny when you were high." hehehe....
<shrug> I dunno, I thought that taking out the word "young" in that sentence was a no-brainer, cuz the message is still there, but without impugning youth in general. In any case, I've since decided I'm less interested in this battle than I thought, though ;D --Jaysweet 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you, Jaysweet. I've long wished this guideline was titled something like "Not for things invented yesterday". Impugning students as the only offenders, and young people in particular, is not helpful to the project. However various 'straw polls' have failed to achieve a consensus for changing the title, and it has a certain amount of interia at this point... -- nae'blis 21:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikia

Might want to mention Wikia (rather than Uncyclopedia) as there's quite a lot there that's made up in school one day. —Ashley Y 08:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a guideline

This is more appropriately an Essay which could be referenced from a brief sentence at WP:N. In an ongoing effort to defeat instrcution creep, I propose re-tagging this as an essay and amending WP:N to include this concept. --Kevin Murray 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This page, like WP:WINAD, is very useful to counter something that frequently happens. People frequently make articles about TMUISOD, and need to be pointed to some guideline that tells them not to. This page is actionable and consensual, making it a guideline, and useful per the above, making it uncreepy. >Radiant< 10:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy revision

Though I like Wikipedia, I am against the policy described in this article. The more factual articles on Wikipedia, the better. Randomfrenchie 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Formalization?

Hi.

This does not seem to be written as "formally" as the other guidelines on notability/inclusion are. Also, it seems less of a "notability" guideline and more related to attribution and perhaps neutrality. I'd suggest a more formalized page, including the title -- perhaps "New ideas" would be better. Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.32.195 (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

  • I don't see this as a valid guideline at all. It states the obvious and the style etc. is tacky. --Kevin Murray 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 74, you're welcome to edit the page if you don't like the tone. We don't have a Manual of Style for how guidelines should be written. There's no difference between a "notability" guideline and any other kind of guideline, it's just a subcategorization we made because CAT:G was getting too big. This page exists to remedy a common problem. >Radiant< 09:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

NOT merge

I object to the merge. This is a common phenomenon and it won't help to bury that in the long list that is WP:NOT. >Radiant< 09:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Concur--ZayZayEM 11:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you concur with the merge or with my objection? >Radiant< 12:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Your objections. It serves a purpose to have a page seperate from WP:NOT to deal with common breaches.--ZayZayEM 05:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not for terms made up in one school day - but LOP is

Hey, just thought I'd suggest an addition to this paragraph:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Many articles of this nature describe new words or terms coined by a small group of friends. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Meanings of words and phrases go in a dictionary, such as Wiktionary; however, adding your own new words and phrases to Wiktionary is also unacceptable. Wiktionary requires evidence that a word or phrase has been attested before it will accept it. A new word that one person or a small group of people have made up and are trying to make catch on is a neologism, and isn't acceptable at Wiktionary. Take a look at Urban Dictionary instead.

I suggest that Wiktionary's List of Protologisms could be mentioned, where Wiktionary does allow contributors to record terms made up in one school day. Perhaps place it at the end: ‘Take a look at Urban Dictionary instead, or add it to Wiktionary:List of Protologisms.’ — leaving the stern disapproval earlier in the paragraph will discourage editors from going out of their way just to add lots of bogus terms, but mentioning the list will allow contributors whose articles are facing deletion a place to put their terms. Cheers! — Beobach972 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested rename of this guideline

I can't suggest exactly what this should be called, but the "in school" part is condescending, ageist, and arguably violates WP:BITE. It's also not entirely true, as if something that actually is literally made up in school one day (for example, rugby football - see rugby union#History) becomes notable, Wikipedia will want to cover that topic. Perhaps just "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day", which doesn't really work either, or maybe even "Wikipedia is not for things that have not been the primary topic of independent, third-party reliable sources"? I'd like feedback on this one.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • How is it biting to state that people who are in school are in fact in school? The point of this page is that many people who are in school put their made-up things in Wikipedia. There's also people not in school who do likewise, but this is far less common. >Radiant< 11:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What basis do you have for the claim that it is far less common for people who are not in school to put their made-up things in Wikipedia?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:AFD. Note, by the way, that the rename you suggest has been suggested in the past as well, and that there's earlier debate about it on this talk page that may be relevant. >Radiant< 12:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've debated this before, and I still think the "in school" is unnecessary and could end up antagonizing the very people this article is aimed at, but I eventually decided it was a battle not worth fighting. If someone else wants to take up the cause, though, here's my two cents one more time:
While the problem of people adding things they made up one day may be most common from schools (probably due to the abundance of computers), the problem is broader than that. Wikipedia is also not for things you made up when you were getting high one day, things you made up by the water cooler one day, things you made up at the pub one day, etc. I think a much better, all-encompassing term that gets the point across without being antagonistic is "Wikipedia is not for things you made up with your friends one day." That's the central problem, and limiting it to schools does nothing except create the potential for kids to feel like they are being picked on just for being kids (when actually we are picking on them for being lame ;D ). --Jaysweet 16:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't think it's a battle to fight over either. I just stated my opinion in response to the suggestion; I'd be happy to accept a consensus to the contrary. >Radiant< 17:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For the record, I still believe that the 'in school' is limiting and demeaning to students, but won't be heartbroken if consensus goes against me. I think we should strive for accuracy and preciseness, and debate Radiant's prima facie 'evidence' that school ideas are most prevalent. -- nae'blis 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I support a change of name and/or investigating whether this could be better handled under WP:N or elsewhere. --Kevin Murray 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd also support the change of name (and possibly even merger of this with WP:N as the previous comment). The word "school" is ambiguous in a global sense - it is with gritted teeth that many of us hear Americans refer to Further or Higher Education establishments as "school", because from other perspectives "school" applies to the under-16s only. If this article is intended as a reference for older (16+) editors, it would come across to many non-Americans as patronising. EyeSereneTALK 19:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reading the history of this above, this has always been controversial and really had no broad support to be promoted from an essay to a guideline. --Kevin Murray 07:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It does seem that way. The article somehow just doesn't gel with the rest of Wikipedia. The sentiment is fine - we've probably all csd'd articles that fall under this guideline - but I think the tone is condescending. Are we expecting younger editors to contribute to WP at all? If they are able to make edits of an acceptable quality, then by definition they can understand articles written at an "adult" level. We don't need to talk down to them. Re my earlier comment, looking at the history it appears from the spelling that the article creator may not have been American, so apologies for any injustice I have done by assuming transatlantic POV ;) My point still stands though: to any student over 16 in the UK this article is either a) inapplicable (they are in sixth-form, college or university, not "school") or b) offensive (calling young adults "schoolkids" is seen by them as a serious slur on their maturity - it's fighting talk!). As for "or in a garage" - I love this bit. It's almost surreally Pythonesque :D Changing the name would help, but on further thought I really can't see why this needs to be separate from WP:NOTE. EyeSereneTALK 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Primarily because it happens a lot that people make articles on TMUISOD. Guidelines aren't a book of law, they are aimed towards what actually happens. >Radiant< 11:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In light of the past and present objections, I think this should be marked as an essay and cleaned up. The actionable components are contained elsewhere to support speedy deletions of patent nonsense etc. --Kevin Murray 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe we were discussing the name of the page. Unless somebody seriously is arguing that Wikipedia is for "things made up in school one day" there is no credible reason to claim that this is not a guideline. Any argument about how it "should be tagged" must defer to an argument about what it actually is. >Radiant< 11:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This never had support for being a guideline. Read the above and recent objections. --Kevin Murray 15:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Others support this guideline and there is not sufficient consensus to deprecate this. You site obscure consensus not in evidence at this talk page. All I see is three editors in opposition. >Radiant< 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't see more than a couple of supporters, but plenty of opposition through this talk page over time. Can you list those who showed clear support with diffs? This was tagged an essay last week wothout any opposition or complaint. --Kevin Murray 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Please give arguments about the content of the page rather than some kind of process you believe should have been followed. >Radiant< 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
          • For clarity, I don't even oppose the guideline status, merely the inaccurate description of the problem. -- nae'blis 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How is this not an example of instruction creep? As a guideline, it is by definition optional and can therefore be ignored; as a policy, it would be redundant because everything in the article is already covered elsewhere. I'd rather see it go, but ultimately it's up to us as editors whether we refer other editors to it or not, so if consensus is for a name-change I won't argue (although a rewrite to remove the condescension would be nice too ;) EyeSereneTALK 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • By that reasoning, every guideline would be instruction creep. Please look at the content of the page rather than some kind of "official status". The point is that people often make articles on TMUISOD, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Or, in other words, Wikipedia is not for TMUISOD, as proven by many obvious precedents. A guideline is not an Official Mandatory Rule, it is a description of how things work. >Radiant< 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It depends on the nature and purpose of the guideline ;) I'm not disagreeing that non-notable articles are created all the time, and often just as quickly csd'd. My point was that TMUISOD appears to add nothing to the content already available elsewhere (unlike, for example, WP:BOLD or WP:MOS). I hope I'm correct in understanding your position: that it provides a 'one-stop shop' synthesis of various policies, and is therefore useful as a reference. As I've said, I'll not argue with the spirit of this, and such a page would be a handy referral tool for new editors - in which case, we're back to the name change+rewrite to make it more generally useful for a non-adolescent audience. EyeSereneTALK 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I reread through the discussion on this and I'm not convinced that there was ever a consensus for this becoming a guideline, but there are some pretty respected editors advocating the need for it. I don't agree, but don't see it worth the trouble to debate the merits ad naseum. If Radiant wants it that badly I concede the point unless others feel strongly about this being an essay. I would ask that this be removed from the IncGuide template as it is not specifically an inclusion guideline; then the title or status would not matter at all to me. --Kevin Murray 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have no particular opinion on what should or should not be listed on incguide; frankly it seems to be a rather arbitrary template these days. >Radiant< 08:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I do agree that it has become arbitrary. I would prefer that it be a guide to the specific notability guidelines, proposals for such, and contain a link to common deletion outcomes based on notability criteria. If you have no objection, I would like to remove the "cool ideas" link from IncGuide. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 13:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day/Archive_2&oldid=1137356747"