Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coolcaesar (talk | contribs) at 22:48, 22 August 2016 (→Can we add "Wikipedia is not the US Almanac"?: Clarifying this). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:NOTFORUM seems to link to top of page instead of proper FORUM anchor

Solved: I thought I had javascript enabled but I had it disabled. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just my system or does WP:NOTFORUM redirect to the top of the "What Wikipedia is not" page instead of paragraph "4. Discussion Forums" of the "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" section? The first time I followed WP:NOTFORUM I missed "4. Discussion Forums" because it was so far down and not in the table of contents and I didn't have time to carefully read the entire large page right then. The source shows that paragraph 4. has an anchor named FORUM, and the source of the redirect page for WP:NOTFORUM seems to point correctly to the FORUM anchor. When you click WP:NOTFORUM does it take you to the top of the page or to the proper paragraph "4. Discussion Forums"? Is it supposed to take you to the top of the page? Mindbuilder (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takes me to "4. Discussion Forums" (Chrome on Windows 10). EEng 05:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I had javascript enabled, but I realized that I didn't, and when I enabled it, it properly redirected to "4. Discussion Forums". Mindbuilder (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to work even for the disabled. EEng 19:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should "excessive examples" be added to WP:INDISCRIMINATE

This RfC was closed because the proposer wishes to amend the RfC. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is consensus on WT:V that "self-sourcing" examples are excessive and should be removed. Uncited examples, examples cited to primary sources, or examples cited to sources that verify the example exists but do not discuss its significance should be challenged or removed. Should the following fifth category be added to WP:INDISCRIMINATE?

5. Excessive listings of examples. Articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put examples within the article in their proper context for a general reader. An example in an article should have secondary or tertiary sources that not only establish its verifiability, but also its significance in the context of the article.

BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, not by near a correct summary of the RfC outcome (the RfC was about "pop culture references", not about "examples" in general – which would make it possible to add the RfC outcome to "trivia" related guidance, most of that guidance being essay or guideline level – there's no agreement to extrapolate that to "examples" in general, and certainly not at policy level) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Early close because of immediately apparent consensus against the chagne. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is consensus on WT:V that "self-sourcing" examples in popular culture are excessive and should be challenged or removed. Should this "self-sourcing" condition be applied outside of in popular culture material, to any type of example? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, my misinterpretation of the previous consensus (see RfC above) puts a whole lot of edits I made into question. Please be merciful. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "self-sourcing" also refers to secondary sources that don't discuss the example's importance in the context of the Wikipedia article. It's like WP:ONUS, (paraphrased) "this is verifiable, but merely pointing out it's verifiable/notable doesn't make it a good/significant example to be included." BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • No It's not clear to me which windmill you're tilting at but I see no need to change the current guidance. Over-reliance on primary sources is often addressed on the respective talkpages, which is sufficient. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment: Windmills like § In popular culture. The current consensus is adequate for removing those trivial examples, but the title of the section can be anything, hence the RfC. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should argue against "sections which consist solely of examples", not against "any type of example", which is what you created this RfC for. And you'd then have to explain how that proposal is compatible with WP:LISTN and WP:Source list, which happen to allow such sections when the topic of the list is itself subject of independent commentary. In those cases, self-verifiable individual entries in the list are allowed, so you're arguing for a change in our list inclusion criteria. Good luck with that. Diego (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the section you've used to justify this proposal is a terrible example for that. Most or all items in that list are high-profile commercial products distributed world-wide, and their backward compatibility has been largely discussed in specialized media (in particular for software, consoles and hardware peripherals). That section should be fixed by adding references, not with deletion. Diego (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion on Talk:Backward compatibility#Examples. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of commercial weblinks in text of an article

The article Phone sex includes "Big platforms as of 2016 are Niteflirt (http://www.niteflirt.com), TalktoMe (http://talktome.com), and My Phone Site (http://www.myphonesite.com);" with active click links to take the reader to the sites. This seems contrary to WP:NOT. But it seems appropriate to list the major sites by name if reliable sources say they are the main sites. If they were listed by name in the article text, would it then be appropriate to include them anywhere in the article? Edison (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the guideline says " External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article." So the site would have to be "notable" by Wikipedia standards. If so should the link be embedded or should it be an "External link?" Edison (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)There are 2 problems here:
  • inclusion of the name in the text. This would be against WP:NOADS unless there is an over-riding reason to put it into the article. Presumably "Apple" should be put into an article about computers, but a phone sex provider? I doubt it.
  • Any links to external sites like this should probably be in the external link section and subject to our external links policy.
    • So in general there are usually 2 reasons not to include these links.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to consider: active URLs should not be visible in the text; mention should not occur if it's not sourced; content does not have to be notable, since notability is a criterion for article creation. Whether one wishes to then provide a url in the ref for convenience sake is a matter of editorial discretion. If each item mentioned is notable enough for their own article here, then a wikilink is sufficient, because the url should be available at the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the guide I quoted says " External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article." (emphasis added). "Content does not have to be notable" as you said, but it has to be verifiable and its inclusion must not give it undue weight. But to have an external link, it has to be notable. I assume this means "notable" per WP:N and not just "Notable as in common English usage." Edison (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the context, notable here means sufficient sourcing to provide a stand-alone article (per WP:N). If you can't support a standalone article for the company, then there should not be the link to it. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the NOADS aspect, if an independent RS (say the NYTimes) was doing an article on phone sex and stated those names as the largest of such providers, there's no reason not to include the names since that helps identify the major players. That said, the URL links are likely not needed as that is where NOADS starts tipping; if these services are notable, those companies will be blue-linked and their URL listed there, otherwise, we shouldn't include them. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all the above, and removed the links per WP:EL. The lack of a good independent source is probably the most pressing issue for now. If these platforms are Wiki-notable themselves, they should have their own article where an "official" link can be added. GermanJoe (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree with all of the above. The problem is solved. Good work everyone. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed

Wikipedia is not a page for promoting gender violence, abusive relationships and abuse; neither is it a how-to guide on how to torture abuse and exert violence on other people. In consequence with this articles who do fit this criteria will be erased and eliminated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.47.59.120 (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is based on the editors opinion of BDSM themed articles, given their edits here and here, and here, amongst others. I'll also point out (to the IP editor) that ironically WP is not a soapbox either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are not going to delete articles in Notable topics just because you dislike them. Wikipedia is Not Censored. It includes articles on any topic shown to be Notable based on significant coverage in Reliable Sources. Our Neutrality policy is to accurately summarize what most Reliable Sources say about a subject. Please do not mangle image file names. Please do not tag articles with "mental illness" when the topic is generally not recognized as a mental illness by the medical profession. Please do not tag articles on consensual sexual topics as "rape". Please do not tag consensual BDSM as "violence against women", particularly when it is well established that the gender roles are interchangeable. You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, but it would probably be a good idea to get some experience editing other topics first. Alsee (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The line following line in WP:NOTGUIDE appears to contradict WP:NNC: "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right " Also, it appears that, along with "internet content", the only type of content that is specifically prohibited is video game content. Sound like WP:IDONTLIKE applied on a systematic level to me.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prisencolin, for all articles we give an "encyclopedic overview" of a topic, summarizing what Reliable Sources have published about it. For videogames, it's very easy and very tempting for enthusiastic people to add vast quantities of detailed information. We don't include that level of detail in other articles. Wikipedia is not a Game Guide for players. There are other, much better places dedicated a players looking for that sort of information. Including excessive detail makes it hard for a non-player to wade through trying to get a non-player overview of the subject.
I see you added a {clarification needed} tag to the text. I think the sentences after that tag, and the link to WP:VGSCOPE, do a reasonable job answering what sort of content should or should not be included. Do you have any objection to removing it? Alsee (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be okay if the text just got changed to include games in general?--Prisencolin (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny pictures removed

This wikipedia policy, a serious business and not a place for frolicking. You are very welcome to write up an essay Wikipedia Policies Illustrated and don't forget to put in under the category:Wikipedia humor where it would belong. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a ghastly enjoyment-free intellectual wasteland where everything is reduced to the sensibilities of the most hidebound participant. There's a long tradition of policies and guidelines carrying images and quotations to lighten the mood, break the monotony, and make the content more memorable. Many of the images you removed have been here for up to a year, so the community clearly doesn't agree with your blanket condemnation. If you think that a particular addition is misleading or inappropriate, explain why. EEng 21:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK I am leaving two old. But two new I remove per WP:CHALLENGE: it is your job to prove it correctly reflects the text. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CHALLENGE applies to article content, not project-space pages, which this is‍—‌things here don't have to be verifiable or "proven". You seem to be grasping at straws to justify your initial impulsive removal.
Even now you've removed an image that's been there for a month, during which time 24000 editors have visited it (including 227 of its 1200 watchers) and five have changed it. That these images are prima facie apropos is so obvious that it would be absurd to try to explicate it. Whether they improve the page‍—‌help it get its message across, if even merely by enticing the reader to get all the way through it‍—‌will be up to our esteemed fellow editors seeing them in situ. Please let them see for themselves. As mentioned, if you think a particular image is inappropriate somehow, please explain why. EEng 05:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed three of the images, as they appeared to be neither helpful nor amusing. -- The Anome (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with keeping the two old images, but not the new ones. First, putting images on the left is much more distracting than on the right. Second, unless I'm missing something, the new images lack the strong memorable purpose of the old pictures. The NotCrystalBall image hits you over the head mocking the absurdity of Wikipedia predicting the future. The impact of that mockery carries over to mild cases - it's a bad idea for Wikipedia to start an article on United States presidential election, 2024 (deleted or userfied 4 times already), no matter how sure we are of some aspects and no matter how many Reliable Sources we could cite on it. At first impression, the NotCookbook image seems quite frivolous. However if one does look more closely, there's a hidden WP:EASTEREGG. That easteregg is utterly brilliant. It does an incredibly impressive and incredibly memorable job of making the point: readers would be rather surprised to discover that Wikipedia is a cookbook. Wow, kudos to whoever added that one. The new images.... they seem to have no purpose other than putting a vaguely relevant image there just because we could. Alsee (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. I just checked the history, EEng gets credit for the Cookbook. Alsee (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly imagine the ecstasy of admiration you will be in when you find out I did the crystal ball too. I agree the last two (guy getting skewered, girl on couch) were weak, but I'd like to suggest reconsideration of the free speech image. For those who know that image's history (Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)) I think it + caption make the point effectively -- does a memorable job, in Alsee's phrase (and I hope things haven't gotten to the point where we think no one will recognize that image!). EEng 12:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, the Four Freedoms picture can't be used to illustrate this policy no matter how relevant, since it is non-free content. Diego (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the particular version I used is PD (File:"Freedom_of_Speech"_-_NARA_-_513536.jpg). As I recall it was released to PD to allow it to be freely used (by employers, schools, etc.) to promote war bonds. EEng 13:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the girl on couch was great (which is a statement I never thought I'd hear myself say...) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If images are to be used, they should be highly memoriable and extremely on topic with one of the associated NOTs that it will stick in your mind, and it should not be something that needs to be explained in depth in a caption. The current one for CRYSTAL does this effectively. I would argue the cookbook one is less so because its difficult to tell that that is an image of a cookbook. The three that were added by EEng do not meet these (it takes time to see how they are less obvious of what NOT they are a part of, and the captions themselves don't help. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. I added the CRSYTAL image, as already pointed out. I don't want to go down in history as he-who-only-adds-images-of-questionable-value. The important thing we've established here, though, is that the OP's blanket prohibition is wrongheaded. EEng 14:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I should have clarified of the most recent additions that were added. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks. You rely think that "Take it outside, buster!" isn't immediately grasped? EEng 14:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the size of the image given, it gives no impression of what it is about - its a guy standing in the middle of a seated crowd, and its connection to NOT#ANARACHY is unless. Contrast that to the crystal ball image which is immediately clear what it is about. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a ghastly enjoyment-free intellectual wasteland"[citation needed]. Keep the old ones, get rid of the new ones, they are too weak. (Also dislike "Freedom of Speech" -- it is misplaced (should be next to Not a Democracy, not Not an Anarchy), is badly labeled, and is not a good illustration of "democracy" since it shows someone speaking at a meeting, exactly the kind of thing we do here.... a better image would be someone voting or something. But that's a separate issue, so let's keep it simple: keep the old, out with the new. Herostratus (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take it outside, buster!

The "Freedom of Speech -- Take it outside, buster!" image was in the "Wikipedia is not an anarchy" section (see [1]) because that section contains the text, "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." That brings up an interesting point I've thought on and off for a while: honestly we get less trouble from people who think WP is an anarchy than from those who think it's an experiment in free speech -- the latter is the real problem. So I wonder if that section head should be changed to "Wikipedia is not an anarchy or free-speech forum".

Thoughts? EEng 21:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that aspect is more towards "anarachy" or towards censoring. WP is not censored, but it's also not unchecked free speech. We will remove contributions (read: revdel) if they are blatant nonsense, violate copyright, make blatant accusations against BLPs, or include gross personal attacks towards editors. I have seen some take those actions as censorship, but it's not exactly what NOT#CENSORED really talks towards. How to resolve that, I don't know immediately. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little complicated, because articles aren't a forum for free speech, but the discussions about articles, and about how to run the project, kind of are (subject to BLP and topicality limits). The text I quoted above, re not-free-speech-forum, is in a somewhat awkward place (i.e. under not-anarchy), but I don't see where else it would be any more comfortable, as you say. Part of my reason for putting "Take it outside, buster!" where I put it, is that's where the WP:NOTFREESPEECH shortcut is, and I remember now what I'd forgotten until just this moment, which is that part of the reason I added the image was to draw attention to not-free-speech, which is important but buried where it is.
Thinking about it more, I think not-free-speech and not-anarchy do naturally go together‍—‌the problem might just be that the section head only mentions anarchy. I've made a tentative edit [2] for the consideration of my esteemed fellow editors. EEng 00:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I don't think the image is a good example of what we are not or what should not be. It shows a person speaking his mind, in a portrayal that kind of visually implies that he's taking his turn and is speaking honestly and with due consideration. This we do do here. I think there are better images to show either anarchy or democracy, or even unrestrained and ill-considered free speech if that's the point. (FWIW my experience is that while we occasionally get "your quashing of my nonsense/trolling/personal attacks is censorship of my free speech rights", that sort of thing is given short shrift and is not a real problem here; but whether to address that in the text is a separate discussion.) Herostratus (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My deputy can beat up your deputy

OK, how about one of those photos of a fistfight in the Japanese Parliament? EEng 14:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of some type of elected officials engaging in violence in what is clearly meant to be a government chamber/forum without having any other context would seem to be good for that point. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, WP:BATTLEGROUND will benefit from parliamentary fistfight imagery. BTW Jap parliament is not the first and not the most famous for fistfighting. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: Legislative violence; pick the best pic.
Staszek Lem (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about the Japanese Diet picture, because it doesn't show anyone eating. Some other possibilities...
  • Do not chew up and swallow the newbies
    Do not chew up and swallow the newbies
  • Et tu, fellow editors?
    Et tu, fellow editors?
Seriously, I think US Senate and Ukrainian parliament don't give enough context, French Chambre isn't enough of a free-for-all. Japanese Diet is best, I think. EEng 19:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fight with cudgels
Second of May
May I suggest a classic from my country? Fight with Cudgels is often used as an allegory of fraternal warfare. Diego (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or, if you prefer a good brawl, there's The Second of May 1808 from the same author. Diego (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are not looking for any brawl; we are looking for a brawl in the place where people are not supposed to brawl. Parliamentary brawl is an easily recognizable one of this type. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think your nominee (like US Senate above) is more apropos DROPTHESTICK, because at heart they show just garden-variety violence. I really think NOTANARCHY is best communicated by a free-for-all in a context where we otherwise expect order and decorum e.g. a legislative body – and that context needs to be apparent without explanation. EEng 22:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
French
WP is En­cy­clo­pe­dists' Corner, not Speakers' Corner.
Japanese
The French Chamber one to me suits what I would expect: Its clearly an organized forum-type setting, its clearly disruptive actions (even if its not fisticuffs), and at a standard thumb size, I don't have to squint to make out those basic details. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the two at default size. Masem's right that France is more obviously the right context, but I really think for ANARCHY you need a general brawl, not one person attacking another. EEng 22:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was not for anarchy, but for WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also, a brawl is not representative of anarchy. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear, you're right, you mentioned BATTLEGROUND but this thread has been about ANARCHY/FREESPEECH/CHAOS. Can stay with those, please? Would you mind if we remove the "battleground" captions you just added? (Anyway, for BATTLEGROUND I think something like File:Eureka_stockade_battle.jpg would be much more direct.)EEng 22:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Anarchy" is not really an issue in the today's perception of Wikipedia anymore; just the opposite. I'd rather poke some fun at free speech (somehow it is in the same subsection).Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same idea you did i.e. Speaker's Corner. I've modified your caption a bit, and switched to the default size -- hope you don't mind. I like this. EEng 23:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A small number of particularly good images is OK to liven up a policy page, but the default is that sections aren't illustrated. When you're posting a dozen images, and saying "maybe this" or "maybe that" across the dozen, I think that's a strong clue that the right answer is none of them. Alsee (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow the logic. Anyway, do you think the Speaker's Corner image would be appropriate for NOTFREESPEECH? EEng 21:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edit

I've boldly gone ahead and added the speaker's corner image. Let's see what people think. EEng 01:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS

I think personally that the NOTNEWS section is becoming more and more irrelevant. As today Wikipedia is indeed seen as a source for news, as in the case of the recent terrorist attacks in Europe etc. It becomes weird to have a "not news" section when Wikipedia is based on news.BabbaQ (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you perceive is not what that section is about. Perhaps read it very carefully... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY application at the Beltway sniper attacks article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Beltway sniper attacks#WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add "Wikipedia is not the US Almanac"?

These days I spend a lot of time wiki gnoming, by choosing "Random article" and looking for obvious clean up tasks. One of the most recurrent is the adding of "United States (of America)" to the lede of articles relating to subjects originating in that nation. While I very occasionally have to add the nation(ality) to articles regarding other countries subjects, very much the majority is US. Can we not make clear to the new or blindly stupid and arrogant US editorship, that not all of English speaking readers will recognise a nameplace within one of the less fashionable States as being American? I recently had to move Geneva Film Festival to Geneva Film Festival (USA) because for most of the English language population of the world Geneva is a major City in Switzerland, which had they held a film festival was likely to be one of the five most important French language festivals in the world.... and not a regional or state festival in Illinois, USA - which is what it is. This paracholisation detracts from the image of Wikipedia as a world wide reference and makes it more of a backwater US Almananac. There is nothing wrong with a preponderance of US related articles, providing that they are presented in a style similar to subjects that are not US specific. Finally, it helps the Google search engines when somebody seaches for a subject which includes US/United States. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop, take a breath, and brush up on WP:USPLACE. Edits such as these are inappropriate:
  • [3] – US cities and towns are normally given as "City, State", and states as simply "State"‍—‌not "City, State, United States" or "State, United States". Similarly, UK counties are not qualified as being e.g. "Herefordshire, England" but rather simply "Herefordshire".
  • [lost the diff] – You've also been changing "London" to "London, England"‍—‌very well known cities e.g. London, New York, San Francisco, etc. are not further qualified.
  • [4] – I suspect that your move of Geneva Film Festival to Geneva Film Festival (United States) is also inappropriate, at least as to the new name.
In addition, your many edit summaries in which you refer to other editors as "hicks" for following Wikipedia guidelines, while you violate them, are (to say the least) inappropriate. Please revert all these changes. EEng 01:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I appreciate that WP:USPLACE says dont add United States to article titles it really needs to be in the article lead as this is not Americanpedia and we should not presume that the default is the United States if nothing is mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about place names (that's probably something to bring up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography). But it is true that I frequently add "American" to a biography lede ("Joe Smith (dates) was an American famous person...".) which you don't usually have to do for Englishmen (let alone Germans etc). So there's a kind of parochial American blindess, I wouldn't call it out too harshly, just the fish not realizing they are wet. But I don't think we should say anything about it here. Somewhere else, although not sure where -- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) for the place name issue, though. Herostratus (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding American (or English, where appropriate, or German, or ...) to a biographical lead is completely appropriate to give "context" -- see MOS:OPENPARA. As to the general style for place names (whether in leads or elsewhere): this has nothing to do with the US being any kind of default. It's just that we assume that most English speakers are familiar with the highest-level political subdivisions of the major English nations: states in the US, provinces in Canada, counties in the UK. Thus we say e.g. "Carbondale, Illinois", not "Carbondale, Illinois, United States"; the few readers who don't recognize that Illinois is a state of the US can click on the link to find that out immediately. If someone wants to change that, they should open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), but in the meantime they can't go around changing things to their personally preferred style in defiance of the accepted convention. EEng 19:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To reinforce EEng's point, I recommend MilborneOne and LessHeard vanU review the long-established policy on Wikipedia:Article titles, specifically the part about "precision and disambiguation." Wikipedia policy is to not disambiguate article titles that are sufficiently precise, unless there is something else with an identical name they could be confused with. In this case, there is no other "Geneva Film Festival" in the world that goes by that exact name besides the one held in Geneva, Illinois. The film festival held in Switzerland is called the Geneva International Film Festival Tous Ecrans. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=735761068"