In the context of WP:NOTADIRECTORY #6, how should we interpret "top functionarie"? Molson_Coors#Management_team for example looks like an outrageous name drop. Even if the corporate assigned titles starts with the word "Chief", I question the merit of including all of them, like Chief Sustainability Officer, Chief HR Officer, Chief Marketing Officer and such. Graywalls (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there are going to be titles I think that "Chief" (as in the actual title) is inevitable. It would make no sense without it and would not be the actual title. Personally, I think it would be good to remove the second list of previous officers. Being of lower article-type information value, the main reasons for it's presence are ones excluded by wpnot. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: I may have misunderstood one aspect of your post as questioning the word "chief" I agree that some of those like you describe could be dropped. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure out what's really worth including. Obviously, including everything simply because the company threw on the "chief" prefix doesn't justify them all. I just don't really know what the cut off should be. Graywalls (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"About astroturfing: Wikipedia never was about grassroots knowledge. It has been since inception about knowledge endorsed by reputable experts (WP:CHOPSY or WP:BESTSOURCES)."

Why? Because many people accuse Wikipedians of astroturfing, and think that Wikipedia is the dream of astroturfers. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not CHOPSY, because

1. Your essay, though well-written, is not policy, and
2. The CHOPSY test is a way of conceding defeat to Wikipedia's systemic Anglo-American bias. Surely there are academics in other countries that should be considered at the same level.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a dispute about Waymo#Robotaxis at Talk:Waymo#Potential_expansion over the inclusion of exhaustive, blow-by-blow status, city-by-city future expansion plan and how WP:VNOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING ought to be applied. One user had tried to unilaterally define terms of inclusion here, but the conditions they used to try to restrict/permit how things are added are not supported by policy. Graywalls (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PLOT has been used to remove detailed plots that I have added for several books -- specifically books in the Special Agent Pendergast series. I added these detailed plots so that readers of the series can refresh their memory concerning a specific book when reading later books in the series. @Bkonrad felt that these plots in some way go against Wikipedia standards.

My counter-argument concerns plots for films: for all prominent films that have pages on Wikipedia, detailed plots are available. Why is that the rules for films differs from the rules for books? Aren't they both creative works"? Scooter262 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried reviewing MOS:PLOT for what might constitute an acceptable plot summary rather than an unsourced massive wall of text? older ≠ wiser 19:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Scooter262, your edit to Verses for the Dead was over 1400 words. Keep it between 400-700, and just summarize the key plot points. Also, read WP:PLOT like Bkonrad suggested. Schazjmd (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To emphasize, because we allow plot summaries without explicit sourcing, on the basis that the work itself serves as the source, we minimize how much we write about the plot to avoid anyone going too far into interpretation or the like. Thus the plot size for most works being between 400-700 words generally has found to be good. Masem (t) 21:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This policy distinguishes prescriptive and descriptive content:

• "Descriptive articles about languages... are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not." (cross-references the following)
• "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not."

This is closely related to WP:NPOV:

• "representing fairly, proportionately, and... without editorial bias, all the significant views... on a topic."

The examples of prescriptive grammar and directions on how to do things are great, but I think we should have a clear, general statement, so I propose that we add a section explicitly talking about the prescriptive and descriptive stances. In terms of "WP is not", this would be something like this:

WP is not prescriptive

Wikipedia is not prescriptive, but descriptive: it does not prescribe how things should be; it describes how they are. Articles should describe the historically original or conceptually central form of the article's subject, but should also describe the range of variation, without judgment.

Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]