Wikipedia talk:Coatrack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Older discussion

This is wrong. The best thing to do with an article that's not about what its title says is to change the title, not delete the majority of the content. then evaluate bias. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is that the content isn't encyclopedic and can;t stay regardless of a name that tries to put a fake encyclopedesque gloss over it. DreamGuy 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, we do get a lot of weasel articles, POV forks and other undue weight. This page seems hardly wrong with respect to that. >Radiant< 11:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Some "off topic" information is appropriate as basic background information. Certainly such information should not be a major portion of the article, but we shouldn't be so extreme to exclude a sentence or two that gives some more info. Bob sued Frank. Bob is a doctor of cheese, and lives in England. Most of us probably don't have a problem with that kind of thing, but I can see advice like this being misunderstood as a reason to remove "Bob is a doctor of cheese". -- Ned Scott 19:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then people have been misunderstanding WP:IAR for years to make edits like that already. I've seen a few articles that are not biographies which originally were intended to explain one topic, but some POV-pusher decided it needed a section on an alternative interpretation, & proceeded to add so much detail on the alternative that it took over the original article. Sometimes this is the result of a well-intended but inexperienced edit, but often it's clear that it's just another POV-pushing tactic. -- llywrch 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this essay Moreschi. Coatrack articles are indeed a serious problem for Wikipedia. IMO, the BLP policies don't go nearly far enough in addressing this problem. Kaldari 06:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't. I agree, but don't praise me, this wasn't my idea, I just copied-and-pasted Weregerbil's essay out of his userspace. Moreschi Talk 10:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good essay

I may start to use this template just now.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Should we move to Coat-rack article]? I spent some time wondering what a "Coa-track" was.... Rich Farmbrough, 08:24 16 July 2007 (GMT).

same here. -- 85.125.140.110 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coatracks

Funnily enough, there's no article about literal coatracks!

Interesting one, that. Maybe we should create one...-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've created coat rack and coatrack as redirects, presumably these are valid redirects.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A para and a scandal

See this a fair bit in politician articles. One para bio and maybe a couple of paras on some scandal.Geni 00:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real-life example

This is an excellent, real-life example of a coatrack. Article is ostensibly about a small(ish) place in Bosnia & Herzegovina, but the bulk of the article is about alleged apparition(s) of the Virgin Mary and all the controversies surrounding this... 131.111.8.99 18:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my related comments and request for opinions here. Ward3001 18:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving this essay

I really like this essay. It could be improved, though, with examples of actual past coatracks instead of hypothetical examples that seem to be hyperbole. - Chardish 18:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

True; they are caricatures. I can think of a number of current ones, but part of the difficulty is that real examples get into the territory of personal attacks on the editors concerned. Gordonofcartoon 20:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When COATRACK doesn't apply?

I think it might be useful to have a section of this essay pointing out when WP:COATRACK isn't a legitimate criticism of an article; if an otherwise non-notable person or place is significantly notable for one particular event, then it's inevitable that most of the article will concentrate on that event. As an example, I saw someone raise WP:COATRACK as a criticism of the Willie Horton article, arguing that it concentrates too much on his use in the 1988 Presidential campaign; but as someone on the Talk page said, 'Horton the person isn't important or worthy of an article. Horton as political smear tactic in 1988 is.' As the main reason why Horton is notable, it should be the focus of the article, and the same is true in similar cases of people or places known for just one event. Terraxos (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, maybe I should have actually read the essay properly before I made this point. If I had, I would have seen the section WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack, which entirely addresses my criticisms here. Oops. :) Terraxos (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Isn't "coatrack" a spelling mistake? Shouldn't it be Wikipedia:Coat rack? - Face 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Coat rack", "coat-rack" and "coatrack" are all acceptable variants (the last is in Merriam-Webster). I think the single-word version makes for a punchier label. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The word wasn't in my English -> Dutch dictionary, and when google wanted to correct me, I felt confused for a minute. Cheers, Face 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)