Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (November 2005–January 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May–July 2007) Topic: Unencyclopedic (2003) Topic: Trivia (July–October 2007)

"Wikipedia:What WP is not" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:What WP is not has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5 § Wikipedia:What WP is not until a consensus is reached. Hexware (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

AfD discussion about discography of a record label of interest relating to WP:NOTCATALOG #6.

There is currently an AfD discussion on a list of records/discography of a record label at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tooth & Nail Records discography. NOTDIRECTORY #6 gives example about list of books by authors vs list of books by the publisher Harper Collins. This AfD might be of interest to provide input based on similar philosophy. Graywalls (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Crystal ball

There is a deletion discussion currently going on related to the 2028 United States presidential election. WP:CRYSTAL has been mentioned multiple times as guiding a possible decision to keep the article. The guidance provided here, however, is less clear than one would hope. Here at WP:CRYSTAL it is stated that an article about a future event should not be included if nothing can be said about it that is verifiable and not original research. However WP:CRYSTAL resorts to the use of a mere arithmetic formula in providing examples, saying that a presidential election in four years merits an article whereas an election in twenty years does not. One might hope for a clearer explanation of how the policy is being applied. If we are going to use presidential elections as an example, what specifically is currently known about the 2028 United States presidential election that is not known about the 2044 United States presidential election that justifies including an article about the former but not the latter? One might hope for more guidance than just the number of years to go before the event. Dash77 (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

For predictable events in the near future, some kind soul will always create an article. Even though the information is merely a summary of United States presidential election and some candidates and opinion polls that will be outdated almost immediately. The only useful information would be the date. But if we delete that article then some other kind soul will create it again. So we bow to the inevitable and allow them to keep the thing.

Where as the 2044 election is so far in the future that there is nothing that can be said about it. The date might change, the procedure might change completely, the US might collapse, the US might become a dictatorship, a nuclear war might destroy the eastern half of the US - my crystal ball is silent on this.  Stepho  talk  01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

4. Discussion forums

Regarding the following from 4. Discussion forums,

"In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance."

Is this excerpt meant to discourage suggestions like [1] in the section Talk:Donald Trump#MOS Layout and [2] in the section Talk:Donald Trump#Biggest Political Comeback In US History? I was giving unsolicited advice to try to help two editors and possibly other editors on the page. If that was OK, I would like to try and add clarification to the above quoted item. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Not meant to discourage brief, related, helpful comments. I don't think we need to adjust the item. Would reconsider if there's evidence of routine pushback against those brief tangents. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ping a couple of editors over there, User:Mandruss and User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, who seemed to think at least one of the comments violated this policy. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion I was briefly involved in was "Biggest political comeback", and I didn't engage with you at all. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, where did I seem to think at least one of the comments violated this policy? Diff, please? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, Here's your comment [3] and here's the section it was in [4].

Mandruss, It was my impression from your activity. No clear cut diff for you.

Since you both are here, any misunderstanding can be definitively cleared up by saying whether or not you think I violated this policy for the two suggestion examples I gave in my opening message here. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Did I not commit a similar "sin" here? (While speaking to you!) If you help others improve their editing games, you help improve the article indirectly, therefore you're within the spirit of NOTFORUM. I don't see an issue here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Re-reading your opening comment, I now understand what you're saying better. Yeah, I don't think that warrants any change at this point, per If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

What happened to it? It's not there now. I frankly don't remember it. From the context, it looks more like a comment on editors responding once again to a political tirade not back up by RS. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: One could interpret that to mean: one should not go to an ATP to seek technical assistance, my clue being the words "help desk". I'm not sure but I don't think that's the scenario we're talking about. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Violation of WP:CENSORSHIP

Is this not a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED: Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation?

The Wikimedia Foundation has suspended access to this page due to an order by the Delhi High Court, without prejudice to the Foundation's rights. We are pursuing all available legal options.

The policy currently says that content violating the Law of the United States will be removed. But it seems content may also be removed at the behest of government organs (eg courts) of other countries too? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Office actions which explains the policy that prevents this article from being viewed at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Then should a sentence or two about Office actions be added to WP to clarify our policy on censorship? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

No, per WP:CREEP. Office actions regarding content are exceeddingly rare. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"WP:NOTWIKIA" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WP:NOTWIKIA to this page has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22 § WP:NOTWIKIA until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.85 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"WP:NOTFANDOM" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WP:NOTFANDOM to this page has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22 § WP:NOTFANDOM until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.85 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Mention of summary style in nutshell

The nutshell summary says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a summary-style reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject." Wikipedia:Summary style is about splitting out subtopics into separate articles and the relation between these child articles and their parent article. I don't see its relevance here. The nutshell summary seems to have in mind something more like WP:OR, in it's guidance on summarizing existing sources and its claim that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. I'm inclined to remove the wikilink and possibly rewrite this statement entirely. Thoughts? Daask (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that that particular part of the nutshell is intending to refer to OR - it's more that not every fact warrants inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)