Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Wikipedia is not page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:NOT

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59: 30 days

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Dewey, Caitlin (November 5, 2015). "The most fascinating Wikipedia articles you haven't read". Washington Post.

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

Scope of WP:NOT

Does this policy, WP:NOT, apply to draftspace? See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:What to do when leaving an abusive relationship where some argue that it does not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A draft is meant as content for mainspace, so I see no reason why WP:NOT should not apply, though I would only apply it if the content is going so far off the rails, rather than a temporary problem that could be fixed. That specific MFD is basically nowhere close to being something like mainspace, so NOT is definitely fair game to apply. (Also consider that WP:NOT#WEBHOST applies to all space, not just mainspace, and that could also be argued for that as well) Masem (t) 04:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball?

Could the sentence "According to ISTAT, Italy could lose almost one-tenth of its residents in the next 25 years, with the population set to decline to 54.4 million by 2050." be WP:CRYSTALBALL? JacktheBrown (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]