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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can we remove the "And finally" section?

it has no place in wikipedia and it shouldn't even exist in the first place 37.210.71.142 (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

makes no sense to remove. It's a catchall that NOT cannot enumerate everything WP is not. Masem (t) 13:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

its just unfunny jokes if you checked it out, humorous essays shouldn't be part of main policies 37.210.71.142 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about removing the whole "And finally" section, since it has been on this page for at least a decade now (though I don't think anything of value will be lost if the section does get removed). But I agree that policy pages shouldn't link to "humorous" essays or essays that haven't been thoroughly vetted by the community, so I've removed the links from that section. Some1 (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]