Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Is Wikipedia a sports almanac?

[edit]

What the title says. This is not intended as a formal RFC, but simply a temperature/sanity-check: is Wikipedia a Sports Almanac like (UK example) Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, or (US example) the Sports Illustrated Annual Almanac? FOARP (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel the need to ask? SportingFlyer T·C 11:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's clearly a no, per WP:NOT#STATS, of which is what a sports almanac usually is. It is not that we don't have by-season summaries of how a team plays, but that's nearly always in context of prose that discusses the season broadly, so the table of results supports that, rather than just focused on the table of results. A bare table of sports stats without any indication of notability or sufficient prose for the table to support is likely going to be a problem. Masem (t) 12:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at a preview of a general sports almanac and Wikipedia would already contain all of that information. I've also looked at a couple old Wisdens and Wikipedia would also contain much, but not all, of that information - for instance the 1829 Oxford-Cambridge match is listed on Wikipedia, but Wisden provides the full statistics of the match. So, it's not a sports almanac, but it would contain much of the information found in sports almanacs without issue. SportingFlyer T·C 17:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a better way to put it. We include sports almanac content, but not in the presentation approach of an almanac (which is general absent any context) Masem (t) 17:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a sports almanac, it wouldn’t have a ton of Pokémon, tv series, military and war articles, etc. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:TABLOID" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Wikipedia:TABLOID 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/2025 August 25 § WP namespace "tabloid" redirects until a consensus is reached. Left guide (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will you get banned for getting angry

[edit]

As getting angry I mean getting angry that Wikipedia removed your stuff or saying stuff like “I Will Get Revenge” or putting your stuff that was removed back on it because you think is true. need someone to explain because i need to explain Wikipedia for someone who just joined 47.212.93.176 (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that i do not support these actions 47.212.93.176 (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably better off asking at the WP:Teahouse, a place where editors can ask general questions. This page is for discussing improvements to one of Wikipedie's policies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for under WP:NOTNEWS

[edit]

Given the recent events around the death of Charlie Kirk, with a lot of mis-informed information published in normally reliable sources (see WP:RS/N#Did WSJ fall for a hoax? as such an example), I would recommend that after #3, Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information., something along the lines that "Editors should use caution when introducing new material in a rapidly-developing event; it is better to wait to include confirmed details than rush to include uncollaborated information." (Eg: there is no deadline, and better to wait if something may be controversy to include.) Masem (t) 19:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate "NOT" link for people trying to communicate with the article subject?

[edit]

I often come across talk page edits like this one where an unregistered user is attempting to communicate with the subject of the article. I tend to think that the best response is simply to revert, with a short reason in the edit summary. Is there a good shortcut link that explains the problem appropriately? Is it WP:NOTFORUM or WP:NOTSOCIAL or something else? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... just wth?? and you /often/ come across talk page edits like that? There's really that many people who seem to believe that the "talk" page, of a Wikipedia article, is like, that subject's /inbox/? That is wild.. Excuse me, I need to go "talk" to Benjamin_Franklin on his personal Wikipedia page.
Okay, I guess I get it; kids growing up with social media, who don't know/understand what Wikipedia is, just Googling around on their phones trying to contact staff at the mall where they lost their "airports" Poor kid is probably wondering why that mall never responds to it's customers' messages here, and I feel like maybe instead of just immediately reverting, perhaps we should take that as an opportunity to briefly educate them about Wikipedia, and let them know how they can contribute; because surely once you've explained it to them, they will become very helpful editors, and not make tons of silly mistakes... Okay I can see why a simple revert might be best..
After looking at both, My very uneducated opinion is that WP:NOTSOCIAL fits best, but maybe a short section should be added to that, perhaps after "1. Personal web pages." , a heading of "1.5 Business Website/Directory" I am certain this issue is covered somewhere else, and maybe that "somewhere else" is what you should use in this case, but I feel it might be helpful to also mention it in WP:NOTSOCIAL, for a few reasons. With the prevalence of social media these days, most businesses certainly have social media accounts, so that aspect should be covered in WP:NOTSOCIAL, both to let folks know that the Wikipedia article on "business X" is not an official representative platform page authorized by that company, and also to let employees of "business X" know that no matter what their boss told them to do, Wikipedia is not "another social platform" for them to advertise their business on.
So I guess that's my proposal; we should add a bit into WP:NOTSOCIAL covering this issue. Also, the section of "Personal web pages" there seems to focus exclusively on Individual User pages, whereas I figure it might be helpful to also mention biographical articles in that part, just so Myles_Standish doesn't get the idea that he can use his page here to attract "Hot Pilfs" in his area. I mean yeah, I know thats already covered in autobiographies or something, but I figure it bears repeating here. OwlParty (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Often? Yeah, here's three from the last week or so: [1][2][3] (talk page cleanup is a minor gnoming hobby). I thought I remembered seeing something about this here or on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.
I'm certain we are dealing with people on the boundaries of digital inclusion, for whom the difference between web browsing and messaging is fuzzy, and who may have WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issues, so I've got approximately zero confidence that any message will reach them. It's as much about documenting the reason for the revert. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Geez wow okay, I had no idea the problem was this widespread. I still stand by my notion that "not a Business Website/Directory" should be a part of this article, even though I'm sure such folks as you describe will likely never see that, might be useless, but probably won't hurt. This whole issue has me wondering about just the state of education for global humanity, and how Wikipedia might help to address that issue OwlParty (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or... maybe there could just be a line of text at the top of every single talk page, stating that "this is not a page where you can talk to the subject of the article". There shouldn't have to be, and after typing that out, I feel a bit insane for even suggesting it, but here we are. OwlParty (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Illuminati for frequent attempts to communicate with the dead. Or at least, to communicate with an organisation that ceased to function in the late 1780s or thereabouts. I'm not sure that a policy shortcut is going to help much in situations where it happens repeatedly, given that those responsible clearly aren't reading the article, never mind the talk page. It has been suggested (off-Wikipedia) that a warning message, similar to that shown if you attempt to edit Talk:MrBeast, might be the best solution in such circumstances. Such messages will clearly need to be customised to suit article specifics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My experience on Talk:Google Scholar is that no matter how big and obvious you make the warning message, many readers will not pay attention. I think just "revert and move on" is simplest. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those (e.g. [4]) make me think people think “Talk” is a way to chat to an AI. I don’t blame them, with seemingly every app, website and product integrating AI features. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add NOTPARASOCIAL to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site along the lines of "An external communication method. Article Talk pages (and others) are to aid Wikipedia editors in developing its articles. They are not an open line to contact people associated with an article's topic, such as biographical subjects, company/organisational representatives, band/team members, or political representatives. Use externally published official methods of contact instead." ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rule against such posts is at WP:TPG, and specifically at WP:TPNO. I have reverted the comment at the VivoCity talk page. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is venting out count as

[edit]

This includes venting out for stuff like your family,life, trauma,among others. 47.212.93.176 (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBLOG Masem (t) 12:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]