Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the No disclaimers page.

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

Archives: 1: 12 months

See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

Remove pseudo-templates from the lead

This guideline confusingly starts with a prominent list of official-looking templates, and then proceeds to explain that these should not be used and should actually be deleted. It would be better to start with a clear general statement following the 'in a nutshell' text, followed lower down by a simple text list of the impermissible disclaimers that are often suggested. I'm happy to make some changes along those lines. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've proceeded to edit the page, trying to keep what's best of the new additions. I rewrote a clear explanation of what disclaimers are, how this has been discussed before and why they should not be used. Then reinstated the disclaimers in template form since I believe this gives very clear examples of what is not accepted. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are maintenance templates another example of acceptable disclaimers?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Things like "the neutrality of this article is disputed", "this article is too long to read comfortably", "this article does not cite any sources/relies on only a single source", "some of the article's listed sources are unreliable", "this article is mostly written from a fan's point of view", "this article is written like a how-to guide", etc etc. which are both to alert editors on what to do and to warn readers that the article doesn't perfectly fit with the others.

If yes, mention them on this page. 67.209.129.179 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for too long - pinging @Cinemaandpolitics @MichaelMaggs @WhatamIdoing

67.209.129.42 (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout -- oh wait no, they are already mentioned in Wikipedia:No disclaimers § Acceptable warnings. This topic/discussion can be closed with {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} now. 67.209.129.42 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, exactly! Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

latest rewrites

Since I last edited many significant change happened. While some organization stuff makes sense, I find particularly restricting the core definition of "content warning". Disclaimers that are problematic are not exclusively about content per se, look at the malware one for exemple, not to mention the 5 WP disclaimers that are in my opinion of a way wider scope that just "content", pertaining to usage and approach. I will edit the guideline accordingly. Feel free to revert and discuss appropriately. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I requested that two templates be salted at WP:RFPP/I

I noticed that templates like Template:Spoiler and Template:NSFW are salted, but Template:Trigger warning and Template:Content warning are not, so i requested that the remainder be salted before further recreations of the aforementioned templates can escalate:

--67.209.128.66 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]