Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The {{nutshell}} has grown substantially since last year. How do we feel about shortening it?

What I have in mind is moving the list into the lead under a line like "Briefly:" or "In summary:", except item 1, and rewording the nutshell more like the old one. How about this?

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: a reference work that covers notable topics. It does not aim to contain every piece of information about every subject.
• Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, gossip, blog posts, advertising or self-promotion ...
• Wikipedia is regulated by policies and guidelines, but it is not a bureaucracy. Standards are set through consensus, not democracy.

— W.andrea (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it's no longer a nutshell. I support your version FaviFake (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

A nutshell should contain no more than your version. Can anyone cut it down without losing anything important? Maybe lose "gossip" and "blog posts" from the second point? I think most people get that without being told. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

If you can think of a good way to cut it down, please do. However I don't think there is a good way to summarize all of the main points outside of what I put. A bullet point summary probably makes sense here given how big and important this policy is for the rest of the encyclopedia. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a good improvement. I support it as is. For new users, "a reference work that summarizes what reliable independent sources have said about a topic" might be clearer with less WP:JARGON. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I was surprised that neither of these statements are included.

1. "Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts."
2. "Wikipedia should not be a random collection of facts"

See:

1. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
2. this mailing list post, and
3. the redirect Wikipedia:Random collection of facts.

I suggest adding one of the above sentences, or a variation of them, after the sentence "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." in the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section. ↠Pine (✉) 04:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

"Random collection of facts" is too vague a definition to serve as a guideline. In fact there is a lot of randomness in how Wikipedia grows, and it is quite unusual for a collection of article topics to be chosen in a systematic fashion. Zero^talk 01:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I have removed this recently-added section on the page as it seems superfluous to me and I'm not seeing any discussion or consensus that led to it being added. While it's obviously true that Wikipedia is not a chatbot, that's just one example of many things that it's not, but it doesn't seem a terribly plausible common misunderstanding that people might have. This list isn't supposed to mention every single entity that Wikipedia isn't. (I think the addition was motivated by this edit which, while it probably a misunderstanding, doesn't warrant an entire new entry on WP:NOT). If we added every single misunderstanding that ever occurred, we'd end up with large bloat and the page would be in violation of its own rule of WP:INDISCRIMINATE lol. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

if anything, mention if this could go under NOTFORUM. But also dont think necessary at this time. Masem (t) 13:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This may not seem a terrible plausible common misunderstanding, but it is somehow a common misunderstanding that has been happening for years. CMD (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we can survive without this policy because if it's not interesting, people won't edit it, or read it, and it would naturally not be a problem for Wikipedia. If we really care about removing the boring changelogs that people hypothetically may toil over, it can be some threshold like a reference exists of more than a million users, but honestly maybe we can go without a threshold and leave it up to the editors' discretion as long as the software in question is already article-worthy. If there is a changelog article, it gets nominated multiple times by people who want to abide by this policy, and sometimes successfully deleted not because it sounded like a good idea but strictly because of the need to apply the Wikipedia policy. Some notable examples include iOS version history, Firefox version history, Google Chrome version history (policy successfully applied), Windows version history. I dream of a day we can live free of unpopular policies. -- Nidaana (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

no, we need it, but its also fair to recognize at least in software, major changes at a broad high level (as to be documented in reliable sources), in contrast to what a change log actually is. The iOS article is not a change log but a version history, and what we want to see. Masem (t) 13:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles use formal English and are not written in Internet posting style.", claims the section about user pages. I don't see why this would be under the user pages section, as user pages are not articles and do not follow the same rules. Is anyone aware of why this sentence is here and why it shouldn't be changed or removed? I can do stuff! (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

That section isn't limited to user pages. User pages usually get a free pass on most policies and guidelines, that's not the case here. "Wikipedia pages, including those in user space, are not:" isn't saying this only applies to user pages, it's saying that it applies everywhere and that includes user pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense, thank you! I can do stuff! (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTCV doesn't help make that clear, as it's mostly about user pages apart from the last two sentences. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

my wifes grandfather was a test pilot for the a-7 corsair and his name wasnt litsd. he hs reference to the testing in his memiors called pigeye for the book that was published, it woud be nice t see record from this community since the man actually flew this plane and tested it and wrote a report on it. i do realize that wikipedia can be changed by morons who dont know anything about a subject like trump supporters. however, give a man his due, due to the fact he test this particular plane and wrote a review after flight for once so fact can be shown unlike your maga falsehoods as usual. bob newsom was the pilot for the usmc and died july 5th of 2025 so you know for actual historical record for once in your history ~2026-32397-38 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

i gave nothing but historical record and th book the actul pilot gave i teh book he had published. I as an american us army ranger ill proudly admit the record given is in fact record and the name of the individual as i am accurate unlike wikipedia is in general the books name on record is pigeye and can be refernced immediately ~2026-32397-38 (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate location to have this discussion; I recommend bringing it up on the article's talk page if you'd like to see specific changes and are unsure how to make them. When doing this, please provide references. Also, please avoid the unnecessary political tangents. nf utvol (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)