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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 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.

Adding suicide prevention to "Acceptable disclaimers"

I propose adding the following to #Acceptable disclaimers:

• The suicide and suicide methods articles contain hatnotes that link to suicide prevention.

This change would codify the consensus reached at the RFC for Suicide and RFC for Suicide methods. I don't believe there was consensus at the RFCs to have a disclaimer on the broader category of suicide-related articles, so I want to make sure this exception is narrowly written. That's why I'm listing only these two articles as an "acceptable disclaimer". If additional articles use the hatnote, there should be community consensus to override the general rule against disclaimers. I'd appreciate any thoughts others might have.

@Tamzin, Freedom4U, Mitch Ames, and AirshipJungleman29: Pinging for awareness, due to the related discussion at Talk:Sanctioned Suicide. Edge3 (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of listing it if we're just going to list two lone exceptions. WP:IAR exists whether this policy mentions them or not. If we're going to include something, it should be more along the lines of

• In isolated cases, there have been consensuses to include hatnotes to the article Suicide prevention atop certain articles about suicide

But I think the simpler solution here is to say nothing. -- Tamzin^[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose such a change. WP:IAR covers this relatively rare case. The existing "acceptable disclaimers" are general and common cases. Adding specific rare cases is unnecessary WP:CREEP, and runs the risk of inviting further exceptions. (Note the 4th bullet point of Wikipedia:No_disclaimers#Why_disclaimers_should_not_be_used: "It is hard to define which articles should have a disclaimer ... Allowing some disclaimers would generate a significant overhead of disputes regarding where to draw the line." Mitch Ames (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense; thanks for the feedback. Edge3 (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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?

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]

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]