Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (November 2005–January 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May–July 2007) Topic: Unencyclopedic (2003) Topic: Trivia (July–October 2007)

"Wikipedia is not a chatbot"

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've only just noticed that this section and shortcut has gone. I'd been using WP:NOTCHATBOT regularly as an edit summary when removing such talk page comments, to flag the reason to any watchlisting editors, and convey to them that this is a recurring thing to be aware of, rather than an amusing one-off. I guess it still functions as an edit summary even if it now points to a humorous essay section, but it would be good to briefly note "some users mistake talk pages for chatbots" somewhere in seriousspace.

I get the sense that users asking chatbot-style questions on talk pages is slowly increasing as people get used to the idea that big apps and websites often have AI bots that can answer their questions, and some assume that the "Talk" button at the top of an article will let them chat to Wikipedia's bot. (This is also not an assumption that we really disabuse them of in the comment box that we give them.) Belbury (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

A proposed edit to the NOTFORUM bullet point, having just seen an editor responding to such a talk page post to explain that the page isn't a chatbot:

−

In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion or voicing opinions about the article topic or anything else. Nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance.

+

In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion or voicing opinions about the article topic or anything else. Nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance, or an interface to an AI chatbot.

A good idea? Belbury (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

actual test pilot names for this plane the a-7

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)

Revert of edit

Jessintime, you reverted my edit to Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files pertaining to images here with the edit summary: undiscussed change to a policy page. The purpose of the edit was two-fold. It identifies more clearly that Commons is the place to deposit images. It shows, through a note, the appropriate way to link from the article to other images relating to the article. It also draws on language from WP:IMAGEPOL and WP:IMAGERELEVANCE, contrasting this inappropriate use with appropriate image use. It thereby more clearly associats this point on a page that summarises policy to the policy page it is referring to.

Do you have an objection to any particular part of the edit made? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of this policy is to differentiate the purpose of Wikipedia from other uses, as a way of explaining what Wikipedia is. Thus, it is useful on this page to explain that the purpose of Wikipedia is not the presentation of collections of images. However, guidance about the use of images in articles is better left to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. --Bsherr (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the purpose of this section is to explain that WP articles are not the place to present collections of images - either as an article or as part of an article. The phrase clear and central purpose is drawn from WP:IMAGEPOL. What follows in the edit is an explanation of what this means. Proximity does come from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images but it is a high-level concept. It is used here to differentiate between a collection of images which can be claimed to have a clear purpose (to collect such images) and clear and central purpose, where proximity is central. That is an explanation of my rationale, which is a matter for discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

For one thing, I find the timing of your changes here and this RFC you began suspicious. Jessintime (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It does have some relation to the RfC but a closer relation to this edit by WhatamIdoing and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Showing what a gallery is. WhatamIdoing's edit would also appear to be related to the RfC. However, the question remains unanswered: Do you have an objection to any particular part of the edit made? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Jessintime, you were quite entitled to revert that edit, but now you should discuss it. I find your "suspicious" comment as abandoning the assumption of good faith, but maybe that's me failing to assume the assumption of good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

First, on the merits, I find "Wikipedia articles are not a place to amass a collection of pictures about the article topic" to be too vague to be useful and believe it will only lead to wikilawyering over its interpretation. The rest seems okay on first glance but I don't understand why we're singling out a particular article as an example of how to link to Commons.

As for not assuming good faith, the user who made the edit has a history of battleground behavior involving Wikipedia policies and the MOS. Jessintime (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

We've had lines similar to "Wikipedia articles are not a place to amass a collection of pictures about the article topic" in policies and guidelines for years, and they have not been fertile ground for wikilawyering. We have a good shared understanding that Wikipedia articles are (with rare, list-like exceptions) not meant to be primarily images.

The main area of dispute is "How many is too many?", and short of providing exact numbers ("maximum six images per article") or a mathematical formula ("maximum of one image per 300 words, except that even short articles may have at least two"), we will always have that kind of dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually, on visual arts pages, and some other types, such lines have indeed "been fertile ground for wikilawyering", usually referring to older versions of WP:GALLERY for policy support, though the frequency seems to have greatly decreased in recent years. The blanket comment "WP deprecates galleries" was once extremely common, though never true. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not a place to amass a collection of pictures about the article topic is an introductory (opening) sentence that establishes this point within the context of this policy document - Wikipedia is not. It introduces the main idea of the paragraph (see ) What follows clarifies this by contrasting with appropriate image use - thereby leaving little doubt as to what it means. As to using {{commons category}} in an article, one really only needs one example to show how this is done. Any example that conforms to the placement guidance achieves this. Any more is redundant. I looked through a couple of articles I watch to find an example and this is the first one I found. Whether Pacific War or some other article is used is irrelevant in my view and could be substituted for another. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

{outdent}

I don't love Cinderella's WP:PGBOLD attempt:

Photographs or media files: Wikipedia articles are not a place to amass a collection of pictures about the article topic. The purpose of images added to an article should be clear and central. Images are used in articles to enhance the readers understanding of textual points made in an article and should be placed in proximity to the points they support. Wikimedia Commons is the appropriate place to deposit and categorize media relating to a topic. Links can be made from and article to a Commons category using {{Commons category}}, usually near the end of the article. Images used on Wikipedia must comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images.

but most of the original seems worse:

Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. Wikipedia articles are not a repository of images: image use in Wikipedia articles must comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images § Choosing images.

What do you think of something like this (opening line copied for grammatical flow)?

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of:

• Photographs or media files. Images and other media should help readers understand the article by illustrating the material in it. Even an image-heavy list, such as the List of sunbirds or a List of flags, should have a lead or other textual content that places the subject in an encyclopedic context. Images should be placed near the text they illustrate. For further information, see the Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Wikimedia Commons is our main image repository. Unlike the English Wikipedia, Commons permits image galleries without encyclopedic text. Use {{Commons category}} and related templates to link to more images on Commons.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I like your proposal. - Enos733 (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Some comments. List of flags does not appear to evidence what is intended. I probably wouldn't mention Commons galleries per a comment made by Johnbod elsewhere. I think it is reasonable to include as a note, something like the note I included as an example of {{Commons category}}. This relies on categorisation at Commons and a category at Commons for the article. My proposal addresses this: Wikimedia Commons is the appropriate place to deposit and categorize media relating to a topic. Links can be made from and article to a Commons category using {{Commons category}}. Adding to the note would give a brief explanation. I suggest the following to be placed at the end of the last sentence.

Commons categorizes images similar to how Wikipedia categorizes articles. Links can be made from an article to a Commons category for the article using {{Commons category}}, usually near the end of the article. See the article Pacific War for an example of using the link to a Commons category [[add link to the category here]]. See Template:Commons category for guidance on where to place the link.

Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, "List of flags" is a List of lists; we'll have to pick a particular one. I was hoping for something that's reasonable but not Wikipedia:Featured lists quality for that example. Galleries of city flags, maybe? List of flags by design?

I don't mind omitting COM:GALLERY. As for the Pacific War example, I think Template:Commons category/doc provides enough information for anyone who needs examples, location information, etc. We could even leave out the sister links, since they're in Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries, and we're linking to IUP anyway.

That could leave us with as little as:

"Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of:

• Photographs or media files. Images and other media should help readers understand the article by illustrating the material in it. Even an image-heavy list, such as the List of sunbirds or Galleries of city flags, should have a lead or other textual content that places the subject in an encyclopedic context. Images should be placed near the text they illustrate. For further information, see the Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Wikimedia Commons is our main image repository."

I think this would be an improvement over what we have now, even if it's not perfect. What do the rest of you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Galleries of city flags is another list of lists. How about Flags of Asia or List of national flags of sovereign states? Also, in case I wasn't clear enough, what I suggested above would be added as a note. One can hover over the note for a brief explanation rather than having to go and follow links to get information. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

See Galleries of city flags#Flags of the largest cities.

I was hoping for one that didn't use table formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Larry Sanger proposing WikiProject Intellectual Diversity

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. George Ho (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: guideline against Arbitrary Trivial "firsts" (and "seconds")...it was reverted for shallow reasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=prev&oldid=1362614631

See guideline edit there, with rationale. My proposed guideline fits right in with Not a Promotional Soapbox and Not an Indiscriminate Trivia Site. It's not novel, but it fills a gap explicitly.

Proposed Text for a Point #5 under (existing) Wikipedia Is Not an indiscriminate collection of information Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:

Statements of trivial arbitrary "firsts", "seconds", and so on. Statements that resemble the form "X is the first new [product or thing] since [the previous time a similar thing happened]" are trivial and arbitrary because they follow from whatever timeframe or category allows the thing in question to be a "first" and have no more relevance. Avoid those pronouncements in Wikipedia unless they meaningfully connect to further discussion with due weight (e.g. the info may belong in a Development or History sub-section of an article, not the intro summary). Relevant information about sequences or succession should be stated directly or deferred to an appropriate list, not as a narrative of artificial "firsts." Also see the principles that govern content in articles and lists.

An example of the problem that the (would-be) new guideline attempts to hinder are the virus phrasings in this passage (from a real wiki article): "as well the series' first new platform title since 2006's Import Tuner Challenge, and Genki's first major platform game release in 18 years since 2007's Wangan Midnight. The game was released on 25 September 2025 for Windows, a second for the series since 2003's Shutokō Battle Online".

The style of making product releases or events a trivial arbitrary meaningless 'first' (or second, etc) is PR from marketers. The new edit addresses the problem outside the "wikipedia is not for marketing promotions" section, because most people now adopting the sloppy phrasing are not marketers and not intending to market, they've adopted the PR trivia style which has become a norm in internet writing. It's an info-rot virus originally made to make products (or events with a vested interest in publicity) sound more special than they really are. At best, it's trivial and arbitrary, i.e. not meaningful or informative, at worst an informational mess or deceit. Literally: these "firsts" are not firsts.

We should have guidelines that explain to avoid it, and why, and how to reformulate it, and what the conditions/exceptions are. Which I already did all that, but it was deleted/reverted.

I gave the rationale in my edit note, including my reasonable belief that it's already clearly entailed by existing rules (not a soapbox/promotion, and not an indiscriminate source of info/trivia) but *not explicit enough*. A user deleted the change with a question about discussion, which is apparently the usual confusion/misunderstanding about A) policy page *creation* versus editing an existing one A) bold B) ignore C) what entail means D) what actually constitutes a good argument to delete effortful well-guided changes E) what the word "should avoid" means vs "not allowed". Did the reversion have any comment or meaningful discussion of whether my edit *was* or wasn't entailed by existing policy? No.

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There is no rule that says a change like this must first have a consensus discussion. This is obvious. Yet good edits get deleted for zero stated reason other than "you didn't post a discussion first". It shouldn't be such an impossible event that a reverter makes a choice between A) nod approvingly at a great edit B) reject *with an actual reason*, rather than choosing to delete for no reason relating to the text itself while citing an imaginary rule. (Since many editors act that way, the "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" idea should be cancelled and taken down, since it clearly is a bureaucracy in practice.)

So, I'm adding this topic, since my attempt to do good wiki work (a carefully written policy edit that follows existing policy and recommendations) without needless work by other people was blocked by a misguided revert.RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Dude, it was not reverted for shallow reasons: NO, you actually can't just decide that whatever you don't like is banned and add it to the page by yourself and then expect everyone to "nod approvingly at a great edit" LOL. It literally says at the top the page "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus." A change like this without consensus can absolutely be reverted without any explanation at all. So thanks for actually coming here to propose something but your whining that your unilateral change wasn't accepted isn't helpful! Anyway, your example is a perfectly normal and acceptable way to talk and write, not something that needs to be explicity forbidden here. That's not PR, it's language all kinds of sources and people routinely use. The worst "first" can absolutely be qualified with a time factor and cannot only be used for an absolute first. The phrase "first since" is used in over 8,000 articles, few if any of which were written by marketers, and they still provide meaningful information. Furthermore, your little pet peeve is a narrow style issue, not a conceptual topic about what we are as an encyclopedia so this would be the wrong place to propose this misguided complaint anyway. — Reywas92^Talk 03:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

As I already said, my edit followed from existing policies (but which are not explicit enough). Also, the policy you referred to obviously says "It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain consensus in advance. However, because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they reflect the community's view and do not introduce confusion." You should read Wikipedia:Consensus where you'll learn that reflecting consensus doesn't mean or require a pre-approval discussion before an edit.

The reversion clearly had shallow reasons *as given*, because your revert gave no reason other than an imaginary pre-approval rule with no mention of actual meaning, text, implication, or quality of the page, or the reasons I stated Your comment now gives actual reasons (but misguided ones), so I'll go through why those reasons and arguments are wrong:

1) As I already stated multiples times (including on your Talk page which you publicly said you deleted without reading), the edit didn't say the trivial phrases were "forbidden". I didn't write that it was "not allowed". I clearly wrote it should be avoided and specified the exceptions, conditions, reformulations, and reasons. That is how a good rule works, it allows for exceptions (in this case the exceptions are not trivial and not arbitrary etc).

2) Your comment that "the phrase (first [...] since) is used X number of articles" fails to qualify or distinguish the usages that the rule actually referred to, in other words it misses the point. As I already discussed in the edit, *some* or many cases are 1) trivial 2) arbitrary 3) clearly not firsts. The internet is filled with indiscriminate trivia...that doesn't mean we put it on wikipedia. This entire discussion is part of What Wikipedia is Not (officially). Your non-argument is like saying copyright infringement exists on 8,000 wikipedia articles, therefore, we can't have a rule about it. Also, the edit explicitly referred to *products* as the main example (not, for example, non-trivial historical precedent or monumental cycles of events), but your meaningless statistic doesn't say anything about what the usage, meaning, quality, or triviality is.

3) "a perfectly normal and acceptable way to talk and write" is obviously not an argument, since the entire point of What Wikipedia Is Not is about 'normal' things that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Which again was already clearly covered in my edit.

4) "Narrow style issue" / "not a conceptual topic about what we are as an encyclopedia". That's wrong since my edit was in a sub-section that already listed 4 other points about type and presentation of info/content, also while clearly falling under the Not Indiscriminate Trivia and Not Marketing/Promotion bits.

5) "Few if any of which were written by marketers". My edit clearly explained that A) the issue is NOT whether it's written by a marketer B) the rule fits into the Not Indiscriminate Trivia section, not the marketing section C) the problem indeed is a "norm" in general trivial writing, not just marketers. My topic discussion here clearly said the style, not the edits/statements themselves, is from PR marketers. (Aside from all that, your point there is a zero-evidence assertion and reveals a serious ignorance about what marketing does and related well-known problems on wikipedia.)

6) "The [word] "first" can absolutely be qualified with a time factor and cannot only be used for an absolute first." Every rule for wikipedia restricts/qualifies something that people can do, and do do generally, but which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. My edit clearly qualified a very particular kind of statement, it didn't say the word "first" is not allowed or a problem.

7) "they still provide meaningful information". My rule contained clear advice/reformulation/conditions clarifying about how to make the same (misleading) information meaningful in a different form. Your comment misses the point of every rule in the section where I made my edit: e.g. wikipedia is not for Summary-only squibs, full Lyrics, excessive Statistics, Exhaustive Logs. All these things "provide meaningful information" but are not appropriate or not allowed on wikipedia. And the actual cases covered by my original rule are not meaningful information but are trivial and arbitrary distortions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomEditor6772314 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Other points that are wrong in your comment:

i) "expect everyone to "nod approvingly at a great edit" LOL." My text didn't say you must nod approvingly, it clearly said a reverter's choice should be between A) Nod approvingly at a good edit B) reject/revert with an actual reason. Which you didn't do.

ii) I never said it can't be reverted without explanation, I said a reversion without explanation is bad when A) the edit rationale was clear B) the edit was already entailed by existing policy C) the edit was in good faith regarding how it would/could affect wikipedia (for the better) C) when the reversion has no actual reason stated other than lack of pre-approval D) zero articulable reason in the revert for why it made the page worse or is a problem or doesn't entail from existing policy. These ideas are nothing new Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary (essay not policy).

RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Lists of names/Hall of Fames

Should lists like this stay on websites, or should they be in articles like Saratoga_Automobile_Museum. I feel this would be something of WP:NOTADIRECTORY, because it's essentially mirroring what's at https://www.saratogaautomuseum.org/newyorkstatestockcarhalloffame The list wouldn't be appropriate as a standalone, but that doesn't make it appropriate for an org/corp article body.

Graywalls (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)