Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The obligatory "what do you think about this proposal" poll

(the exception is not included in this poll)

[edit] Disclaimer templates should not be used

  1. --cesarb 23:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Frazzydee|✍: I'm a subscriber to a completely opt-in system that wouldn't affect other users. I think that disclaimer templates are redundant and often unnecessary (like the goatse warning). -Frazzydee|✍ 02:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. IMHO disclaimer templates used on any selection of articles are inescapably POV as well as redundant with the general disclaimer. Thryduulf 13:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Such templates are inherently POV because different areas of the world have different standards. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Excellent idea. I think we should flag this as semi-policy at least, given the amount of times this appears on TFD. Radiant_* 11:13, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  6. They seem pretty redundant to me. Moomintrollmania 09:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Redundant IMHO. This could be moved to Wikipedia:No disclaimers once it becomes policy. Zocky 17:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. Angela. 13:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  9. as per above. DES (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. --tasc 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. --Jannex 08:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Packet of Peanuts, Use: Open bag, eat nuts. WARNING: May contain peanuts. -- Sfnhltb 07:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. We have too many people who live for the chance to essentially vandalize a page with all manner of frivolous tags like "might not be perfectly correct", "does not have more references than words", "could offend somebody somewhere", and so on. I'm needing one for "article may have too many frivolous tags", hmmm? Often I can barely see any of the article without scrolling down! AlbertCahalan 05:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    The last comment in this poll was from March 2006... Someone forgot to archive it, I think :) Melsaran (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    We already had an "article may have too many frivolous tags" template, called {{toomanyboxes}}. See also Wikipedia:Huge message boxes. --cesarb 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimer templates can be used

  1. Look, I'm against censorship. But I don't see the harm in flagging pages containing content such as nudity or graphic violence so that users who prefer not to view such content can avoid doing so. That's not censoring users, it's empowering them. Furthermore, some users may be surfing or editing Wikipedia in contexts such as workplaces where such content could cause difficulties for them. Firebug 05:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:Content labeling proposal for a whole range of counter-arguments to this. Thryduulf 13:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

[edit] Other

  1. Point #4 on the main page suggests that we should get a lawyer's opinion on this. --Carnildo 00:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

This seems to be pretty uncontroversial. If substantial opposition is demonstrated, it should be put on a formal poll, otherwise this should be enough. Zocky 17:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could tell me what action this proposal intends to take. Are such templates CSD's? Are we going to ban or block someone for creating them? I'm being cynical, but there is no action statement anywhere on this page. The thought doesn't seem fully-formed. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

This looks like a write up of a long-standing wikipedia content convention which in short terms states "Do not use disclaimers". If that's covered elsewhere, this can go, otherwise we may as well make it a guideline or policy, since attempts to introduce them have met relatively little support over the years. Zocky 13:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. --cesarb 23:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

What do you think about renaming this from Wikipedia:Disclaimer templates to Wikipedia:Disclaimer messages or something like that? While disclaimer templates seem to have stopped showing up, people are still adding redundant disclaimers to articles. --cesarb 02:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the current version with "no" in the title, but moving to no disclaimer messages instead of templates would be fine. Angela.
I like Zocky's Wikipedia:No disclaimers which could be pointed to whether the disclaimer in question were a template or a message. Double duty with one time work. I see no reason to add "templates" or "messages" Redirects are cheap, if indicated. KillerChihuahua 13:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
This seems most reasonable to me, falling under the principle of least astonishment in article naming. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No, the title "No disclaimers" by itself negates the "Disclaimers" at the bottom of the page! --Blainster 07:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal that some disclaimer messages should be kept

I recently composed a how-to on piloting the Hawker-Siddeley Harrier and copied the disclaimer from the Helicopter Pilotage article warning that the information given is no substitute for proper training. An issue was raised with this by User:Clawed who pointed me to this project page. I have asked a third party with experience of pilotage for his opinion. I propose that disclaimers that discourage people from acting on 'how to' articles/sections provided only for information purposes that could be dangerous should be considered. More generally, perhaps a standard set of disclaimer templates that are official policy could be created.--ChrisJMoor 03:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:HurricaneWarning seems a clear cut counter example here. Fast moving news event and if people aren't warned, bad things can happen. Yes, standard disclaimer applies but I think an exception is warranted. ++Lar: t/c 11:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A rationale for disclaimers in articles

Most of the debate's been from the point of view of "us us us". Wikipedia has disclaimers elsewhere... wikipedia should or shouldnt X...

But surely the major use of a disclaimer is to inform. A person who looks up a legal page needs to know, its not definitive, and *thats* what a disclaimer on the page is for. Call it "Standard information for legal pages" or whatever... the main thing is, that a disclaimer has a 2nd target audience -- those who look up one article for information, and one page only. For such people, the information in that disclaimer is essential background info they need on interoppreting that page.

Maybe it should be less dramatic: "This page contains specific information of a legal, medical or XYZ nature. Before relying on it please read the appropriate disclaimers HERE"

FT2 (Talk) 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fully, completely agreed. How could people disagree? Twilight Realm 21:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptions

If this is a wikipedia guideline, what are good exceptions? One of the exceptions presently in place seems to be the Pornography portal's Not Safe For Work notice: Template:NSFWArticle. Thoughts? Vectro 17:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danger

Hi, I created a danger template for articles such as Ghost riding-I think they are still okay concerning the no disclaimer rule. I created the template to be posted on articles where the dangers associated with the subject matter might not be obvious. In other words, the template is to advise those who are not aware, that the subject matter of the article might cause them injury. IMHO this template falls under the same exception rule as the spoiler warning which is meant to prevent the user from "ruining things [for him or herself]" by reading on. The same applied to articles such as Ghost riding-the template warns the user that if uses the article as a set of intrsuction he might "ruin things" for hom or herself. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this is such a good idea. We're likely to end up with tags on things like anal sex and Scientology. -- nae'blis 22:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. Reading the article isn't ghost riding. Ghost riding is getting out of your car while it's running. You can safely read about ghost riding and choose whether or not to try it after reading about it. But a reader can not decide to not read a spoiler after reading it. If there really was a joke that killed people who read it, then this template might be appropriate. (See fatal hilarity) I suggest you include more information about those who have died from ghost riding rather than having a danger template. --GunnarRene 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a template that doesn't exist, but would be allowed with the reasoning of the current exception. --GunnarRene 00:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fatal hilarity warning: At least one person has laughed to death upon reading the following

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Danger

Template:Danger has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GunnarRene 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] legally frivolous

There's a whole huge debate going on about {{legally frivolous}}, which is currently on its 2nd TfD nomination, and that looks like it's going to stall into no concensus just like the first one. I stumbled across this while browsing TfDs, and got sucked into the debate for a little while. I honestly don't care about the template, except insofar as it seems like a blatant violation of this guideline, which I do care about. The "keep" arguments seem to boil down to 1) it's really important on the (three) articles where it's used, and 2) it's not a disclaimer, it's a "fact". The first strikes me as so completely irrelevant that I haven't even bothered to look at the articles in question. The second argument, though, really scares me. It seems like it could completely undermine this whole policy, if warning templates are reworded to present "facts" (it's a fact that many people are offended by nudity, various religious beliefs, etc., etc.). I'm not canvassing for votes (the TfD is already so lengthy and confused that I can't imagine any conclusion other than "no concensus"). I'm looking for clarification. If this template really is acceptable, how can we clarify this policy to distinguish why it's acceptable when other it's-a-fact templates wouldn't be? And if the template isn't acceptable, how can we make this clear to its adamant supporters? I'm really befuddled, and deeply sorry I stumbled across this mess, but very worried about the precedent that might be being set. Xtifr tälk 11:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About "The exception"

{{spoiler}} is an exception from this guideline. Even if some other guideline decides it shouldn't be used anymore, it will not change the fact that it is still an exception from this guideline. I.e., this guideline was created to deal with the other disclaimer-like templates, not {{spoiler}} and other {{spoiler}}-like templates. --cesarb 00:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that when {{spoiler}} is finally done away with, its exemption on this page will also be eliminated to discourage re-creation. All of the reasons we have for avoiding disclaimer templates apply equally to {{spoiler}}; the only reason it's survived as long as it has is because of a combination of inertia and a general sense that "that's the way things are on the internet." With all signs indicating that those positions are finally eroding, it seems fair to predict that {{spoiler}}'s exemption on this page is also not long for this world. --Aquillion 05:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Spoiler warnings have even less reason for existence than some of the kinds of disclaimers. At least disclaimers that are proposed because of someone's moral sensitivities have an element of seriousness about their existence. One can't say that much about spoiler warnings. Eclecticology 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording to make it explicit that spoiler templates are being discussed elsewhere, instead of in this guideline, since it seems it's not widely accepted that they are an "exception". This separates the widely accepted parts (on this guideline) and the currently controversial part (on Wikipedia:Spoiler). --cesarb 23:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viewers and Wikipedia policies

(This is largely copied and pasted from my argument in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning#A more radical approach)

It occurs to me that not every random passerby will be familiar with Wikipedia's policy on censorship, whether it be spoilers, full nudity, potentially offensive content, etc. For example: When one opens a paper encyclopedia, I doubt he or she would expect to find anything about a fictional series than real-world information. Should one open up to Harry Potter, one would expect to find information about the production of the series, its impact on culture, its controversies, etc. Almost as a guarantee, they will not find the words "Snape kills Dumbledore" in the brief entry. Being an encyclopedia, one might go onto Wikipedia to find similar content. The thing is, Wikipedia does have that kind of content; I can almost assure you that any widespread encyclopedia will not have the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons right next to its entry.

Believe it or not, the average passerby and newcomer will not click on the Disclaimer link at the bottom of the page. Frankly, I didn't even know it was there until a few months after I signed up. Wikipedia's policy on censorship is not widely known. It needs to be significantly more obvious before disclaimer templates can be dismissed as redundant.

What I will propose here is not a template to go on select few pages that are dubbed "controversial," or "offensive." This isn't so much about "protecting" people from this sort of material. This is now along the lines of making Wikipedia's censorship policy better known. Here's a more radical approach to things:

Rather than a template saying that an article may contain spoilers, offensive content, depictions of nudity, and so forth, we put it on every page. But not through a template. Instead, we (and this is where the "radical" part fits in) propose to whoever up there has the power to do so to add a little line at the top of the article. Essentially...

Page Name
-----------------------
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Disclaimer: To attain maximum encyclopedic efficiency, articles may
contain spoilers or potentially offensive content where deemed necessary.

Probably not in those exact words, and maybe not even in that exact spot. But you can't really miss what's at the top of the page. This note can go on the main page as well. Now, the person looking up Pirates of the Carribean to see if it's a worthwile watch will know ahead of time that there are in fact spoilers outside of the section entitled "Plot" before he clicks on the proper link on that DAB. Now the Muslim trying to see why the cartoons caused so much controversy for his culture will realize ahead of time that he might run into the images themselves there. Now, the student researching issues with child nudity won't be as surprised by the full-frontal halfway down the page. By simply making Wikipedia's policy more prominent, the need for a selective disclaimer template disappears.

As noted several times, this is a more radical approach, and I can imagine that even those who argued pro-spoiler warning might attack this idea. I'll welcome all arguments, but please do not argue solely from resistance to change. Regards, You Can't See Me! 22:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that even the current disclaimer at the bottom has nothing to do with spoilers. It disclaims legal and medical advice, and makes no claims to being 100% valid, but I don't see anything about nudity or spoilers without getting to the policy pages themselves, and who on earth goes there unless they intend to edit? Plenty of people use but do not edit wikipedia and thus are unaware of the policies regarding spoilers and nudity...Kuronue 21:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange definition of "disclaimer"

I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia does have quite a few disclaimer templates apart from the single exception that is stated in the guideline (spoiler warning).

They just don't all meet the strange definition of "disclaimer" in this guideline, in that some of them are not duplicating information which is already in the site-wide General Disclaimer. (However, some of them might.)—greenrd 09:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a definition of "disclaimer", it's a definition of "disclaimer template". --cesarb 01:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move and change

What is more of a problem now is not the creation of template disclaimers, but the use of text like This page may contain (content) that some may find disturbing. Technically this guideline only applies to disclaimer templates and WP:NOT#CENSOR refers mainly to removal of content, not disclaimers. (See a short discussion over at WT:NOT about this.) I have seen 2 editing conflicts about this recently. Gangrene is still protected after an edit war there and there is a dispute now at Robert Pickton. If there is interest to do this, I will write up a draft that includes all of the current guideline minus template specific wording (though disclaimer templates will still be mentioned). Obviously any new version will have all necessary exceptions, including the official disclaimer pages and spoilers Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There has already been some discussion about this in the past; see #Renaming above. --cesarb 01:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. Except for the last comment, most of that discussion was scattered over a few months 2 years ago. I'm trying to restart a discussion on this. Also, 4 out of 5 people in that discussion supported a move but it was so long ago and nothing seems to have come of it, I would like to get a recent consensus. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move. The reasoning behind this page is applicable both inside and outside of templates. Dekimasuよ! 03:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No disclaimers might be a confusing name to the uninitiated, since we do have some disclaimers! Perhaps No disclaimers on articles? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if that is necessary, as long as the lead clearly states these official disclaimers as exceptions. Prolog 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about people who see the name linked somewhere, but don't click through. I agree with the idea of this proposal, I just don't like the idea of the policy name contradicting what is true. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 16:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Consensus is not to have user-created disclaimers, whether these are placed in articles through templates or not. Prolog 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support except for the potentially confusing new name. Nothing in the rationale is specifically about templates; the guideline is about templates because it was derived from several discussions about templates which were happening repeatedly at the time. --cesarb 14:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As there seems to be consensus to go ahead with this (though perhaps not with my suggested name), I've created a draft at User:Mr.Z-man/guideline. It is basically the same thing that exists now, but with a couple updates and stuff about non-template discliamers. Can anyone think of a better name? Perhaps Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    The section "What are disclaimers?" shows we need a separate name for the concept (it is confusing to call it "disclaimers" when it has a more specific "something which duplicates something on the five disclaimer pages" definition). Perhaps "disclaimer-like text"? Or we could add a disclaimer (heh) stating that, for the purposes of that guideline only, disclaimer means something else...
    Other than that, the draft is good; it also has a few small tweaks which should be imported into this page even if the renaming fails (in fact, I'm going to do it now). --cesarb 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    "Content warnings" perhaps? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that No disclaimers in articles sums up the page best. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler guideline under dispute

I've changed the text of the section on spoiler tags to reflect the fact that the designation of wikipedia:spoiler as a guideline is under dispute. This guideline presumably applies in its stead. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed for discussion because I can't make much sense of it

This is listed under "Why people say they should be used":

  • With the spoiler warning exception, some may assume this kind of protection applies to all other articles, and mistakenly see a picture they find offensive.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. That we should allow all disclaimers if we allow just one? That if we allow just one people will expect more than one? If the latter, I think I may agree. But is that a serious point? Perhaps it might have been when we had 45,000 spoiler tags littering the place. Now they're rarer than hen's teeth so it hardly applies. --Tony Sidaway 02:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't even sort out what that previously included sentence was supposed to mean, but that's the only reason I agree with your removal. -- nae'blis 02:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It's the only reason I removed it. If it made sense I'd put it back. --Tony Sidaway 02:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is supposed to mean, if some pages have disclaimer tags of some sort (including spoiler tags), some people might somehow believe that they will always find a warning tag before "dangerous" things (for several possible definitions of "dangerous", including "it might spoil the ending of that story"), and might without warning see something they would rather not see. It can be both an argument against having any kind of spoiler warning at all (including spoiler ones), and an argument for having spoilers warnings everywhere anyone might think something is offensive. Obviously, at the time it was added, purging the wiki of the spoiler templates was considered something which would go completely against the whole community, and thus not a possibility.

At least that's how I see it—it wasn't me who added that one. Also notice that it was added together with the next one: You don't know where they are, and they may disturb you. You can choose to ignore plot-related content on Wikipedia, but once you've seen an offensive image, you can't just pretend you never saw it. --cesarb 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent change to policy

I thought it was policy already! — The Storm Surfer 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So did I, that's why I changed it. This should not be treated with the occasional exception. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimers on external links?

Is there a Wikipedia policy, one way or the other, about disclaimers on external links?

I'm thinking in particular about porn star biographies and similar subjects which contain links to the official site of the subject. The official sites are often porn sites or otherwise contain adult content. In the past it has been standard to give a "contains adult content" warning. I've recently seen editors removing these, though.

So, what exactly is WP policy on this issue? I can't find any clarification on it. Iamcuriousblue 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For a porn star, I think the more informative Official site statement should be enough to tip off the reader that the link may contain adult content. — The Storm Surfer 23:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How does the hurricane template fit in?

Template:HurricaneWarning survived a deletion discussion. Does this require a change to this policy? I see our acceptance of this template but our rejection of disclaimer templates on other articles such as medical articles as a contradiction. What is the difference, if any? Sancho 06:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy?

I saw no discussion or justification of any kind for upgrading this, a style guideline, to policy. Therefore, I've changed it back. I'm not sure this makes sense as a policy anyway, as it makes too many references to other policies, for one thing. --Coredesat 01:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And I had just added it to Wikipedia:List of policies :-) Sancho 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The 'policy' tag was added with the claim "there should be no occasional exceptions", but {{spoiler}} is right in the guideline as an explicitly-mentioned occasional exception.--Father Goose 03:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
{{Spoiler}} is currently used in a whopping total amount of 4 articles. And {{spoiler}} is explicitly listed as an exception, the only exception to this policy. Not counting {{spoiler}}, this is an extremely strict policy that is set in stone, unlike guidelines are. Melsaran (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The spoiler tag is removed from all articles on a regular basis by a certain group of editors. (At this instant, it's down to 1 article.) That is a case of activism overriding consensus. The other "disclaimer" categories probably should have no exceptions, but the status of the "spoiler" disclaimer is really just an ongoing site-wide edit war.
I have no idea what the endpoint of that war will be, nor any particular stake, but for now, we do have one "exception" on the books -- albeit one under assault.--Father Goose 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
And now that I think about it, {{currentevent}} and {{OR}} are disclaimer-ish as well. I don't think we need to harden this page's stance against the really obvious non-exceptions: those are enforced just fine without any changes to policy needed. But disclaimers "of any sort"? That's a grayer area that this guideline currently lets on to.--Father Goose 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Those aren't disclaimers. Disclaimers are things that say "warning: may include objectional content", not things that say "this article document a current event". And about the spoiler template, if one group of editors persists on removing it from all articles it is used on, we'd better nominate the template/guideline for deletion then. It is hardly used in any articles. Melsaran (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That's going to re-open an enormous fight. Maybe you didn't see it: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning and [1]. It never really ended, though, it just went underground.--Father Goose 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I know about the entire spoiler debate... But if some have a problem with the guideline, they should alter the guideline/delete the template, not remove all spoiler tags they see to make a point. Melsaran (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree... but they're succeeding at that point if it results in {{spoiler}} getting deleted due to its non-use. Shitty situation, IMO.--Father Goose 20:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about whether this is called a policy or guideline, but I agree with Melsaran that there is very strong consensus for the principle that articles don't carry disclaimers for obscenity, religious content, etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible exception for hurricane warning template?

Based on the discussion here, I have edited this page to include a possibly acceptably exception to this guideline. Sancho 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No. It is just slippery slope. We need to be clear as to what we are about.--Mineo3 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's in a commented out section of the wikitext on the project page. When the page protection is released, we can remove it. Sancho 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Clarity is needed

The prose of this essay is a little to folksy and friendly. It should be made more clear about why ad-hoc disclaimers in Wikipedia are bad for the project.--Mineo3 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I created this page originally mostly as bullet list of the cons and pros of disclaimer templates, and much of the original style (or lack of it) is still showing. --cesarb 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{HurricaneWarning}}

The TfD of this template closed as no consensus, and how this page relates to what this intends to do is not clear. Certainly, the template's text should be revised - and I think it would be more appropriate for a similar template to be created that covers all events like this where an organisation is giving public advice for the protection of life and property: the fires in Greece, articles on current-event terrorist attacks are things which may be suitable for this as opposed to a circumscribed one only applicable to hurricanes.

In general, the text is an abbreviated form of the risk disclaimer with amplification. By placing it at the start of an article prominently people are much more likely to notice than the disclaimers link. When the matter we are disclaiming is potentially a matter of life or death, maybe we should make it more prominent so they are more aware of our flaws. For example, imagine if the WP article on the Virginia Tech massacre gave incorrect advice in the period between the initial shootings and the second part of that tragedy; and a VT student had followed the "advice" on our page, who knows what could have happened?

The amplification that the reader should refer to relevant authority is the real message in the template. The "this article may not be current" is redundant to {{current}}, merely highlights it more prominently. We are legally covered by the disclaimers. But do we have a moral obligation to tell our readers not to trust us, when doing so may put their life in danger? That is, in a way they may actually notice not merely in the fine print. We certainly do consider moral concerns, why else does WP:BLP exist?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Would the scope of your suggestion also include medical articles? Sancho 00:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Not really, that is a much broader issue. Current events have rapidly changing information and so may well be out-dated even if the information is correct when added - this is not really true for medical articles. Furthermore we have medical issues discussed in our disclaimers, we DON'T really have "don't trust us for current events" anywhere I can see. The real problem here is not the template, but that there is a perceived need for it, which results from people wanting up to the second information as opposed to trying to keep a degree of distance. I'm trying to sit on the fence regarding the template, at first lets just try and get it into a useful form (if one exists). --Nilfanion (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to make exceptions to this guideline for current events, why not just have a template like:
Though this article is updated frequently, it may not reflect the most current information about this event.
"this event" could be parameterized so it can be changed in individual articles to read "this hurricane", "this crime", "this American Idol finale", etc. I would also suggest we don't make the template so startling. The red background is really visually distracting. Mr.Z-man 03:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What about {{current}}? That was mentioned as a possible solution in the deletion discussion. Sancho 03:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
To paraphrase the keep votes this should be an in your-face thing, because trusting us inappropriately could have bad consequences. Therefore if we have it at all it should be prominent (though maybe not quite as ugly). A possible thing may be to develop a {{currentdisaster}} template; in the style of all the other current templates but with the additional wording "Consult the relevant authorities for current information"; perhaps substituting of combining the warning triangle with the current event icon . There is clearly redundancy between this and the current event ones. If that seems sensible to others, I'll create that template and we can move discussion of the editorial matters to its talkpage (TFDing it if we do not find an adequate solution).
Bear in mind this guideline is evolved from censorship issues, and doesn't adequately address other disclaimers, which is why the TFD was contentious, the applicability of this page isn't obvious as it doesn't actually tell us about this situation. Disclaimer templates are not bad per se, {{OR}} is partly orientated at the reader and so is a disclaimer template... Therefore this page needs significant rewriting; and in fact I think it should be moved to Wikipedia:Disclaimers in articles where it can appropriately discuss what is and what is not acceptable. After all we can say "disclaimers bad, don't use them" at the positive location, but we cannot say "certain disclaimers are sensible" at this spot.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some more exceptions

After reading the discussion above, I added two more exceptions which are usually considered acceptable: current event templates and dispute templates. The same way {{spoiler}} was when I created this page, both kinds of templates can be found everywhere in this site, and are (AFAIK) considered acceptable by most editors.

(I also removed the commented-out section; HTML comments are for adding notes visible only to editors, not for saving text which might be restored. We have the page history function for the later.)

--cesarb 00:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And Tony Sidaway removed it, saying that they do not meet the current definition "disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages". I think this indicates the whole of the guideline should be rewritten to take a broader view; in the current form the applicability of this guideline to {{HurricaneWarning}} isn't clear. That is why it was being discussed on TFD in the first place! Give this guideline a slightly broader remit and we have a way to effectively condone or condemn that template (and similar).--Nilfanion (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at {{HurricaneWarning}}. What on earth is that template doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 04:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge the spoiler guideline. Wikipedia:Spoiler, into this one

I have posted the following proposal at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler:

The effect of this guideline is that it is now completely consistent with Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles (aka WP:NDT and WP:NDA). It remains for me to propose formally that we merge this guideline to that one by replacing it with a redirect and perhaps adding a sentence or two from this one into that. This talk page and its extensive archives would remain separate, and the merge could still be undone at a future date, should consensus shift again.

In an effort to centralize discussion, I would suggest that we conduct all discussion on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. --Tony Sidaway 13:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This merge proposal has been renewed. Again I suggest we carry out discussions about this on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the discuss link in the merge template has been set to the spoiler talk page. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:39, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity

I have tried to clarify where the clarity tag was placed, hope that is okay SGGH speak! 11:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline status

Every single time I cite this guideline, I get this response: "But it says that it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception, & this can be the exception." I also get the mention of the "Why people say they should be used" reasons. This bring me to my point: what disclaimers are being used, in which articles, and why? нмŵוτнτ 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

good point. The page itself has: "The only exceptions to this are Category:Temporal templates." Resourceful people have already brought up the point that there is a sliding scale between "disclaimers" and amboxes. Now amboxes mark unfinished articles: as a rule, no article with an ambox could become Featured. But in the case of "temporal" amboxes such as {{future film}}, articles are tagged as "unfinished" for up to a year, through no fault of the editors', but simply because the film in question has not yet been released. In all other cases, the presence of an ambox indicates that the article has issues that need to be fixed.
Another case of de-facto disclaimers are Category:Multilingual support templates such as {{Contains Indic text}}. These essentially say "if this doesn't display correctly, it's not our fault, configure your browser properly", which is, of course, technically a disclaimer.
This article is illustrated with at least one image which has been considered objectionable in notable publications.[1]
At present, there appears to be solid consensus that there are indeed no other exceptions to "no disclaimers in articles", which would mean that this page could be considered part of Wikipedia policy. I think we are reluctant to declare it as such because there was never anything like unanimous consensus. There has always been a vocal minority of bona fide Wikipedians who object to it, and would prefer to mark spoilers, or certain other "objectionable" content, with a disclaimer at the top of the article, such as the example to the right.
There is nothing fundamentally impossible about including such disclaimers. If we can have {{Contains Indic text}}, we can in principle also have image warnings. But we would need to arrive at some consensus when precisely they are to be used, and when they aren't. Disclaimers on images are, ihmo, much more arguable than disclaimers on article content, since the process of choosing the images illustrating an article is usually much less stringent than our policies governing content (WP:RS, WP:UNDUE etc.). We generally just choose a bunch of images somehow related to the topic to make the article appear more attractive. This means that images are often sort of an annex to the article text proper, so that they could conceivably also be treated differently under the "no disclaimer" clause. dab (𒁳) 13:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for that informative, thoughtful explanation. My comment referred to images of religious figures & inkblots, FYI. нмŵוτнτ 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimers-A proposal

When someone is googling for something, he or she probably clicks on the first option without being aware of the contents of the wikipedia disclaimer. Wikipedia disclaimer does not show up anytime in the process and even I, as an editor to wikipedia, was not aware of it before certain issues were brought up. If the main point of wikipedia is to provide information, then what's the point of not telling the readers about what they may see.

Here is my suggestion:

As we have a "Did you know" on the main page that talks about interesting things about the article, we create a box at the top of any article and put up there notable facts about the article. Its content can range from the date of creation of the article, its status, its stability, the expected time to read it, important stuff, or even certain interesting content issues if there is a consensus for that. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless it includes content disclaimers, that doesn't really sound like a disclaimer. However, this would be a pretty major change and this is not a high traffic page. Also, I don't think very many websites, unless required by law, display disclaimers before content. Mr.Z-man 05:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the general disclaimer might not completely apply to all articles equally. Therefore only certain important parts of it might worth adding to the box at the top of the article. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"When someone is googling for something", they are expecting to see random material from random websites. They do not expect any disclaimer. We do have meta information on articles linked right at the top of each article, viz. the "history" tab, plus a prminently linked "About Wikipedia" in the left column. There is also a link to the disclaimers on every page. I do not see what this proposal is intending to change. Surely we do not want the meta-information figure more prominently than the actual content: We assume that the vast majority of readers is interested in the content first, and in meta-information only secondarily. This is a non-starter. "not telling the readers about what they may see"? We are telling them. It is impossible to tell people what you are going to tell them before telling them anything, that's just a nonsensical infinite regression. dab (𒁳) 10:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I designed this proposal based on my understanding of your suggestion. Anyways, I have decided to leave the image issue altogether. I am out. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
have you read my posting above? It was compiled for your benefit, so that you might estimate what sort of proposal would have more than a snowball's chance. I see that effort was wasted. Never mind, I am happy with present policy. It was an exercise in "writing for the enemy", viz., trying to come up with an acceptable proposal that would serve your interests. If you cannot be bothered, or cannot muster the cognitive assets, to follow up on it, no harm done. But then I'll ask you to also stop spamming the Muhammad FAQ. dab (𒁳) 11:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for compiling it. As I said above I am however decided to leave the image issue altogether. Maybe some other editors in the future could benefit from that. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments

I am wondering if some editors who are interested in the topic of disclaimers could comment on a discussion which has happenend several times already, without apparent consensus. I don't think this has been mentioned here before (it was alluded to by User:hmwith above), sorry if I missed it.

Suppose that a medical procedure requires that a patient does not know some particular detail (in this case, an image) for the procedure to work. Should we take steps to hide the image on Wikipedia, so as not to spoil the procedure for a patient who may see this information without wanting to know about it ?

If you want the details of the discussion, they are on this talk page. Policy and guidelines have been cited countless times in the discussion, so I thought posting here could potentially bring either some contributors to the discussion, or some clarifications to the guidelines to solve the problem in one way or another. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

it may also be worth noting that de-wiki does have disclaimers in articles on medical topics, albeit I understand usually placed at the bottom of the page, de:Vorlage:Gesundheitshinweis. dab (𒁳) 21:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I also just found pt:Predefinição:Aviso médico on pt:Dengue, where it's placed at the top of a section. Its talk page mentions pt:Wikipedia:Votações/Automedicação, where a poll decided for the deletion of another related template (pt:Predefinição:Automedicação, which means self-medication). It might be interesting to list all these templates (both still in use and deleted) and discussions on the other languages. --cesarb (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temporal templates

Temporal templates such as {{current}} and {{future}} are explicitly excepted from the guidelines. What is the reason for this exception? "the content may change as the event approaches" look like a disclaimer to me. Is it really necessary to inform the reader of such an obvious truth? I have seen this tag being added to articles that merely have a single sentence about some future or ongoing projects. And also to articles such as the 23rd century. The article 2008 Summer Olympics has a similar tag, and I just think it looks ridiculous. The {{current}} template is used on a few articles that are being edited by several editors at the same time, and the template is there to warn editors about this. This is perhaps useful, and should be allowed by these guidelines. But the other temporal templates provides no useful information and is simply there to inform the reader that the contents may change, which is of course true for every article here on Wikipedia. I think that the use of {{future}} and similar templates should be discouraged. --Kildor (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why {{current}} or {{future}} are described here the way they are on this page. The {{current}} template was not created to warn readers of changes, but rather to warn editors that the article is today subject to massive editing by many editors; the text as shown today on Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is a common mistaken view on appropriate use of {{current}}. Needless to say, the text on this guideline or policy is not in agreement with the history or creation of {{current}}. The {{future}} template should be subjected to the same scrutiny. The text and references of any article that makes use of the {{future}} template are more than capable of indicating the contingent nature of any planned future activity without use of a template.

Need I say that the use of {{current sport}} is completely beyond sensible?
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This page only reflects the community's consensus. For a long time, it also had {{spoiler}} as an exception; that exception was kept even after the Great Spoiler Purge started, and only disappeared when the template itself was deleted.
In the same way, there currently is no consensus to remove temporal templates. This is enough to make it an exception to this guideline. --cesarb (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. But there is no consensus on that temporal templates should be used either. And one purpose with my post here is to discuss if there are any good reasons to keep using these tags. I looked through the discussions here, but could not find any arguments for using the "the content may change as the event approaches" disclaimer. --Kildor (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not the best place for such discussion; the best place would be Wikipedia talk:Current and future event templates, both template's talk pages, or the Village pump. --cesarb (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about disclaimers not in articles?

I just noticed this editprotected request at Template talk:LGBTProject#Edit for disclaimer, where it is proposed to add a disclaimer to the LGBT banner that its presence on an article talk page does not necessarily make any implications about the subject's sexuality. I personally consider this to be a clear violation of the spirit of the no-disclaimers policy, even if it is not in articlespace, but I'd welcome some further comments. Please respond on the template talk page. Happy‑melon 19:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a guideline, not policy. --cesarb (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)