Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers

"Wikipedia:NDA" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:NDA and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 22#Wikipedia:NDA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 21:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading statement?

"In fact, all articles already have a disclaimer, linked at the bottom of this page and every other page on Wikipedia." The disclaimer is accessible from mobile web by clicking the burgur menu. While this certainly makes it accessible from every article page, the user has to do an action to view the disclaimer link. Is it accurate to say "linked at every other page/linked at the bottom of every other page"? Squeezdakat (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)