![]() | Note: This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the Noticeboard itself. Please post questions or concerns about sources and articles on the main project page: WP:No original research/Noticeboard. |
This noticeboard was created after N2e and Professor marginalia mentioned on WT:NOR that it would be good to have a place where NOR-interested Wikipedians hang out, and where people could ask questions. [1] SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
(OD) They look sort of like the weird sisters. Wjhonson ( talk) 01:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Including an image within the template:shortcut violated the template's syntax and caused this page to appear in CAT:SHORTFIX. I did my best to retain the spirit of the editor's intention. I hope this is not a problem. -- DRoll ( talk) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to come up with an attractive div or something for the project page, but folks should bear in mind that a lot of "OR" stuff would be just fine on Wikiversity. As a rule we (as in we the WV Custodians who will have to do the importing) would be a lot happier about it if the author(s) of the article would agree ahead of time that they'd be interested in developing the resource there (Wikibooks used to have a problem with being the unofficial dev/null of Wikipedia, and we'd rather not go that way). We have Special:Import enabled for sysops... ping me on my talk or any custodian on #wikiversity-en if something looks appropriate. -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Please tag candidate articles with {{ Copy to Wikiversity}}, which adds page to Category:Copy to Wikiversity. -- mikeu talk 15:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the only page on Wikipedia that I have encountered that the "Enable section editing by right-clicking on section titles (requires JavaScript)" feature does not work. Why? It seems to work fine on the talk page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
<cite to film>, while RS says X did not occur <cite to reliable source>
.There's a pretty heavy backlog right now. When I introduced a new issue on efficient markets hypothesis about 20 days ago, I commented on 3 outstanding issues. Nobody has commented on my issue, and none of the other 3 have any other comments. Meanwhile, people are adding new issues. These things need attention to be addressed, and once they are addressed they need to be closed... could we start promoting the idea of commenting on old issues if you're asking for a new issue to be looked at? II | ( t - c) 06:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Recent edits that I made to Tai chi chuan and Chen Wangting were good-faith-reverted by an editor indicating that original research cannot be accepted. He also directed me here.
The edit in question has to do with the birth year of Chen Wangting, a martial arts grandmaster who lived in the 1600s. I have found inconsistencies about his birth year between all articles about him in Wikipedia (English, German, French and Portuguese versions); they all have different birth years. So to resolve this issue, I asked Grandmaster Chen Zhenglei, a Chen family member who is also a world-recognized authority in Tai Chi Chuan and a direct descendant of Chen Wangting. He wrote me back indicating that the birth year of Chen Wangting is not well known, and what year the family uses. I can produce the email that he sent me in support of this.
I then proceeded to edit the articles with the official year of birth that the family uses, and indicated Chen Zhenglei as the source. I believe that grandmaster Chen Zhenglei must be recognized as a reliable source, as he is one of the few spokesmen for the family, so any direct communication from such an authority must be legit and reliable. Consequently, I find that the reversion of my edits was improper.
So if there are any doubts about propriety of my edits, can somebody indicate to me what is the proper way of documenting the reliability of responses of this kind? What recourse does one have to prove the validity of these types of edits?
Thanks for any help.
(I have also asked this in Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research)
Bruno 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Then please look at the Noticeboard itself, which is where questions about applying the policy should be directed. This rarely used page is for discussing improvements to the noticeboard, not for getting help. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I've loaded a new header and updated the top section to make it easier to understand. All directions are now in bullet points instead one large section, making it easier to "get to the points" :P. The color should be fine, since I really didn't want it to overlap with any other noticeboards. If anyone has a better suggestion for the colors, please do suggest them! Netalarm talk 23:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Can editors of this board please join the following discussion here. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There is an RfC about the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that could use some input, if anyone is so inclined. Cheers. -- Noleander ( talk) 19:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
What is wrong with this Noticeboard? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 07:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Please simply consider to be published as article after "SO MANY YEARS of first publishing", would be more logical for what is considered as a TAG as "Original Work"! THANKS!
My facebook Authors page is: https://www.facebook.com/BookPureLogic ! First published Canada 2008; USA 2009. So plus 10 years would make it 2018 and 2019, before WIKIPEDIA could consider the article about my Book! IS THIS SENSIBLE? THANK AGAIN! ( General concensus2012 ( talk) 22:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC))
There is talk at the village pump about creating a noticeboard similar to this one for style issues. Right now, people tend to bring their style questions to WT:MoS and other talk pages: [2] [3]. They do not much disrupt business there, but there is some concern that people may not know where to go to get a clear answer about Wikipedia's policies regarding punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other style issues. Proponents of the measure say that a noticeboard would be easier for people to find. Opponents of the measure argue that such a style board might facilitate forum shopping and drama. Contributions from users who have experience with Wikipedia's noticeboards would be very welcome. The proposal itself is at the Village Pump. A mockup of the style noticeboard is here. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There is now a related proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 21:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
True it's a 1st rough draft but editing is always a concern of mine and proofreading.tx Gogreen... ( talk) 16:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:NORN needs a proper archive box like WP:NPOVN and the rest of the noticeboards, listing the archives as links. The search function is crap on WP, because the results are not sortable by date; the only way to find a somewhat recent conversation efficiently is to have the archive pages listed in chronological order in the archive box. That's why it has that feature. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
PS: The archive pages also need to be topped with {{
talk archive nav}}
not {{
talk archive}}
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
15:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This section is about the WP:NORN page in general and not any particular Original Research question.
Based on my recent experience it seems the correct process on the NORN board is that one should not present any logic. Instead one should just post source and summary and ask "Good or Bad?" and if the answer is Good then everyone talks about the exact wording and tries to get consensus.
If this is so then how does one take the consensus from this page and support it on the article page? Does one just link back here and say "Not OR per [this NORN discussion]." What happens if other editors on an article page want to dig in their heels and say "Unacceptable OR!" with their own logic (or without any logic for that matter)?
I see nothing that makes this board's outcomes "authoritative" and I doubt the folks here want to get dragged into potential edit wars on dozens of various article pages.
If there is no logic identified in postings here, how does that help build consensus? How does this help editors to learn how to be good at drawing the line -- between what is OR and what is not -- if logic is not vetted in this forum?
Is this a correct summary of how NORN works? If not please explain how it does (or at least how it is supposed to?) work. Thank you.
-- Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 22:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
In that case I apologize. I thought this was a user help forum like the research and translate forums, I did not realize this board was a form of DR. Based on the description at the top of the page I thought the purpose of NORN was to help users understand OR better.
For example:
I saw nothing indicating this was a DR forum. Please forgive my ignorance. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 02:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Scoobydunk: Almost everything I asked about has been answered except for the question of how best to have editors take the discussions here and effectively apply them at article pages, especially if dealing with editors who view the material in question as OR? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Dmcq: I wanted to discuss this away from any specific case since I think it is important to have an overview of how this page is supposed to work. The description header is a bit vague and I am genuinely surprised to hear that this page is considered part of Dispute Resolution, especially since there is no posted requirement to notify involved editors as there is with other DR pages. Sadly I think what you say is true, when disruption occurs the solution is often bureaucracy ... sigh. Nonetheless I do appreciate the advice. Thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not looking for "binding decisions", I am asking the more basic question of "What happens next?" if article editors reject a consensus established here. As Scoobydunk has already pointed out asking for further DR assistance could be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPing and pinging the involved members of this project to the article would clearly be considered WP:CANVASSing. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 02:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Seems to me that I've not seen any volunteer checking out cases lately. What gives? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I have made all the changes Cordless Larry asked. This is not my research, as the 32 references show. All the statements made about the novel are supported by multiple sources. Thank you. Trentprof ( talk) 14:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
And I am asking about Cogewea Trentprof ( talk) 14:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, there is an RfC on Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War which editors are invited to weigh in on. Thanks, GPRamirez5 ( talk) 15:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC).
Information I added to the Great Midwest Trivia Contest page ( /info/en/?search=Great_Midwest_Trivia_Contest) was removed because it did not have a citation. It did not have a citation because it was information I knew as a participant in the activities described. Is such information not allowed on Wikipedia? Or is there some particular way that it should be attributed that I failed to follow? There is much more that Wikipedia readers might want to know about the history of this event that I can contribute. What would be wrong with that? EricBuchter ( talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Eric Buchter, Lawrence University Class of 1975 and WLFM Station Manager 1972-1975
Please participate in RFC on nude photos in Going commando. Thank you. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 07:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Requests for comment are sought at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § RfC on drug name on how to state the name of a drug mentioned in court documents about a living person. – Reidgreg ( talk) 16:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The subject was Minister of Education between 1995-1997
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000113535
12 years Free education for all children provided by the government. The free 12 year education was in The 1997 constitution of Thailand.
According to UNESCO, Thailand education reform has led to the following results:
1) The educational budget increased from 133 billion baht in 1996 to 163 billion baht in 1997 (22.5 percent increase)
2) Since 1996, first grade students have learned English and computer literacy.
3) The professional advance from teacher leve1 6 to teacher level 7 without having to submit academic work for consideration was approved by the Thai government
4) There has been drawn up education policy to raise the standards of education from pre-primary to tertiary education.
5) Free 12 years education for all children provided by the government. The free 12 year education was in The 1997 constitution and that was the first time Thailand had give access to education for all citizens.
6)The Education Reform Project involved about 20,000 schools. Yosakrai ( talk) 09:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. natemup ( talk) 16:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I know this is a core principle. My query is, how did it become a core principle? Who made that decision? What arguments or evidence are behind it? I'm not looking for a one-sentence answer, I'm looking for a discussion. Thanks. deisenbe ( talk) 20:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Am I allowed to post here a dispute that takes place on FAC? Shahid • Talk2me 20:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Is the project page WP:NORN just for items that are already in articles or is it also for advice on items that are being proposed for articles? Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Note: This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the Noticeboard itself. Please post questions or concerns about sources and articles on the main project page: WP:No original research/Noticeboard. |
This noticeboard was created after N2e and Professor marginalia mentioned on WT:NOR that it would be good to have a place where NOR-interested Wikipedians hang out, and where people could ask questions. [1] SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
(OD) They look sort of like the weird sisters. Wjhonson ( talk) 01:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Including an image within the template:shortcut violated the template's syntax and caused this page to appear in CAT:SHORTFIX. I did my best to retain the spirit of the editor's intention. I hope this is not a problem. -- DRoll ( talk) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to come up with an attractive div or something for the project page, but folks should bear in mind that a lot of "OR" stuff would be just fine on Wikiversity. As a rule we (as in we the WV Custodians who will have to do the importing) would be a lot happier about it if the author(s) of the article would agree ahead of time that they'd be interested in developing the resource there (Wikibooks used to have a problem with being the unofficial dev/null of Wikipedia, and we'd rather not go that way). We have Special:Import enabled for sysops... ping me on my talk or any custodian on #wikiversity-en if something looks appropriate. -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Please tag candidate articles with {{ Copy to Wikiversity}}, which adds page to Category:Copy to Wikiversity. -- mikeu talk 15:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the only page on Wikipedia that I have encountered that the "Enable section editing by right-clicking on section titles (requires JavaScript)" feature does not work. Why? It seems to work fine on the talk page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
<cite to film>, while RS says X did not occur <cite to reliable source>
.There's a pretty heavy backlog right now. When I introduced a new issue on efficient markets hypothesis about 20 days ago, I commented on 3 outstanding issues. Nobody has commented on my issue, and none of the other 3 have any other comments. Meanwhile, people are adding new issues. These things need attention to be addressed, and once they are addressed they need to be closed... could we start promoting the idea of commenting on old issues if you're asking for a new issue to be looked at? II | ( t - c) 06:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Recent edits that I made to Tai chi chuan and Chen Wangting were good-faith-reverted by an editor indicating that original research cannot be accepted. He also directed me here.
The edit in question has to do with the birth year of Chen Wangting, a martial arts grandmaster who lived in the 1600s. I have found inconsistencies about his birth year between all articles about him in Wikipedia (English, German, French and Portuguese versions); they all have different birth years. So to resolve this issue, I asked Grandmaster Chen Zhenglei, a Chen family member who is also a world-recognized authority in Tai Chi Chuan and a direct descendant of Chen Wangting. He wrote me back indicating that the birth year of Chen Wangting is not well known, and what year the family uses. I can produce the email that he sent me in support of this.
I then proceeded to edit the articles with the official year of birth that the family uses, and indicated Chen Zhenglei as the source. I believe that grandmaster Chen Zhenglei must be recognized as a reliable source, as he is one of the few spokesmen for the family, so any direct communication from such an authority must be legit and reliable. Consequently, I find that the reversion of my edits was improper.
So if there are any doubts about propriety of my edits, can somebody indicate to me what is the proper way of documenting the reliability of responses of this kind? What recourse does one have to prove the validity of these types of edits?
Thanks for any help.
(I have also asked this in Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research)
Bruno 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Then please look at the Noticeboard itself, which is where questions about applying the policy should be directed. This rarely used page is for discussing improvements to the noticeboard, not for getting help. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I've loaded a new header and updated the top section to make it easier to understand. All directions are now in bullet points instead one large section, making it easier to "get to the points" :P. The color should be fine, since I really didn't want it to overlap with any other noticeboards. If anyone has a better suggestion for the colors, please do suggest them! Netalarm talk 23:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Can editors of this board please join the following discussion here. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There is an RfC about the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that could use some input, if anyone is so inclined. Cheers. -- Noleander ( talk) 19:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
What is wrong with this Noticeboard? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 07:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Please simply consider to be published as article after "SO MANY YEARS of first publishing", would be more logical for what is considered as a TAG as "Original Work"! THANKS!
My facebook Authors page is: https://www.facebook.com/BookPureLogic ! First published Canada 2008; USA 2009. So plus 10 years would make it 2018 and 2019, before WIKIPEDIA could consider the article about my Book! IS THIS SENSIBLE? THANK AGAIN! ( General concensus2012 ( talk) 22:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC))
There is talk at the village pump about creating a noticeboard similar to this one for style issues. Right now, people tend to bring their style questions to WT:MoS and other talk pages: [2] [3]. They do not much disrupt business there, but there is some concern that people may not know where to go to get a clear answer about Wikipedia's policies regarding punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other style issues. Proponents of the measure say that a noticeboard would be easier for people to find. Opponents of the measure argue that such a style board might facilitate forum shopping and drama. Contributions from users who have experience with Wikipedia's noticeboards would be very welcome. The proposal itself is at the Village Pump. A mockup of the style noticeboard is here. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There is now a related proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 21:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
True it's a 1st rough draft but editing is always a concern of mine and proofreading.tx Gogreen... ( talk) 16:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:NORN needs a proper archive box like WP:NPOVN and the rest of the noticeboards, listing the archives as links. The search function is crap on WP, because the results are not sortable by date; the only way to find a somewhat recent conversation efficiently is to have the archive pages listed in chronological order in the archive box. That's why it has that feature. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
PS: The archive pages also need to be topped with {{
talk archive nav}}
not {{
talk archive}}
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
15:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This section is about the WP:NORN page in general and not any particular Original Research question.
Based on my recent experience it seems the correct process on the NORN board is that one should not present any logic. Instead one should just post source and summary and ask "Good or Bad?" and if the answer is Good then everyone talks about the exact wording and tries to get consensus.
If this is so then how does one take the consensus from this page and support it on the article page? Does one just link back here and say "Not OR per [this NORN discussion]." What happens if other editors on an article page want to dig in their heels and say "Unacceptable OR!" with their own logic (or without any logic for that matter)?
I see nothing that makes this board's outcomes "authoritative" and I doubt the folks here want to get dragged into potential edit wars on dozens of various article pages.
If there is no logic identified in postings here, how does that help build consensus? How does this help editors to learn how to be good at drawing the line -- between what is OR and what is not -- if logic is not vetted in this forum?
Is this a correct summary of how NORN works? If not please explain how it does (or at least how it is supposed to?) work. Thank you.
-- Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 22:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
In that case I apologize. I thought this was a user help forum like the research and translate forums, I did not realize this board was a form of DR. Based on the description at the top of the page I thought the purpose of NORN was to help users understand OR better.
For example:
I saw nothing indicating this was a DR forum. Please forgive my ignorance. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 02:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Scoobydunk: Almost everything I asked about has been answered except for the question of how best to have editors take the discussions here and effectively apply them at article pages, especially if dealing with editors who view the material in question as OR? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Dmcq: I wanted to discuss this away from any specific case since I think it is important to have an overview of how this page is supposed to work. The description header is a bit vague and I am genuinely surprised to hear that this page is considered part of Dispute Resolution, especially since there is no posted requirement to notify involved editors as there is with other DR pages. Sadly I think what you say is true, when disruption occurs the solution is often bureaucracy ... sigh. Nonetheless I do appreciate the advice. Thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not looking for "binding decisions", I am asking the more basic question of "What happens next?" if article editors reject a consensus established here. As Scoobydunk has already pointed out asking for further DR assistance could be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPing and pinging the involved members of this project to the article would clearly be considered WP:CANVASSing. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 02:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Seems to me that I've not seen any volunteer checking out cases lately. What gives? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I have made all the changes Cordless Larry asked. This is not my research, as the 32 references show. All the statements made about the novel are supported by multiple sources. Thank you. Trentprof ( talk) 14:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
And I am asking about Cogewea Trentprof ( talk) 14:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, there is an RfC on Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War which editors are invited to weigh in on. Thanks, GPRamirez5 ( talk) 15:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC).
Information I added to the Great Midwest Trivia Contest page ( /info/en/?search=Great_Midwest_Trivia_Contest) was removed because it did not have a citation. It did not have a citation because it was information I knew as a participant in the activities described. Is such information not allowed on Wikipedia? Or is there some particular way that it should be attributed that I failed to follow? There is much more that Wikipedia readers might want to know about the history of this event that I can contribute. What would be wrong with that? EricBuchter ( talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Eric Buchter, Lawrence University Class of 1975 and WLFM Station Manager 1972-1975
Please participate in RFC on nude photos in Going commando. Thank you. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 07:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Requests for comment are sought at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § RfC on drug name on how to state the name of a drug mentioned in court documents about a living person. – Reidgreg ( talk) 16:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The subject was Minister of Education between 1995-1997
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000113535
12 years Free education for all children provided by the government. The free 12 year education was in The 1997 constitution of Thailand.
According to UNESCO, Thailand education reform has led to the following results:
1) The educational budget increased from 133 billion baht in 1996 to 163 billion baht in 1997 (22.5 percent increase)
2) Since 1996, first grade students have learned English and computer literacy.
3) The professional advance from teacher leve1 6 to teacher level 7 without having to submit academic work for consideration was approved by the Thai government
4) There has been drawn up education policy to raise the standards of education from pre-primary to tertiary education.
5) Free 12 years education for all children provided by the government. The free 12 year education was in The 1997 constitution and that was the first time Thailand had give access to education for all citizens.
6)The Education Reform Project involved about 20,000 schools. Yosakrai ( talk) 09:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. natemup ( talk) 16:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I know this is a core principle. My query is, how did it become a core principle? Who made that decision? What arguments or evidence are behind it? I'm not looking for a one-sentence answer, I'm looking for a discussion. Thanks. deisenbe ( talk) 20:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Am I allowed to post here a dispute that takes place on FAC? Shahid • Talk2me 20:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Is the project page WP:NORN just for items that are already in articles or is it also for advice on items that are being proposed for articles? Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)