Wikipedia talk:Content in Wikipedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

What is the point of this Article on Content?

Nothing important links to this page. This is a failed proposed definition. I propose that the shortcut WP:CONTENT be redirected to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and discus deletion of the Project page. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content is more than articles

A possibly simpler definition of content would be all the material that is suitable for print in a printed encyclopedia. This would include

articles
article categorization (non-administrative categories)
- These could be used to form an automated index
Some help pages (and possibly a very few project pages including some disclaimers)
- The preface of most encyclopedias does include a how to use it and interpret its conventions
Portals
- The end of many encyclopedias does include such material
Print-worthy redirects to any of the above
- Also likely part of an automated index

Having said all that, I don't think there will ever be an actually printed encyclopedia, although there have been versioned CDs, and student editions, eg. WP:1 and simple:. Dpleibovitz (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This page is an undeveloped essay, unworthy of “Information”. Retagged {{essay}}. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Content in Wikipedia". (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Content → Wikipedia:What is "content" on Wikipedia? – or Wikipedia:The content of Wikipedia or Wikipedia:Content in Wikipedia. This rather-minimalistic information page is just a five-sentence definition of what "content" is on Wikipedia (plus some hatnotes and "see also" links – it's almost a disambiguation page). A more suitable use of the name "WP:CONTENT" would be to redirect it to the same place as the harder-to-remember WP:FOC shortcut – i.e., to redirect it to the guideline about focusing on article content rather than editor behavior. As recorded above, someone else suggested in 2010 to redirect the shortcut to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. I suppose my comments are really more about WP:CONTENT than WP:Content, but it might be confusing if WP:Content exists and WP:CONTENT leads to somewhere else. There has also been some questioning on the Talk page about the suitability of the definition as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty neutral on this. I'm not familiar with WP:FOC myself, but when I searched for wikilinks to that shortcut, I found a little over 1,000 across various talk pages, vs. 16 for WP:CONTENT, so it does seem like WP:Dispute resolution#Focus on content is "primary with respect to usage", so to speak. I agree that it would be weird if WP:Content and WP:CONTENT went to different places. Colin M (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I like Wikipedia:Content in Wikipedia as the best WP:CONCISE option here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just so long as the resulting redirects to both the project page itself and this talk page are left, I think it makes obsolutely no difference. Am I missing something? There are some interesting issues raised by BarrelProof above, but this RM doesn't solve any of them, and it should not be seen as an endoresement of the whole package if it does go ahead. Andrewa (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:Content in Wikipedia looks good. The current is ambiguous with Portal:Content, which probably should come to this title when the Portal Namespace is deprecated. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, so you and IJBall are right. !vote below. Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP:Content in Wikipedia. Good analysis by SmokeyJoe. Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Excel in Cells

Excel Tutorials — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffin Joseph Chakkalamattam (talk • contribs) 10:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]