Wikipedia talk:Out of scope

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise 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.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject 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.

Proposal to develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance[edit]

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia#Proposal to develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some duplicated sentences in this article[edit]

I noticed that some of this article's text is identical with the WP:Scope essay. Should any of the duplicated sentences be merged? Jarble (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This essay is a variation on Scope, so, yes, some of the sentences would be duplicated. That is appropriate. It's like Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. The essential difference between WP:Out of scope and WP:Scope is that Scope says that editors can decide the scope of an article (so some editors can agree that swords wielding skeletons are part of the scope of an article on the Peloponnesian War), while Out of scope says that editors should refer to reliable sources to determine if those skeletons are appropriate. It's an alternative view; the views are not compatible, so merging would not be appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]