Those to me are not the priority in a setting guide. I want the guide to tell me about the physical-cultural-historical aspects of the setting itself, i.e. do all that grunt work for me so I don't have to do it.Things that expand the rules mechanically for players and DMs.
You can rest assured that Elminster's scorecard wouldn't be in any FR book I ever wrote.For example, Ravnica provides rules for factions and guilds. Ghosts of Saltmarsh provide guidelines for naval/sea encounters. Eberron provides new races and the Artificer class. What will a FRCS book give me apart from listing all the women that Elminster slept with?
As for the rest of those examples, while all cool stuff they should IMO be collected in a rulebook, not scattered across setting guides; as any of those things - particularly the naval combat stuff - could and IMO should be seen as setting-agnostic.
Wikis, in my experience, are both useful and useless at the same time.Telling me setting info is its own reward will not cut it as an answer because that's what wikis are for.
Useful in that in theory they have loads of information. Useless in that you've often no idea how accurate (or in this case, 'official') any of it is, unless you refer back to the given source.
Further, wikis are online; a drawback to old-schoolers like me who don't have a computer behind the screen (and my phone browser is hopeless ) nor really anywhere to put one.