Template talk:Notability/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Categories for articles with topics of unclear notability

The Hurrican article currently contains "{{Notability|Products|date=February 2012}}", but Category:Products articles with topics of unclear notability is empty - as are all the other "... articles with topics of unclear notability" categories. Should the template be changed to use the categories (which look like they could be useful to editors doing cleanup) or should the categories be deleted ? The categories were created by Rich Farmbrough in 2011. DexDor (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

See also Template talk:Notability/Archive 6#Topic parameter not sorting articles into the subcategories (it's quite lengthy). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this mechanism is being reviewed. I put a solution in place in 1911, based on User:Rich_Farmbrough/Notability_parameters, but it was reverted. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

Actually it was 2011. It just feels like it was 1911. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

Request for comment

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Request for comment to request that Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) be re-promoted to guideline status. Using {{Notability|Geo}} shows the following text: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for geographic features." If it is determined that Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) should not be a guideline, then there may need to be a change to Template:Notability. GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Undo revision 600884649

An "Academic journals" parameter was recently added to this template. As was already pointed out at Template talk:Notability/Archive 6, the template message and the template documentation incorrectly refers to WP:NJournals as "the notability guideline for academic journals". However, that page is an opinion piece, not a community-adopted notability guideline. (In fact, some years ago it was proposed as a guideline, and was rejected.) There is, in fact, no notability guideline which specifically covers academic journals. All the other parameters correspond to bona fide policies or guidelines, not essays. Please undo revision 600884649. Or alternatively, add parameters for the dozens of other subject-specific notability essays, and clearly mark them as essays rather than guidelines. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Use for sections?

I want to put in question the notability of some of the individuals on this list: Taipei First Girls' High School#Notable alumnae. Does a header for sections exist with this template?--'Prisencolinensinainciusol 08:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the same situation with Warp zone#Unreal. Seeing as I haven't been able to find any reliable sources at all, I'm thinking about deleting the section, but I'd rather let someone who knows a bit more about the topic handle it. Can't we let this template work with sections as well? Maplestrip (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Importance-inline}}. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts

This template needs to be deleted. It should be sent back to TfD at the earliest permissible opportunity to see if consensus has changed. I also observe that TfD is a niche area and that the previous deletion discussion was so 'well advertised' that I did not even know that it was taking place. The primary effect of this template is to deface articles on topics that are notable. A secondary effect is to encourage and facilitate large numbers of erroneous nominations of articles on topics that are notable, by providing a list of articles on notable topics to nominate and creating the illusory impression that they are all a massive problem that can only be solved by going on a massive deletion spree (especially of plausible redirects and mergeable content). I have just found one of these templates on the article of an author who had an obituary in the NYT, where it should not have been. I have seen large numbers, possibly hundreds, of erroneous nominations caused by this template. It seems to me that if an editor has complied with BEFORE, he will nominate the article for deletion; and if he has not complied with BEFORE, he should not be placing this template on an article whose notability he has not attempted to investigate. NRVE and BEFORE provide that notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation, and that articles therefore do not have to assert or demonstrate the notability of their topics. I therefore see no legitimate use for this template. Placing this template on an article about a notable topic will not help a new editor in any way, is likely to confuse them (by creating the impression that our notability guidelines are stricter than they really are), and might cause them to leave the project. James500 (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments certainly have some merit, and though I'm not sure if they're so persuasive as to get me personally to support a deletion nomination, I think it would be worthwhile for the community to discuss them. Why are you raising the issue here, though, rather than formally nominating the template for deletion? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:Psychonaut: (1) The template is fully protected, so I presumably would not be able to complete the nomination, as I do not possess the user right needed to edit the template to add the notice of the discussion. (2) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is so large that the web browser of my device cannot load it. It has been a number of years since I last nominated a template, and I can't even read the instructions. (3) This template was nominated in 2013 without success and I was not sure if a sufficient amount of time had elapsed since that nomination ("earliest permissable opportunity"). (4) I would have expressed my opinions in the previous deletion discussion, if I had known it was taking place, but can't do so. James500 (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no set time one needs to wait before renominating a page for deletion; you can do so whenever you feel consensus has changed, or could change due to new facts and arguments you intend to present. To nominate a protected page for deletion you will need to use the {{edit template-protected}} template here and an administrator will add the deletion tag for you. If your browser chokes on the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, you'll have to use another device, at least temporarily, in order to perform the rest of the nomination. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This template's intent

I think this is a valid template which is useful as a way of document and inform users – which is the whole purpose of templates in the first place – the fact that an article is currently lacking established in-article notability. It may not necessarily be a comment on whether the subject in general is notable. This is the spirit in which I have used this template, and it is unfortunate that I have been disallowed to use it, because I think it is a useful template. Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Subcategorising

Why doesn't this template add the articles into more specific subcategories? For example, when {{Notability|Company}} is used, the article should be added to Category:Company articles with topics of unclear notability. Is there any reason it doesn't do this? @Rich Farmbrough: who created the unused subcategories. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe there was opposition: not to the idea, but to me changing the template BOLDly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

Athletics/athletes

Someone should change sports and athletics to sports and athletes... Obsuser (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Change "This article may not..." into "This article possibly does not...".

Like this template, we want to reduce ambiguity to minimum, and changing the current text into the suggested text would make the template's message sound more important. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, note that we do not need a comma in "reliable, secondary sources", which makes it sound like "reliable and secondary sources", meaning that we must add reliable sources regardless of whether they are primary, secondary, or tertiary and that we must secondary sources regardless of their reliability. Source is one noun, and secondary source is a noun phrase, so we must not treat the word as '"sources". Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template.

I agree with removing the comma, but not the other change. Being a high visibility template about Wikipedia policy, it isn't trivial to change it, and I'd prefer to see some clear consensus before doing the work. Opening a discussion at wt:Notability#Template:Notability edit request. fredgandt 09:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree the comma removal is fine, but I don't agree with the language change. It seems more diffuse than "may not". --MASEM (t) 17:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Comma removed per request and agreement. I'll keep an eye on this for further discussion about the wording, and if consensus is reached in favour, I'll do what is agreed. fredgandt 00:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Find sources

Could someone change the template so that the "find sources" external link creates a search query that excludes parenthetical disambiguators.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be simple by changing {{find sources mainspace}} to {{find sources mainspace|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}. But the template is usually used on low-notability topics where searches may be swamped by irrelevant results. {{Title disambig text}} can select a disambiguator. How about using it as a separate part of the search? Compare these for Hate You (Daredevils song):

Find sources: "Hate You (Daredevils song)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR

Find sources: "Hate You" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR

Find sources: "Hate You" "Daredevils song" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR

Find sources: "Hate You" Daredevils song – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR

The last one without quotation marks on the disambiguator works well. I think that will often be the case. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I like the last one, I think it is the most useful in this context (considering that the presence of a disambiguator implies that there are going to be irrelevant results without it). Implemented something like {{find sources mainspace|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}|{{Title disambig text|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}? —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 11:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We should also bear in mind that with some pages the text in parentheses is actually part of the title and not a disambiguator, e.g. Good Riddance (Time of Your Life). It would not be easy for a template or Lua module to determine which parenthesised terms are disambiguators and which are not. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Such titles are rare and the last method will still work well but probably a little worse than quoting the whole title:

Find sources: "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR

Find sources: "Good Riddance" Time of Your Life – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR

In this example you may have to go far down in the search pages to see a difference. There could be an optional parameter to specify a search but maybe it would rarely be used. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough to me. The place to fix this is at Module:Find sources, for all source-finding templates. I'll have a look at this later on today. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this is now implemented. There's an example at the current revision of Hate You (Daredevils song). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Subcategories by type

This template does not correctly put pages in the topic-specific subcategories of Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability, as the documentation claims. The subcategories are currently empty. Is this a broken template that needs to be fixed, or was there an agreement somewhere to no longer apply these subcategories (in which case the documentation is outdated)? —swpb^T 15:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoa I wasn't even aware of the sub-categories. As far as I know, the template is only supposed to put in only inside the Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. Do we really need the subcategories? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I would find the subcategories useful, yes—as long as the pages also remain in the parent category. —swpb^T 18:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The page history [1] shows the system existed for a few days in February 2011. The revert refers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive674#Violating of editing restrictions by Rich Farmbrough (again). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so if we don't know why this subject category system was never completely implemented, would anyone be opposed to implementing it now? All pages will of course remain in Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability, they will just also be placed in the subject categories when such a parameter is provided. —swpb^T 18:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 October 2016

Please change the original code:
Code removed for navigability.

to the following:
Code removed for navigability.

The difference is "[[WP:Notability]]" to "[[WP:GNG]]" in the 9th line of the code.

^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (talk · contribs) 06:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed code. Per WP:TESTCASES, please place your suggestion in the template sandbox. I'll do so shortly — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Done, don't think this was controversial given the link text. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Propose to implement sub-categorization by subject that was started and never finished

Per the above conversation, I propose that this template be modified to populate subject-specific subcategories of Articles with topics of unclear notability, using the currently supported unnamed arguments, in addition to its current populating of All articles with topics of unclear notability and the month categories. Exiting subject-specific subcategories of Articles with topics of unclear notability with supported arguments include:

• Astronomical object articles with topics of unclear notability‎, to be populated by argument Astro
• Biography articles with topics of unclear notability‎, to be populated by argument Bio, Biography, or Biographies
• Book articles with topics of unclear notability‎, to be populated by argument Book or Books
• Event articles with topics of unclear notability‎, to be populated by argument Event or Events
• Film articles with topics of unclear notability‎, to be populated by argument Film, Films, Movie, or Movies
• Geography articles with topics of unclear notability‎, to be populated by argument Geo, Geographic, Geography, Place, or Places
• Lists with topics of unclear notability‎, to be populated by argument List or Lists
• Music articles with topics of unclear notability‎‎, to be populated by argument Music
• Neologisms articles with topics of unclear notability‎‎, to be populated by argument Neologisms
• Number articles with topics of unclear notability‎‎, to be populated by argument Numbers
• Organization articles with topics of unclear notability‎‎, to be populated by argument Companies, Corp, Institutions, Org, Organisations, or Organizations
• Products articles with topics of unclear notability‎‎, to be populated by argument Products
• Sport articles with topics of unclear notability‎, to be populated by argument Sport or Sports

More subject categories and arguments may be added later, I just want to get agreement first to enable the ones for which arguments are currently supported. —swpb^T 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I came here to find these categories and was surprised to find they weren't functioning, so I'd defitely support this. (Please include Category:Academics articles with topics of unclear notability, though!) Joe Roe (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding argument for periodicals and other media

Would it be possible to add an argument for media to direct readers to Wikipedia:Notability (media) when this template is used on articles about magazines and other periodicals, etc.? The "Books" argument takes the reader to WP:NBOOK and the notability criteria for books is different. Right now, the default seems to be to link to WP:GNG, but there are more specific criteria for magazines, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability tags restored on articles after AfD

Some people think that an AfD discussion should answer the question of topic notability sufficiently to remove a notability tag.  Yet some editors persist in demanding notability tags after a no-consensus AfD.  An administrator once told me that the normal process is to remove the tag after an AfD, but refused to intervene in an article that was re-tagged, leaving the question open.  RFC reopened 09:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC), originally started by Unscintillating (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If the tag existed on the article before the AFD, and the AFD (arguable on notability issues rather than, say, WP:NOT, closed no consensus (rather than keep)) then the tag's use is still valid. It's just inappropriate to immediately retag for AFD due to that. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

How is a tag that is not actionable, a valid tag?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Tag may be valid as more information comes to light and circumstances change. Some articles go through multiple AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC).

Which notability tags are we talking about? An AfD may determine that the topic of the article is notable enough for WP to have an article about it... but the existing article (ie the text and sourcing currently in the article) may still need work. The topic may be notable, but the article may not properly establish that notability. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• That is a good point, but WP:Notability is not a content guideline.  As for applicable cases, I have some in mind, but at this point any cases at all that justify restoring the notability tag after an AfD I'd like to see.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Unscintillating's right, Blueboar, a topic is either notable or not; the current state of our article doesn't affect notability in any way. Having said that, Unscintillating, a "no consensus" AfD close is not a justification to remove any tags, just a return to the prior-to-the-AfD status quo; the questions remain unsettled. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Remember that for us, notability is "presumed" and that presumption can be challenged. A topic may be put to AFD and !voted to be kept because editors then though it was notable, but five years later, perceptions may have changed even if the article and its sources didn't, and a second AFD may have it !voted for deletion. However, that should be a good enough amount of time between AFDs to question that, as this reflects the idea that consensus can change and long-term patterns of WP editors' base, rather than anything directly related to the topic itself. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

By that viewpoint, notability tags are never actionable, because we have to keep them there in case consensus changes in five years.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No, not in the scenario given. I tag an article with the notability cleanup tag, someone else takes it to AFD, and the consensus is to keep, notability is shown. At that stage, the notability tag is no longer appropriate to keep on the article in the short term. If the AFD closed as no consensus, meaning that the question of notability wasn't resolved immediately, then the tag should stay. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Remove Tags should not be used to shame an article. If the article survives AFD then it should be presumed to have enough notability not to be eternally consigned to having a tag on it. If editors still think it is un-notable then there are other options (e.g. taking it to another AFD and deletion review). AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If an AFD started on notability concerns and closed as no consensus, that does not mean notability guidelines have been met. Keep in mind that notability is a presumption, and a "non-consensus" AFD is not gaining consensus that that presumption is met, nor that it wasn't met. So the tag absolutely still applies. We want to alert readers/editors that this still needs the sourcing to firm up its claim to notability so that if/when it is taken to AFD, a more concrete "keep" can be made. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Using that logic any notability afd that closes as no consensus should be tagged. That would be a lot of articles, some of which would probably never gain a consensus one way or the other no matter how many times they are put up for AFD. Tagging an article with {{notability}} is essentially a precursor to an AFD. Once it has gone to AFD the discussion is as much over the tag as the existence of the article. A no consensus for delete is basically a no consensus on the notability tag and therefore it should revert to the state before the tag was added. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
      • A "no consensus" at AFD is both no consensus to delete, nor to keep. We only keep because we'd prefer not to delete topics that might be able to be expanded. Now, I would agree adding this template shortly after an article has ended at "no consensus" at AFD is very BITEY. (A year later , not so much). But if the template already exists, there is clearly no need to remove it, and in the same vein rushing to take it to AFD again is also inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
        • The question is not explained by WP:BITE, which involves newcomers.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Best case scenario someone adds this tag to an article they think does not meet the notability requirements in the hope that an editor can provide enough evidence that it does and it can then be removed. Worst case (assuming no deliberate disruption) an editor adds it to an article they think does not meet the notability requirements but can't be bothered doing the work taking it to AFD or adding sources themselves. Either way it is an optional step in the deletion process. Therefore the presence of the tag is also part of the AFD discussion and a "no consensus" close would also mean no consensus on having the tag. There are plenty of other more specific tags available that could be used if the article still has problems and someone feels it must be tagged. AIRcorn (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not just demonstrate notability and be done with it? Bright☀ 08:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)