Template talk:Notability/Archive 5

Edit request on 23 December 2011
Now that Notability (astronomical objects) has been adopted, I would like to request adding an optional 'Astro' argument to the notability template.

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Anomie⚔ 17:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Making it more convenient to find sources
I really like the template they use over at the AfD discussions. How about adding it to the template? It would make it easier to actually look for those reliable, secondary sources.

I was playing around in my sandbox and added this line to the bottom-ish part of the source text:

It makes the template look like this:

What do you think? Braincricket (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would be helpful and appropriate. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to request that the template be incorporated, per the proposal above. I think this change would help transform the template from a "badge of shame" into a resource for establishing notability. Regards. Braincricket (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Killiondude (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that there was an RfC two years ago that spoke against adding links to search engines in the unreferenced/refimprove templates: Template talk:Refimprove. Amalthea 14:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Ideally, it might be better to use a link to a Wikipedia lookup tool that employs the passed article name to suggest sources. There is a Help:Reliable sources wizard, but it is still under construction. We've also got the Search template that includes independent commercial sources. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for bringing that to my attention—I was unaware than an RfC took place regarding a virtually identical proposal. My original rationale was that since it's only a short step from a tag to a PROD or AfD nomination, and since  is used at AfD discussions, why not save a step and include it on the template? (I have used  on a couple occasions to find "low-hanging fruit" and save an article from outright deletion at AfD.) In retrospect, maybe my reasoning/proposal was a bit naive. Some good points were brought up at the RfC, namely a) templates in the article are not the same as templates in the talk page, or in the Wikipedia namespace, and b) Wikipedia should not publicly endorse one commercial search engine over others. It seems consensus is against embedding , as I proposed.


 * There must be a way to address some of the issues brought up at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_18 without violating the spirit of the RfC consensus. Maybe that's a discussion for another day. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request that the change made above be reverted. Template:Find sources states (in bold print) that it "should not be used in articles themselves." I probably should have done my homework before making my previous request. Oops. Braincricket (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ . Amalthea  10:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting notability guidelines for Skateboarders
They don't have notability guidelines for skateboarders in sports and there are so many pages (BLP's) of skateboarders who've done absolutely nothing but they can have a Wikipedia page whereas many successful actors (if they don't have 3 significant roles in 3 significant films) get deleted. StewartNetAddict (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a look at WP:NSPORTS and see if it makes sense to add a set of guidelines there for skateboarders. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions about notability categories
What is the relationship between the topic subcategories of Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability and ? For example:
 * Does tagging an article with put the article in Category:Music articles with topics of unclear notability?
 * Since the template documentation mentions, should there be a related category?
 * Since there is Category:Fiction articles with topics of unclear notability‎, should the documentation mention ?
 * Why is there both Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability and Category:TV articles of unclear notability‎?

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Add journal guideline
Could someone add the following piece of code
 * academic journals
 * academic journal
 * journals
 * journal            = notability guideline for academic journals

to the template? Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about describing it as a guideline when Notability (academic journals) isn't a guideline. Perhaps it might be better to use some alternative phrasing? I don't know what to suggest though. Tra (Talk) 21:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, it's still classified as an essay, despite years of service as a guideline. Maybe it's just time to re-submit it for guideline status (ah the wonders of bureaucracy). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of tag in article at AfD
Is it permissible to delete the tag, if the article is the subject of an ongoing AfD? Or if the AfD is that same month as the date of the tag (I recognize, that where the tag was applied earlier, it may be helpful for !voters to see how long the article has been tagged, without being improved beyond its present state). I would think that if the tag is the same month as the AfD, deletion of the tag should be acceptable as it adds nothing, but am interested in hearing any contrary views.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Removal of the tag while the very issue that it discusses is still active is actively counterproductive. I'd love to hear the rationale behind this proposal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. There are multiple reasons, not just WP:N concerns, to take something to AfD, and whether or not AfD collectively decides that the article has such severe notability establishment-and-documentation problems that it must be deleted immediately as essentially irreparable, is an entirely separately question from whether it has any notability-related problems at all. The tag and the AfD action are not redundant, just inter-relating. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  11:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 April 2012
Please insert the following lines in the ambox: list lists = notability guideline for stand-alone lists

RockMagnetist (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ ‑Scottywong | chatter _  02:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! RockMagnetist (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Parameter cleanup
While the existing parameters all need to continue to be supported (unless someone cleans up via AWB or a bot), we don't need the /doc to independently mention every variant (plurals? really?) much less advise upper case, which virtually no one on WP ever uses for parameter names. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  10:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing type
We're missing a major type of notability problem, namely fan-gushing (or even CoI-motivated) independent articles on non-notable episodes, issues, and other sub-components of a series or franchise or other larger work or entity (TV show episodes, comic book issues, podcast episodes, songs on albums, photos in an exhibit, paintings by an artist, random executives at a company, subsidiaries, machine parts, etc.) I'm sure there must be an applicable guideline on this somewhere, but I'm so tired of trying to memorize guidelines I'm not sure what it might be. Someone who spends a lot more time cleaning up after fanboys and PR flacks around here than I do (my janitorial time is more spent sweeping up after excessively geeky specialists who forget that this is a generalist encyclopedia, not an extension of their academic journal, and who are often the exact same offenders, editing in a different topic) can probably weigh in usefully here. I'm not sure what parameter I'd create for this; subtopic might do it, and tie in with the merge sentiment expressed by. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability for company
It's very easy to use "company" instead of "companies" in this template, such as Amazonica. Could "company" be added as another parameter that would show the notability guideline for companies and organizations? Or is there an easy way to see which templates have an invalid parameter so we could fix the articles? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"Section" parameter
Am I correct that there is no parameter that applies the "Notability" tag to a single section rather than an entire page? It seems to me that pop culture subjects are especially prone to the addition of spurious sections. It would be helpful if those sections could be identified by tag. Dementia13 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Notability is wikijargon for "qualifies for its own, separate, stand-alone article". Since a section isn't a separate, stand-alone article, it's not really sensible to complain that the non-whole-page doesn't deserve to be its own whole page.
 * You might be looking for something like Trivia or Off-topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this template's documentation page be modified to say a notability tag cannot be added to an article that has survived AfD? 23:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as RfC creator. The page for the template states that you should not edit war over this template, instead a notability decision can be made at Notability/Noticeboard or at AfD.  I believe the flip side of that is the statement that if an article has survived at AfD, it has been determined to be notable.  (AfD is nothing more than a notability discussion that results in the deletion of non-notable pages)  If editors feel that the AfD outcome is incorrect, they can suggest a merge, which uses another tag, or they can start a new AfD.  (If they feel the administrator made the wrong decision they should take it to DRV)  I started this RfC in response to a dispute on this question, but won't link to the dispute unless asked since I feel this discussion should be on the overriding concept. Ryan Vesey 23:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - We presume notability; this means that something survived AFD years ago on a claim of notability doesn't mean it still is determined to pass notability standards today. It is bad faith for an editor to re-challenge that notability so short a period after an AFD (like, in the few weeks or months), but that type of problem is a behavioral one, not one for content/inclusion policy/guideline.  --M ASEM  (t) 23:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify? What do you mean we presume notability?  Your argument implies that we don't.  If something survived AfD years ago, it was determined that the topic was notable.  Notability is not temporary, so the subject cannot have lost it's notability; however, it is correct that the discussion may have ended with the incorrect result that the subject was notable.  In that case, consensus must change and that consensus should come in the form of a new AfD.  Given the current instructions in the documentation, consensus to remove the tag should come through a keep outcome in an AfD, a discussion at the notability noticeboard, or consensus on the talk page.  If the article has just survived an AfD, it seems silly to rediscuss it at either the noticeboard or the talk page. Ryan Vesey 23:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability, as defined by the english language, is something that is not explicitly measured; instead, per either the GNG or through SNGs, we assess what sources say and make a consensus-based judgement call that we believe this topic to be notable at that point in time. The same decision process at a later point in time may decide that notability is no longer justified (perhaps due to whom participates, perhaps due to changes in other policy or guidelines, etc.) When we say "notability is not temporary", that means that we don't consider that if something is not talked about presently that it wasn't important in the past; e.g. the Roman Empire doesn't exist today, but it doesn't mean it wasn't notable at one point.  But, our assessment of notability might change. Yes, it is bad faith that as a participant (and likely !voting opposing in the AFD) and then immediately tagging the article with a notability tag once the AFD closes.  But, 6 monhts, a year down the road, the question is fair to raise if the editor doesn't think anyone has really addressed the points. Of course, remember that AFD closers are to look at past AFDs to consider what decisions were made there, and if someone's just being stupidly persnickity about that, then those arguments can be ignored.  But notability can always be requestioned in good faith. --M ASEM  (t) 01:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the editor that tagged the article that sparked this RfC, but it wasn't a bad faith edit; the AfD was closed with "no prejudice towards a future merge discussion" which to me seemed to convey that there was no consensus either for or against notability, just that the AfD's consensus was to not delete the article. The closing admin doesn't seem to disagree with this rationale. - SudoGhost 01:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not bad faith, then. It would be if it was keep with no qualifications, and you plunked a notability tag right then, clearly against consensus and the closer's opinion.  --M ASEM  (t) 00:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - If an article has survived an AfD, it does not mean by default that the article is notable. This is evidenced not only by the fact that AfD'd articles are commonly deleted at subsequent AfDs, but also the fact that an AfD is not the only avenue for an article with notability issues, which is indicated by the template itself (deletion is third on the list of things that happen to articles with notability issues).  An article can survive an AfD to later be merged, and is especially true when admins that close AfDs specifically say that merging is a possible option in their closing comments.  The notability template is used to indicate that the article has possible notability issues, and this does not cease to be true merely because of a previous AfD.  It is considered good practice to give editors time to improve an article before attempting to merge or delete an article, and the notability tag lets editors and readers know that the issue exists.  To remove the ability to notify editors of this issue would make it more likely that articles would be deleted that might otherwise be kept if editors had known of the notability issues and had time to improve the article. - SudoGhost 23:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand your argument. How does the fact that an article is kept at AfD not mean that the consensus is that the article is notable?  Adding the notability tag after an AfD that results in keep is adding it against consensus. Ryan Vesey 23:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not inaccurate, and I don't want to repeat myself a third time. A keep at AfD does not by default mean that an article is notable.  Just because an article is not deleted does not mean it is notable.  Unless you can show me something that says otherwise, the fact that an article is not deleted does not mean an article cannot be merged, especially when the closing admin specifically points out a merge possibility.  Why would an admin say this if notability was the consensus?  If that were the case, the admin would be completely out of line in even suggesting that a merge was a possibility.  I'd prefer to think a closing admin knew what he was talking about, so the more logical conclusion is that there is no clear consensus that the article is somehow notable. - SudoGhost 00:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a comment: the wording of the RfC is "survive AfD", not "kept at AfD", and an article can survive AfD if it is closed as "no consensus". Braincricket (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for three reasons. First, because it's established custom and practice that AfDs expire through effluxion of time.  The fact that something was kept in a 2004 AfD doesn't and shouldn't mean I can't challenge its notability now!  Second, because the absolute last thing Wikipedia needs is more rules about what editors aren't allowed to do.  And third, because it would lead to increased AfD nominations, when an editor prevented from adding a notability tag could simply start an AfD instead; and AfD is already creaking at the seams with the volume of articles passing through it.  Low-participation discussions are often relisted several times nowadays.— S Marshall  T/C 00:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with modifications If an AfD was started on the basis of a lack of notability, and the article was kept (lack of notability was refuted), then such a tag should be removed and not readded. However, the proposal as written is far less narrow than that. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Although incorrectly stated, my original intention was for it to mean AfD closed as keep. Is that more along the lines of what you are thinking? Ryan Vesey 04:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Support anything to stop these horrible deletions. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  15:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary Any one can also remove the tag too, so we do not really need a policy to enforce this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Opppose The standards are different. The standard at AfD is often whether the subject IS notable, not whether the article is sufficient to meet the notability criteria in its current iteration. As far as I know there is no tag for "The subject appears to be notable, but the article fails to adequately establish that", and so this template ends up as the stand in. Often the article is improved in a case like this to use the evidence presented at the AfD discussion, but the article not ending up improved is frequent enough that I think the rule is a bad idea. Monty  845  06:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Many times notability is still in doubt when an article survives AfD, even if closed as "keep", because some editors don't take our notability guidelines seriously and the community's interpretation of these guidelines changes over time. Articles do get deleted on notability grounds after they have survived a prior AfD, and this tag should be used whenever an article's notability is in doubt, regardless of past consensus. Back when I was more active on the project I would routinely patrol this tag and I would find numerous examples of appropriate tagging after a past AfD.  Them From  Space  20:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)*
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Journals?
Although the template documentation mentions a Journals parameter, I don't see that parameter in the template code. Should this be removed from the documentation or added to the template code? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I didn't see any response, I removed the Journals parameter from the documentation. GoingBatty (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Grammatically incorrect
The first sentence under Usage is grammatically incorrect, containing a gratuitous indefinite article. The relevant phrase should read, "...top of any page whose article subject is..."  Cottonshirt  τ   17:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * the typo on Template:Notability/doc as you requested. Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of this template on BLPs for several years
I consider the use of this template on articles about living people possibly uncomfortable for the subject. Nevertheless, it is sometimes unavoidable and good. What I wonder though if it would be possible to try to reduce the time these templates are displayed on such articles, either by providing a way to tag the respective talk page instead, or to set up a policy of not letting those templates linger for too long on the articles.

I am not talking about having it there for a few weeks or months. But in some extreme cases we have persons being notability-templated since December 2007, i.e. for more than five years -- almost half of the age of Wikipedia. I wonder if we could avoid it. And I wonder if anyone thinks like me that we even should avoid it.

Maybe I am missing related discussions, I checked the archive of this talk but didn't find anything.

My concrete suggestions would be either to:
 * in cases of BLPs, make an alternative template that can be used on the talk page in cases where the notability template has been on the article for a long time (6 months?)
 * allow the notability template to be simply removed after some time has passed and no action has been initiated to change or discuss the situation for a long time (6 months?)

Opinions? --denny vrandečić (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge from chemical-importance
It doesn't appear that chemical-importance is covered by this template. Should be a relatively easy merge. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have put it up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Up for discussion
... at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_26. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please remove TFD header.
Since the TFD was closed as keep, someone needs to remove the header linking to the TFD. Chutznik (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is some questioning of the closing at User talk:Codename Lisa. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I think the close was rather premature despite the overwhelming support to keep the template as there was a still a discussion/proposal active.  Jay Jay What did I do? 01:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Like I said in my talk page, a NAC closure is wide open to oversight; however, a WP:SNOW-based decision always consists of terminating an active discussion whose course is highly unlikely to change. In other words, you have your overwhelming "Support all"s. Well, enjoy! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While it may be true that a WP:SNOW close ends a discussion, an WP:NAC should only be used in non-controversial circumstances to do so. I'm not sure how anyone would interpret cutting an ongoing discussion off after 4 opinions to be "non-controversial" (the second part of the discussion). Besides which, the actual primary discussion included a handful of delete and strong delete opinions so it was by no means a definitive WP:SNOW close anyway. So if an admin comes here to make this protected edit, could they please instead reverse the closure of Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 26 and allow the discussion to run its course. The closer's responses asking if editors "want medals" for querying the close speak volumes. If nothing else, there's clearly no consensus for this edit to a protected template, so that's a problem right there. Stalwart 111  02:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Instead, I've reverted the closure, per comments above timed after 01:00 UTC and User talk:Codename Lisa. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)