Template talk:Notability/Archive 6

TFD closure
I've now closed the discussion Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 26 as an overwhelming keep. There were three options suggested by Alan_Liefting: Of these 1 and 2 gained good support and need to be implemented. Option 3 did not gain support. A forth option received good support. These options now need to be implemented.--Salix (talk): 06:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Have a bot notify the article creator for past and future additions of the template (this is being worked an at present)
 * 2) Warn the editor if the template is about to be added without the appropriate notability guideline parameter (org, bio, books, film etc) and a new parameter of "reason". The cleanup template has this sort of funtionality.
 * 3) The oldest ones should be trickled through to AfD, AFC or user namespace (somehow)
 * 1) Add find sources to the bottom of this template in small print the same way it is used on the AFC submission template.
 * 2) Have a bot add a find sources notice to the talk pages of articles that have this template.
 * I've now added a link, per consensus and edit request at Template talk:Find sources. Note this is a little problematic as the date appears after the find sources link. --Salix (talk): 07:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like find sources needs a recode. As well as the problems with implementation we had here, I'm seeing a lot of redundant code use. I'll have a go at making a new meta-template in the style of user multi - that should solve both of these problems in one go. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Find sources link
Either the edit adding this link to this template needs to be reverted or the Find sources template needs to have the check removed that prevents it from being used in articles. We currently have thousands of articles displaying an big unsightly red message that means nothing to the general reader. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done by JamesBWatson. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not changed the check in find sources so it can be turned off using the  parameter. This allows the Find sources to be used in the  per the TFD discussion above.--Salix (talk): 11:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Categorising by topic
I have closed Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 26 as "no consensus", because the proposed renaming of Category:TV articles of unclear notability to Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability‎ would require changes to this template which would have an impact on all topics.

The situation is that this template currently has an undocumented  parameter, which as currently implemented would place the article in an additional Foo articles of unclear notability. There are lots of empty subcats of this type, except that they are named Foo articles with topics of unclear notability.

This could be resolved with a one-line tweak to the template, and an addition to the documentation.

However, I wonder if this is really workable. The template is usually added through WP:TWINKLE, which I suppose could be adjusted to cope wit the extra parameter, tho it would be a bit complicated. It seems to me that if we are going to go down the road of categorising by topic, then it should be done by using the same parameter as applies to the specific notability guideline.

For example, currently alters the template to display a link to Notability (people) rather than the generic Notability. If we anted the page to be placed in Category:Biography articles with topics of unclear notability, we'd need to tag the page as, which seems silly.

If editors do want to categorise by topic, wouldn't it be better to make a more radical change to the template so that does the categorisation?

And if so, should there by monthly sub-categories for each topic, such as Category:Biography articles with topics of unclear notability from March 2013? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See a couple of sections above. I've modified the sandbox to place in Category:Biography articles with topics of unclear notability etc. There are some issues with categorisation which need to be ironed out but in principle it seems workable.  Monthly sub-categories for each topic seem a bit like over cat for me.--Salix (talk): 13:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Topic parameter not sorting articles into the subcategories
The topic parameter (org, film etc)is not sorting articles into the subcategories. For example Archon Systems Inc should be in Category:Organization articles with topics of unclear notability‎ but is not. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

While we are at it can it be set up so that it is entered as " ". I may want a " " parameter added as well per the current discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you set Organization the article will go to dated category but  doesn't have any means to send the article to an undated category. Where have you seen this behaviour described? -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not so much described but it is apparent from the 17 empty topic sub-categories in Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. The chemistry topic category has a different template. Have not checked out the Tolkien one yet. Can we change the template so the topic categories are not dated? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Category:Organization articles with topics of unclear notability states "To add an article to this category, tag it with . (Or if "Organization" is a standard argument for you can use .)  The other categories have similar descriptions.  I think that using these categories may help interested editors work on resolving the backlog or articles within their area of expertise (e.g. astronomy, books, film, music)  GoingBatty (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This will be quite a complex change, so it's probably best to work it out in the sandbox first. Once you're sure everything is working, please reactivate the edit protected template. Also, it might be a good idea to wait until the end of the TfD discussion too, as that might affect what changes we can make. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've now modified the sandbox to add placement in topic categories based on the first parameter and modified the Template:Notability/testcases to add a few missing cases.


 * The mapping is not perfect as there are redlink categories, Category:Astronomical object articles with topics of unclear notability, Category:Geography articles with topics of unclear notability, Category:Neologisms articles with topics of unclear notability, Category:Number articles with topics of unclear notability and categories which are not filled: Category:Fiction articles with topics of unclear notability‎, Category:Media articles with topics of unclear notability‎, Category:Technology articles with topics of unclear notability‎. The sandbox also uses Category:Unknown topic articles of unclear notability for when the first parameter is not set.--Salix (talk): 13:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I added two testcases where it's inside Multiple issues. If this sandbox version is deployed, will it still display properly when Multiple issues contains the notability parameter?  GoingBatty (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware of this discussion when I posted below at. Some of what I have written there is relevant to the discussion here, particularly my suggestion that that if we are going to categorise by topic, there should be one parameter which sets both the category and the specific notability guideline. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there should be one parameter that categorizes and provides the link to the specific guideline. Having the "Unknown" category would then make it easier to find those that aren't categorized.  GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

cleaning up categories and template arguments
As noted above some changes are needed to category system

Biggest question is what to do with fiction/media/tv/broadcast.--Salix (talk): 12:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice job putting this together! There are a lot of articles about television episodes/shows/characters with the template, so I say keep the TV category.  Fiction (e.g. characters) is different than non-fiction media (e.g. radio stations), so I suggest those two be separated.  One of my bot tasks has been to populate the Notability parameter based on the infobox - see User:BattyBot/Notability.  Once the template has been updated, I'll update my bot's list (suggestions welcome), and then we can look to see if any more categories should be created.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the difference between companies and organizations? Should we separate them into two categories or just one corresponding to Notability (organizations and companies)?--Salix (talk): 21:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that the goal of the categorization should be to encourage people to use their areas of expertise to determine whether the notability tag should be removed, if the article should be improved, or if it should be sent to AFD. For example, some people might be more comforatble with music articles than with chemistry articles.  Having said that, would the editors in WikiProject Companies and Wikiproject Organizations want them separated?  GoingBatty (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

OK I think I'm ready to go live with this now. Initially it will have the following cats A couple I've though might be an idea are but are not implemented yet.

It does involve a few minor changes. Recreation of Category:TV articles with topics of unclear notability‎ which was recently deleted. Changing the categories when the  parameter is specified from  to  which impacts 5 pages. It might be an idea to deprecate the  parameter as its been very rarely used.--Salix (talk): 16:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you use Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability‎ instead. GoingBatty (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think it may be better to remove "with topics" from each category name, since it's the article that is of unclear notability, not topics within the article. Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Googling
Am I the only one who has a problem with what amounts to Wikipedia’s tacit endorsement of Google™ as the go-to media corporation of choice? Not only as the default search engine, but particularly, having links labelled “news,” “books” as well—essentially being used as genericized trademarks without specifying they’re part of a specific company’s Google News and Google Books services. I understand this could quickly become cluttered with a million different search links, but, still, I find the unquestioning embrace of non-free platforms troubling. —Wiki Wikardo 07:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's more that they just happen to be the broadest results set given a specific type of search - if they are what consensus considers the best for searching news, or searching academic papers, or the like, then naturally they will have several services offered, but otherwise shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of their services. --M ASEM (t) 13:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion regarding closing the Notability Noticeboard...
Depending on how this linked Village Pump discussion plays out, it may be necessary to update the text of the Template:Notability section.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, regardless, I'd like to suggest suggest adding qualifications that if an article is noted as falling within the scope of specific WikiProject(s) it would be prudent to seek feedback through them before elevating the discussion to WP:AfD. Especially if — as appears likely — the current option of posting to the Notability Noticeboard ceases to exist.


 * If consensus fails to be reached through the articles talk-page by requesting feedback from the relevant WikiProject(s) it would then be sensible to elevate to broader forums—such as AfD and/or whatever page is deemed best to redirect the current Notability Noticeboard to.


 * Otherwise, it seems sensible—to me, IMHO—to let those with specific interests in the relevant genre(s) weigh in first.


 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and took the initiative to add a line to the doc.
 * "If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group."
 * Phrased as a soft suggestion/reminder (as opposed to a commandment) it seems benign to me. Of course that's just my opinion. If others feel it was too bold, feel free remove it pending further discussion here.
 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The Notability Noticeboard was closed as a result of the above mentioned village pump proposal, and I removed the link accordingly.

I think it makes sense to suggest soliciting input from from relevant WikiProjects when discussing notability, and indeed, suggested the same (general concept) at the village pump discussion; some agreed, but at lease one editor disagreed, believing input from WikiProjects would be too biased (towards keeping potentially non-notable content) to be helpful in most notability discussions. ʍw 14:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Some wikiprojects are very helpful (I can cite the video games one as one that can rationally discuss this, they aren't the only ones) but there are other projects that resist attempts to apply global-wide notability to their own project. Hence why we can't just toss the question to the wikiprojects - it needs to be global discussion. --M ASEM (t) 15:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Mail announcement to the creator of article
Notability templates can be missed by the creator of the article if he/she doesn't enter with password and check the watchlist. Thus I think the default option should be that an announcement regarding the positioning of the template would be sent to the creator email Shoshie8 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove 'general'
This was raised a few years ago but didn't really get resolved. This maintenance tag is used on articles where notability is doubted, and the link in the template takes you to Notability, but it still states "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline". While there are specific tags for subject-specific guidelines, this template (correctly) links to Notability rather than WP:GNG and should state "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines", given that the GNG is only part of the notability guidelines. In short, the text that is linked should match the destination of the link. --Michig (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good change - it broadens the usefulness of the template.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 March 2014
When I click on the "news" link to look for sources, Google displays an error message: "The search option you have selected is currently unavailable." I don't know if that means it will be available, but I suspect they changed the syntax from what is used in this template. I have no idea how to go about fixing this, even if I could, so I leave it to those who understand the search syntax to fix. Thanks. - Gorthian (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Gorthian (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It may be related to a relatively recent change that Google did in f'ing up its ability to search news (can really only easily search the last year or so now), but I would have to investigate more. --M ASEM (t) 06:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Google apparently removed its original News Archive search in 2011, and recently introduced a new version of it here (instructions). This template is still trying to access the old version.  Little Mountain  5  07:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Well spotted - I've removed the link. I removed the Google News search link from the find sources family of templates a few months ago, but it seems I overlooked this one. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - Gorthian (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
I would like the following wikitext to be added to this template: Of course, this would be spread out over 2 lines. Could an admin/template editor reading this please add it? I think there are enough articles about journals that we should be able to use a specific notability template for them. Jinkinson  talk to me  23:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * notability (academic journals) =
 * academic journals = notability guideline for academic journals
 * The first of your two lines ends with nothing on the right-hand side of the equals sign, it's not clear to me what the purpose of this is. It might be best if you were to put your changes into the templates's sandbox and demonstrate at Template:Notability/testcases, see WP:TESTCASES. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added to the sandbox & testcases without the first equal sign. If this is added, I will be happy to have BattyBot update all the notability tags on pages with Infobox journal.  GoingBatty (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , Are you OK with the edits I made to the sandbox & testcases?  GoingBatty (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the testcase stuff looks good. Jinkinson   talk to me  02:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that it wasn't offering a contrast between live and sandbox, so I . Looks OK to me now. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- John of Reading (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just now see this (because of the flurry of edits of Battybot to journal articles). Personally, I have nothing against this. However, I think it is important to note that the template now says "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academic journals." Technically however, this is incorrect, because NJournals is not a guideline, but only an essay. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Cats
The categorization by guideline is broken. This is not my last name (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see from the history, I don't think the template has ever categorised by guideline. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)