User talk:Anon126/Explaining notability to newcomers

Added complexity vs. Avoiding the problem.
While this approach would be better than doing nothing, it is an approach which creates more complexity, without guaranteeing any results. Adding yet more complexity to facilitate the understanding of a Wikipedia-bastardized English term will not have the same effect as simply changing the words we use so that there is no more confusion. One is easier now, and generates a little more complexity. The other is harder now, but reduces complexity. While I would support this as an improvement, I don't see it as a solution. The only real solution I can see that is within Wikipedia's scope of control is to avoid the problem entirely and choose a title and description for the notability page which uses English words as English people expect them to be used. This will certainly cascade into other pages, to the irritation of some and the benefit of all.
 * It has been said that notability is the best single word to describe what Wikipedia seeks in terms of guidelines for encyclopedic suitability in regards to references. That may well be the case if you only consider single words, but there's no compelling reason why we cannot use more than one word to replace Wikipedia notability.  Arguments about brevity and buzzwords have to be balanced against a demonstrated historical track record of avoidable misunderstandings and misusages.  Since Wikipedia is supposed to be a place for collaborative work, I believe that we should act in the best interest of collaboration and sacrifice a little brevity to avoid at least some internal dissent.  Matthewhburch (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that changing the term is the best, but I don't envision the discussion resulting in a name change anytime soon. I was actually quite surprised that there were multiple failed attempts to change the name in the past, and I think that proves just how inert the name is.


 * I also agree that multiple-word terms should be considered. However, the hard requirement is that . Some of the proposals are merely nouns, like "article inclusion criteria," and saying, "This article does not meet the article inclusion criteria," is no simpler than saying, "This article does not meet the notability guidelines." (In anticipation of an objection to this claim, I note that both statements require a newcomer to read an explanation of the requirements, whatever they are called.)


 * Interestingly, while going through your posts on WT:N, I found a proposal of yours for "encyclopedic suitability". When I was going through the interlanguage links for inspiration from other Wikipedias, I found the Italian Wikipedia's quite interesting term "enciclopedicità" ("encyclopedicity", adjective "encyclopedic"). I originally thought that "not encyclopedic" was still somewhat insulting, but after further consideration I believe it is actually quite good: I've come to believe that a lot of non-notable topics are introduced because people don't understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I believe people understand that an encyclopedia is selective about its content. I still don't think it's good because it's essentially the positive version of WP:NOT.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Forgot to sign. Ping Matthewhburch.
 * Of all the potential short words or phrases I found that could be used to replace "notability", "encyclopedic suitability" seems to be one of the best. Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia, so it certainly makes a great deal of sense that data should meet "encyclopedic suitability" guidelines for inclusion.  The wording of WP:NOTEVERYTHING is actually a fine starting point to describing what belongs as well as what does not belong.  Touching on your lined-out statements, when we describe what Wikipedia is, and what it isn't, we can use the root word encyclopedia (and it's branchings) frequently without weakening what we are saying.  If someone comes to Wikipedia with no understanding of what an encyclopedia is, then that's a whole different story.  A definition of the word "encyclopedia" could not use the word encyclopedia because it's extremely poor form to describe a word using the word itself, but I don't think that is what you are implying.  It looks like you are just concerned that we might start using the word "encyclopedic" too much.  Am I understanding you correctly? Matthewhburch (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose yes, in response to your last question. I don't particularly like terms like "encyclopedic suitability" or even "article inclusion criteria" because, as people pointed out early on in the RfC, Wikipedia has many rules about what should be included.
 * I've been thinking about it some more, and I still like "notability" because it conveys the scope of the guideline: Article subjects must be worthy of note, either by virtue of the fact that it has been noted (under the GNG) or that it has received some high honor (subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:NMUSIC)., this must be demonstrated as I describe earlier, so I propose now the term demonstrable notability (or perhaps demonstr notability for the noun to make it easier, but still demonstrably notable for the adjective). I think that "not demonstrably notable" is less insulting (?) and that newcomers will better understand that it is based on an established standard.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Demonstrable Notability" or "Provable Notability" would both be better than what we have, but still would lead to the problem of people using short responses like "Non-notable" in a terse response that leads to new editor anger because they think they are being trolled. Using the word notability in the way Wikipedia does is just a tinderbox waiting for a spark.  It might be one of the best words to describe the needs of Wikipedia, but it has a lot of negative potential value as well.  The sparks are very common, unfortunately, and every little fire Notability starts is time and effort wasted, and more anger and frustration included in the process.  There are lots of ways we could potentially improve the negative emotional responses caused by the Notability page, but renaming it is the only way to fix it, IMHO.  No matter what you do, as long as the word Notability remains in the title of the page, people will start fights with new editors based on the poor/terse responses.  Matthewhburch (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)