Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Template:Pnc

This definition is a central part of Wikipedia's Notability guideline and changes should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability.

This is a great idea and the template should be included in every notability sub-page for consistency. However, inclusion of the words "multiple sources" is controversial and should be avoided until some resolution is possible. --Kevin Murray 15:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's only controversial among a small number of extreme inclusionists who want to do away with the "not a directory" provision. The chorus of welcome when Uncle G proposed this unambiguous definition was pretty loud. At present, changes to this template should be discussed at WT:N. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is patently untrue, and I'm very much against the shoehorning of this into subject-specific guideline pages where consensus does not exist for the wording. This will not happen as it did in December. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, the consensus has shifted and it seems clear to me that compromise is in order for now. If we can standardize the message at the various permutations, then if consensus shifts the benefits will flow to all pages.  It is time to look at what is possible rather than what may be ideal from our points of view.  --Kevin Murray 03:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the consensus? Point it out to me.  There is no standard, the "standard" failed miserably. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This wording has been in use for a long time, I see no consensus to water it down, and I absolutely agree that using a template for consistency is a great idea since it avoids separate arguments on many different notability pages. --Minderbinder 14:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This wording has been in place for a long time (as wiki-time goes) and the practice has been in use for even longer.  Notability has always been a proxy for sourcing and now we are trying to be clearer and more consistent about it.  Rossami (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe either of those things are true. Not even close to being true, in fact - the subject specific guidelines ruled the notability roost for a long time, and WP:N is relatively recent and still under a great deal of discussion and dispute.  To pretend this wording has consensus anywhere, let alone where it's being forced in by others, is puzzling at best. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I (and I believe Minder) were trying to say is that when you actually look at the subject-specific guidelines, they all incorporated basically this same principle. The variations in wording and, more importantly, in implementation were minor.  The re-consolidation of the related guidelines is recent and the optimal wording is still being worked out but the core principles are stable and no longer in serious dispute.  Rossami (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they really don't. Many don't mention this at all.  Some mention a similar one.  A few have the wording as advertised, and only WP:CORP is one that I believe was reached by true consensus and not with a shoot first, and don't bother asking questions later.  if you really think that there's wide consensus for the wording here, I'm awfully puzzled as to where you're seeing it, because it certainly doesn't exist at WP:N and has not even been discussed anywhere else. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We use a source count as a surrogate for encyclopedic suitability and label the process as notability. I don't particularly like it, but no one seems to have a better idea yet. Whether we call the standard notability or inclusion is irrelevant to addressing the flaws: (1) we don't have consensus on the source count and (2) non-trivial is too subjective of a term, which can only be defined in terms of equally subjective antonyms to the word trivial. Regardless of the flaws, we need some mechanism to defend WP from the flood of spam which could destroy the project. --Kevin Murray 17:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No we don't. We use a source count as one aspect of possible notability, and no one can even agree on what source count is appropriate, or if a source count is appropriate at all.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I added "preferably" because this source count can be useful but is not always necessary. According to Scientizzle at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), the "should" is meant to be read this way, but it's a lot clearer now. --NE2 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I built on NE2's change being a bit more specific about the count: (a) two or more, and (b) stating more clearly that the count is determined by the depth of coverage. Also changed from "non-trivial" to "substantial." This was thoroughly discussed as an option (along with others) in early March. Non-trivial seems to be weasely contrivance; why not use an english word? Consensus was not clearly for one word, but significantly for a replacement. --Kevin Murray 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea
If a subguideline ever (1) didn't refer back to WP:N or (2) appeared to contradict this primary notability criterion that might be a problem. However, the attempt to ram this paragraph in to every guideline, and indeed to expect the wording of those guidelines to change to accomodate a canned paragraph like this is an exceptionally poor idea. Mango juice talk 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mango, I would agree that it is not the perfect solution, but it seems better than the ongoing evolution of conflicting sub-criteria. Yes there could be more elegant language custom tailored to each page, but I don't see the risk supported by the reward.  Clearly we have significantly different messages at the various subpages.  See the quotations which I posted at WP:N talk this morning which clearly illustrates the disparity.  --Kevin Murray 18:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with "conflicting sub-criteria"; if we want to say that all incorporated communities, or monorail systems, or whatever are notable, that doesn't conflict with anything else, since the criteria are supposed to only tell us what's "notable", not "non-notable". --NE2 19:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In principle yes, but in practice several of the sub-pages are more restrictive than WP:N and than each other. The problem occurs whena  topic fits into multiple categories which is often the case.  Then conficting rule sets cause confusion.
 * Why should we say that certain things are automatically eligible for an article, when practically we can't write the article without attributable sources? An article built exclusively on primary research runs afoul of WP's core policies.  Even suggesting that primary research is acceptable already puts much of the notability infrastructure at odds with long-standing policy.  --Kevin Murray 19:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Easy - a subject may be appropriate for inclusion without sources, but may not be able to be sustained as an article long-term withoutn them. It's a continued confusion regarding notability and verifiability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very possible for a topic to not meet the "PNC" but still have sufficient attributable sources. --NE2 20:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What evolution? Forcing a wording based on a mysterious, nonexistant consensus on other pages is not good guideline-making. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Further editing to fine tune
Copy of conversations accompanying edits: Copied here by --Kevin Murray 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (cur) (last) 19:29, 8 April 2007 Kevin Murray (Talk | contribs) (OK. I disagree with the stability of non-trivial but that's a nit. I'm more concerned about making the quantity more clear.)
 * (cur) (last) 19:24, 8 April 2007 Black Falcon (Talk | contribs) (del one sentence: sources that do not establish notability may be added anytime, not necessarily after notability is proven)
 * (cur) (last) 19:24, 8 April 2007 Black Falcon (Talk | contribs) (rewording (re-adding multiple, nontrivial): the current version seems to deviate significantly from what was previously present (in various versions) at WP:N)

While the Falcon has a point in the longer term at WP:N, the PNC at WP:N during most of March and the beginning of April avoided non-trivial and multiple. And the various sub-pages have not all embraced these words. I prefer "two or more" as being more clear, and the justification for more is made further into the text. Non-trivial is a trivial issue over which I won't quibble. --Kevin Murray 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Template or not? - test case at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)
The template has been submitted to most subordinate pages where it has met controversy at all but two pages. The most contentious was at Wikipedia:Notability (music), where the page has been protected by an admin. He is suggesting a 48 hour cooling off period for comment etc. after which he will evaluate consensus. This seems like a good place to test the acceptance of the template concept, and I invite all of us to join in the discussion there. --Kevin Murray 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative text for template
The following was adapted from what has been at BIO and ORG for some time, and was based on the early March protected version of WP:N:

''A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,$[6]$ and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

Could this satisfy the concerns of the consensus builders? If not, could we fine tune this to address the pertinenht concerns? --Kevin Murray 19:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere, this creates a false pretense. Your wording implies that secondary sources of substantial quality are what constitutes notability. That's a failure - significant independent trivial coverage provides the same establishment of notability, and sources, again, are not the only thing that creates notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get your objection. I would say: "Secondary sources of substantial depth of coverage are what demonstrates notability."  Significant independent examples of trivial depth of coverage when combined may well constitute "substantial depth".  Who ever said that sources create notability, and why would you believe it?  SmokeyJoe 08:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't demonstrate notability - what happens, or what qualifies, demonstrates notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By what definition of notability does secondary sources not demonstrate notability? If secondary sources exist, then the subject has, undeniably, been noted.  I cannot guess what you mean by "what happens, or what qualifies, demonstrates notability"  What happens where, how?  Is there anything objective (useful) in this?  What qualifications are you refering to?  SmokeyJoe 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll adjust - secondary sources are not the only thing that demonstrate notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This leads to another problem: Notability is not a sufficient criteria.  WP:NOR says/implies that secondary sources are required.  Consequently, Notability is not a useful criterion.  So, what is your problem with the alternative text?  SmokeyJoe 01:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because notability and verifiability, while both being important concepts, are separate. Not everything that's notable is verifiable, not everything that's verifiable is notable.  Thus, we should not be judging a subject's notability based on its verifiability, much like we wouldn't in reverse.  The alternative text does just that, and fails to address the numerous issues already brought up ad nauseum. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree that notability is important. Why do you care about notable things that are not verifiable?  There is no assertion of judging notability based on verifiability – secondary sources and verifiability are not the same thing.  I don’t see how the alternative text does what you say it does.  What issues addressed by the existing text are not addressed by the alternative text?  Is it the reference to the more suitable action in the fourth sentence?  Recommendations don’t really belong in a criterion.  How about we work on the template sentence by sentence?  SmokeyJoe 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A question
If this is true, as Rossami says, then why have the template? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to WP:Notability
Seems wrong to me. The shoehorning of the template in particular makes the link that much worse, but it also gives the implication that WP:N is above the guidelines that this tag may exist in, which isn't true. The link is inappropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not unreasonable to expect the template on the primary notability criteria to include a link to our guideline on notability, if only as a convenience to the user. Tom Harrison Talk 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that, in the places where the tag is being placed, it's not pointing to what governs notability for that subject. It's pointing away from it, which is misleading and improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where would you like it to point instead? Tom Harrison Talk 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. It's hypertext; we should judiciously link wherever a link would be useful. Tom Harrison Talk 17:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If a link isn't useful, should we link to it? Given that a link to WP:N is more confusing than useful, it seems that it's a poor idea. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that a link to WP:N is more confusing than useful... - You're kidding right? You surely didn't mean to say that granting your conclusion as a premise, your conclusion logically follows? Tom Harrison Talk 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's confusing. It gives the false impression that WP:N is somehow above another guideline, which it isn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this template should link to WP:N. --Dragonfiend 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly it should link WP:N for further clarification, as available within the bullet points appended to the initial PNC paragraph. A less desirable option would be to include the bullet points in the template, but I think that goes too far.  --Kevin Murray 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromise & clarity
I don't see any reason for not being absolutely direct in stating the number of sources as two or more and including a clear and direct link back to WP:N. This nonsense about the guideline infrastructure not having an implied hierarchy is just more empty rhetoric from the voice of anti-notability (e.g., inclusion anarchy). The ongoing non sequitur just clouds the issues. However insistence on rigid wording is equally counterproductive--Kevin Murray 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I see no compromise whatsoever in your wording. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we try Jeff's proposed language as a starting point to see where consensus lies. If he is wrong then consensus rather than reversion may show us the way. Maybe Jeff could buy into the template concept and the edit wars could cease. Let the evolution slow down a bit. This language lasted about a month at WP:N without compromising the WP infrastructure. How about trying it out? Maybe we could take some baby steps toward the middle from here. --Kevin Murray 22:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to "buy into" the template given the history - in December 2006, an attempt to push the "primary notability criterion" into the subject-specific guidelines was made, and eventually removed from most of the guidelines. Since that didn't work, now the same proponents are trying to push a template - no thanks.  The template is anti-consensus, and still fails to reflect reality.  Even if my wording was adopted at WP:N, I'd still reject the use of the template anywhere else but there.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At least you're easy to please. --Kevin Murray 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Tom has accepted my offer and worked from Jeff's proposal rather than reverting. Thanks. I feel pretty good about this version. Although it prefaces with multiple, the text clearly allows for other than multiple, and gives good reasoning for how many we should seek? --Kevin Murray 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This version is simply Tom's version with your flowery language. The substance hasn't changed a bit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the debate. Mango juice talk 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In reverting badlydrawnjeff's middle ground version that I had restored, Kevin said: "An honorable person with complete opposition to the project should abstain from editing in the middle of an XfD". It seems to me that if jeff was really only concerned about getting this deleted, he would have been happy with the standard version (or whatever minor wording changes have happened lately) without the "one substantial" bit.  After all, the more extreme version is more likely to be deleted.  In good faith (I presume, on jeff's part) we tried to at least make the deletion discussion focused on the version most likely to be kept, despite that we both think deletion is probably the best way forward at this point.--ragesoss 04:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ragesoss, this has been a hugely contentious process over the last week. Please look at where the template started and how it now at least alludes to the possibility of single sourcing.  Jeff has opposed the template and its inclusion at all guideline pages.  I'm trying to find a middle ground here on the wording.  If you doubt my position, please read back through my position at WP:N from late February on, where I have supported the single source, but in order to have progress there should be some willingness to compromise.  --Kevin Murray 05:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the gist of it having changed much. Elaborated, but still more or less the traditional PNC.  It seems to me that a majority of participants in the big straw poll wanted WP:N to be as weak or weaker than the "one substantial" type of approach.  Unfortunately, the proponents of a stronger WP:N also tend to be the most process-oriented and tenacious when it comes to policy, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the "compromise" has gradually drifted back, since I left the debate, toward nearly the status quo from before this flared up in the first place.  I apologize for misinterpreting your reversion, although I still think you should assume good faith on the part of jeff.  I understand why he thinks the current version isn't a move closer to what would be the consensus version if consensus existed... it seems like that to me as well.--ragesoss 05:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem changing this wording if there is some dialog first with participation from multiple points of view. Perhaps my enthusiasm for a solution has blinded me to the extent of the compromise.  Thanks for your understanding.  --Kevin Murray 14:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kevin, regardless of what disputes may be going on here, it is not very nice to make a veiled implication that Jeff would not be honorable. With respect to "abstaining from editing", that should of course go both ways. Or in fact neither, as we don't usually object to improving pages while a deletion debate is ongoing.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention Jeff. If you have an opinion on his honor that's your interpretation.  --Kevin Murray 14:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not fooled.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected
This page has been protected because of edit warring. I should note that just because a page is nominated for deletion doesn't mean it can't be changed - in general we quite specifically allow changes to improve pages at such times.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit request
editprotected Would an administrator please place noinclude tags around. The tfd message is making WP:N very busy. --24fan24 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for the tfd template, is so that everyone can see that it is up for deletion. I've used the standard template which is smaller. But adding noinclude tags would defeat the purpose of the template. Harryboyles 04:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the tfd notice's inclusion on WP:N is very confusing considering this content is usually not stored in a template. I know I was confused and accidentally removed this template from WP:N --24fan24 (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Harry, I caused the problem by increasing the font size several days ago. However, with the tiny font, visitors to the WP:N page are not being made aware of the contested text.  I think that there are issues to be considered in both directions, but gaining broader discussion should take precedence over a temporary disruption of the aesthetic.  I'm not really happy with the templates inconsistency with other templates which are usually more "official looking" with borders etc.  I think that is among the causes for confusion.  Your thoughts?  --Kevin Murray 04:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit request
Please change the inclusion within Category:Wikipedia templates to Category:Wikipedia namespace templates. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi, it would be good to move this template to the notability archive at Notability/Historical. Would you mind that? —  Scott  •  talk  13:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Scott. Yes, it should be included there.  Do you mean, make it a subpage of Notability/Historical?  Template people don’t care for historical templates, so it’s not safe to put it back in template space.
 * When you move it, please leave a trailing redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, exactly that. Thanks, I'll get on it! —  Scott  •  talk  13:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. —  Scott  •  talk  14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)