Wikipedia talk:Notability and User:Sir gladwyn: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
=Sir Gladwyn=
* '''Notice:''' There is an ongoing [[WP:RFC|request for comments]] regarding the notability of spin-out articles and the relationship between the main notability guideline and the subject specific notability guidelines at: [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise]].
{{shortcut|WT:N|WT:NN|WT:NOTE}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 29
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{talkheader}}
{| class="infobox" width="300px"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 1|2005–Sep 2006]] <small>(related to page now moved to [[Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments]])</small>
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 2|Sep–Oct 2006]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 3|Oct–Nov 2006]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 4|18–25 Nov 2006]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 5|Nov 2006–Dec 2006]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 6|Dec 2006]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 7|Dec 2006–Jan 2007]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 8|Jan 2007–Feb 2007]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 9|Feb 2007]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 10|March 2007]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 11|Archive 11]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 12|Archive 12]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 13|Archive 13]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 14|Archive 14]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 15|Archive 15]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 16|Archive 16]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 17|Archive 17]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 18|Archive 18]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 19|Archive 19]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 20|Archive 20]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 21|Archive 21]]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
__TOC__
<br style="clear:both;" />


Hello. My name is Sir Gladwyn. I live in Canada.
== Wikipedia:Relevance ==
I make stop animation movies and 2-D computer games and many other things.

I have an account on YouTube, Fingerprintguy, God Tube, Inkwell,
* See also [[Wikipedia talk:Relevance]] (and archives)
and many accounts on many RPG games. I also have a website at:

[http://www.Sir-Gladwyn.piczo.com link title]
== This is not a vote ==

Votes are evil. However: it is probably worth gathering some thoughts under the two general threads evident above.

===Proposal A: That "Wikipedia:Notability" be renamed===
Supporting reasons given thus far:
* Wikipedia's definition does not match the usual real world definition
* The term has pejorative overtones for those subjects which are not appropriate for inclusion, implying a judegment of the merit of the subject
* Confusion between notable-as-in-significant and notable-as-in-encyclopaedic, leading to circular arguments in deletion debates and elsewhere

Opposing reasons given thus far:
* If the wrong name is chosen, the scope of the page will increase
* Potential for obscuring the difference between this (guideline) and formal policy

; Supportive of renaming to ''something''
# For the reasons stated, especially Phil Sandifer's comment: the word notability is indeed widely perceived as toxic. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
# Agree with rename, if scope is preserved and clarity is improved. "Notability" carries with it real world baggage which is misleading. We're not judging an article's importance or value, but whether it has met our source requirements. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]])
# Fully agree for the reasons outlined [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&diff=239548035&oldid=239507569 here]. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 13:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
# Agree to rename. This also reflects it's opposition to [[WP:DP]]. This is what gets in and WP:DP is what gets taken out, they should match. [[user:Padillah|padillaH]] <sup>([[Wikipedia:Editor_review/Padillah|review me]])</sup><sub>([[H. Tomàs Padilla|help me]])</sub> 13:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
# I'd support renaming. The common understanding of "notable" - and it is the one expressed here - is "worthy of notice". That's fine, but it doesn't say "has been noticed". This guideline uses a much narrower definition than elsewhere, which leads to a degree of confusion. When told that the topic isn't notable, a common response seems to be to argue that it is, based on many of the reasons (fame, popularity, google hits) that this guideline specifically denies. But being famous does make something notable, as does being popular - just not in our terms. I think the guidline would be better summarized as "worthy of inclusion", simply because that's what the guideline determines - not if it is important, or popular, or famous, but if it has been covered in sufficient reliable sources to make it possible to write an encyclopedic article. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 14:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
# Support. I think that the common English notion of notability is a subjective judgment, which seems to lead to people ignoring what WP:N actually says. --'''[[User:Struthious_Bandersnatch|❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩]]''' 08:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
; Opposed to renaming, Notability is good enough
# I disagree that renaming to any name would remove the office people are taking at us presuming to judge others for worthiness of inclusion. The only things that can solve ignorance is education and that takes active participation on the one who is ignorant. ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
# This proposal is '''meaningless'''. You cannot compare ''one'' thing. It only makes sense to consider proposals that actually offer an alternative. [[User:VasileGaburici|VasileGaburici]] ([[User talk:VasileGaburici|talk]]) 02:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
#: This is "Part A" with a tied-in "Part B". It isn't meant for you to take this part in isolation. ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 04:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
# I think there's a larger problem that a simple "feel good" renaming solution can provide; that's not to say we shouldn't aim to make inclusion/notability/whatever be a more positive turn, but such an approach needs to be married with a strong look at the content of the guideline (currently in progress at the RFC) and not just name alone. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 04:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
# This proposal incurs disadvantages without solving a problem. Does this proposal stem from a desire to make the page name speak for itself? If so, designing a name with little common meaning goes against this purpose. [[WP:N]] notability speaks for itself plenty because it uses a real-world word. It would be fantastic if we could find an article name that helps the reader understand it, and at the same time avoids conflating the article name with colloquial meanings, but that hope is absurd. Besides, notability is not an easy concept to master, and we can only expect so much from an article name. —''[[User:Kanodin|Kanodin]]''—<small>[[User talk: Kanodin|VENT]]</small>— 07:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
#:It uses a ''real-world word'' in an almost completely made-up and unrealistic meaning. One of the biggest issues with "Notability" is it doesn't mean "Notability" in Wikipedia. You are right when you say notability is not an easy concept to master, because editors on WP have completely made-up the definition. How much clearer can you get than "Inclusion Policy"? Do you know what "Inclusion Policy would cover? I can tell just from the name. And to tell someone that "this article needs to go, it does not meet inclusion policy" is a dead giveaway. [[user:Padillah|padillaH]] <sup>([[Wikipedia:Editor_review/Padillah|review me]])</sup><sub>([[H. Tomàs Padilla|help me]])</sub> 13:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
#::That is correct. The ordinary meaning of notability does not cover the inclusion criterion. That is an ''ad hoc'' addition to [[WP:N]]. —''[[User:Kanodin|Kanodin]]''—<small>[[User talk: Kanodin|VENT]]</small>— 01:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
# Relatively useless. We have severe problems with getting special interests to accept the contents of this policy, not the name. Does anyone really think that being told "I'm sorry, you can't be included" or "I'm sorry, your favorite local band is unincludable" is going to go down easier that "non-notable."?[[User:Kww|Kww]] ([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 13:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
#:It may not be more favorable but it will be a lot more understandable. The alternative is the current "I'm sorry your band that has headlined at your bar for three years is not notable. Well, not 'Notable' the way you think of using 'Notable' but another use for notable that we made up as a means of keeping things that don't have enough..." No one is listening by the end of that. "Inclusion Policy" doesn't have a conflicting real-world deffinition that we hav to overcome first. It takes at least one step out of the argument. [[user:Padillah|padillaH]] <sup>([[Wikipedia:Editor_review/Padillah|review me]])</sup><sub>([[H. Tomàs Padilla|help me]])</sub> 13:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
#:We can and should always point out the difference between subjective concepts like "fame" or "importance" and the decision process we have in place to help us determine what will be included. "Notability" does a horrible job in that respect because it still implies a value judgement, or at least a normative outlook — even though most experienced users know the difference, that makes it a poor choice of word in most discussions. "Inclusion" or "Inclusion guideline" clearly and straightforwardly focuses on our decision process as such. If some ass curtly told a newbie "I'm sorry, you can't be included" or "I'm sorry, your favorite local band is unincludable", I'd warn them against biting and ask them to explain their position instead. Actually I think the title "inclusion" in itself would direct a clearer appeal to all sides to make their point instead of simply name-dropping the name of the guideline. Imho, "WP:Notability" sounds like an assuming statement, namely that "we can decide what is notable" — while "WP:Inclusion guideline" simply says "we're here, having ongoing discussions about what will be included" (mind the big difference to "what ''should'' be included"). <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 15:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
#: So, the fact taht it does not fix every single problem is a reason for not fixing one of the worse ones? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
#I most heartily disagree with your contention that the word notable implies a value judgement. Our use of it here on Wikipedia is in it's most literal sense, that is that someone has "taken note" of the subject. In a ''single word'' notable sums up the fact that subjects need to be non-trivially mentioned in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I don't see that any other term would serve as well. I think that any other term would, in fact, make things worse.&mdash;[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] <small>([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]])</small> 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
#:And I would support this outlook, except for the fact that it's not true at all. You had to defend it before you even completed your statement. "Non-trivial". What part of the word "Notable" means non-trivial? You say "it's most literal sense, that is that someone has "taken note" of the subject." But then are forced to qualify that in the very next sentence. Not that literal a use, is it? Even it's explanation has to be qualified. If I tell you it doesn't meet the "Inclusion Guideline", I don't have to argue my way out of that. I don't have to redefine "Inclusion" or "Guideline". I just have to list the guidelines and have them met. No arguments about "it's noted in the Cedar Rapids Picyune, isn't that a '''note'''?" The guidelines are what they are, I don't have to start the conversation with a defense of the definition of "Guidelines". [[user:Padillah|padillaH]] <sup>([[Wikipedia:Editor_review/Padillah|review me]])</sup><sub>([[H. Tomàs Padilla|help me]])</sub> 13:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
#: In looking up 'notability' in various dictionaries, it is plain that there is always going to be a subjective element to many pieces of nominated information. In the end, we are dealing with human beings, not web spiders, and people are going to agree or disagree. It really does not matter what we call it; the essential fact is that we have a mechanism in place already to have the discussions. In the end, these healthy dialogues generally resolve the issue (and educate us all in the process). I say, leave it as is.[[User:SunTzuGuy|SunTzuGuy]] ([[User talk:SunTzuGuy|talk]]) 21:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

===Proposal B: If renamed, then...===
Potential titles suggested thus far:

;Inclusion guideline
Notability is (explicitly) just a guideline, but some feel that adding guideline to the title will encourage wikilawyering.
# See also Inclusion below. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
#Both ''WP:Inclusion'' and ''WP:Inclusion guideline'' are fine by me. I think I favour the latter especially since there's no harm in naming the page in a straightforward and descriptive way: ''the inclusion guideline page which outlines the basics about our ongoing negotiations over what will be included and what will not''. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 13:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

;Inclusion
# With both ''inclusion'' and ''inclusion guideline'' we have an opportunity to roll back some of the creep which has happened over time with notability. The value of this page is primarily in determining what merits inclusion, its major use is in deciding the marginal cases at deletion debates. This may offer the opportunity to prune back on the proliferation of rules and be much more explicit about what the guideline is for, and thus what is expected in an appropriate article subject. As a means fo reducing confusion, that would seem to me to have merit. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Having a policy ''and'' an guideline with the ''same'' name would be ''very'' confusing. This was pointed out by many others above: Seresin, Kanodin, Hut 8.5 to name a few. [[User:VasileGaburici|VasileGaburici]] ([[User talk:VasileGaburici|talk]]) 01:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
#:Please don't take this too personal, but I think ''you'' may be confusing things. Where does anyone say anything about a guideline and a policy? This entire discussion is merely about whether we rename the page "WP:Notability" to something different. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 15:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
#I support focusing the issue from being about notability to being about inclusion as that is really the measure, but as I comment above, this is not just replacing the word notability with inclusion - notability is one factor for inclusion, but the verdict is still out if we include topics ''in some manner'' if not notable, and thus there may be more than just notability that makes up inclusion. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 04:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

;Viability
# Not a meaningful name as pointed out by several editor above. Would increase the confusion. [[User:VasileGaburici|VasileGaburici]] ([[User talk:VasileGaburici|talk]]) 01:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

;Minimum sources
# The guideline is a subjective assessment of value, but an objective requirement for a minimum amount of sources: '''significant coverage in reliable third-party sources'''. This also sums up a key part of [[WP:V]]: '''If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.''' It also helps the guideline to maintain its current scope, rather than turning it into a general inclusion guideline. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 20:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
# Weak oppose - This could be workable, but I have a similar suggestion below that may work better. Consensus on notability is less strict than the policy quoted policy on sources (from [[WP:RS]], not [[WP:V]]) by considering "whether it readily could be." ~ [[User:Ningauble|Ningauble]] ([[User talk:Ningauble|talk]]) 22:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

; Wikipedia<nowiki>:</nowiki>Your worth as a human being is not tied to having an article on Wikipedia.
#Is that what this all about? If the complaint is that people are getting offended by the non-pejorative term, lets make it even more clear. ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 23:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
# I'm all for adding a "consolation" paragraph to WP:N or even link from WP:N to separate essay should someone endeavor to write it. [[User:VasileGaburici|VasileGaburici]] ([[User talk:VasileGaburici|talk]]) 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
#: [[User:Uncle_G/On_notability|Someone has]]. ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 04:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

; Inclusion Threshold
#Why not? That's exactly what N is, the threshold upon which you can have an article. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 14:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
#The term "threshold" is not categorically different from "notability" in that both have an entirely unuseful normative ring to it. Why not throw all of that overboard and give the page a title that highlights simply what the page really is about? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 15:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
#:I disagree. "Inclusion" alone is too normative in my opinion; adding "threshold" suggests that it is not a value judgment but rather an analytical process. However, it looks moot as this whole discussion appears to be heading nowhere.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 16:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

;Independent coverage threshold
# This characterizes the ''nature of the criterion'' in terms that could hardly be taken as ''characterization of the subject'' itself, and emphasizes that <u>Wikipedia coverage</u> is not arbitrary, but is determined by <u>third-party coverage</u>. Within the guideline, expunge such toxic phrases as "worthy of notice" and replace with such phrases as "within the scope of Wikipedia coverage." Replace other references to "notable" with "within scope," "well covered," "suitable," "appropriate," etc., as fits the context. Obliterate reference to "merit." ~ [[User:Ningauble|Ningauble]] ([[User talk:Ningauble|talk]]) 22:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
# '''Support''' as informative and consistent with what notability currently describes. Too many other proposals offer no additional clarity, and change the scope completely. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 22:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
#God no. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 22:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

;Overview of inclusion guidelines
# This seems to me to be the intent of [[Wikipedia:Notability]] when Radiant! edited it in September 2006[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&diff=next&oldid=74401645]. The "GNG" seems to me to have been an attempt to summarize the various subject-specific notability guidelines (which weren't actually "notability" guidelines until [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_1#Requested_moves this] requested move] in December 2005. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface|talk]]) 03:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

;Adequate standard for topic inclusion
# I know this name is long, but it's based on this sentence in [[WP:N]] &mdash; ''A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right.'' Basically, the [[WP:GNG|GNG]] is meant to provide a standard that makes ''any'' topic suitable for inclusion. The subject-specific "notability" guidelines are meant to provide a standard that makes specific categories of topics suitable for inclusion. Neither are meant to make editor's arguments in AFDs irrelevant. The standard, GNG, is adequate, not required. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface|talk]]) 03:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

;Coverage
# If "coverage" of a topic is what editors want, perhaps [[Wikipedia:Coverage]] would be the most appropriate title for this page. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface|talk]]) 03:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

;WP<nowiki>:</nowiki>TINEIAFRSTWAVNEAWIFOOR
#(There is not enough information available from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to write a [[WP:V|verifiable]], [[WP:NPOV|neutral]], [[WP:5P|encyclopaedia]] article which is free of [[WP:OR|original research]].) [[User:Guest9999|Guest9999]] ([[User talk:Guest9999|talk]]) 02:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::I like it. ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 20:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::Me too. ''If'' we decide to stick to describing a treshold in the title, this is the most straightforward description and should be it. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 10:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:::right idea, ... but it does not spell an easily remembered (and preferably witty) word ... all good acronyms should do that. Think in terms of military acronyms such as REMF (rear eschelon mother fucker), SNAFU (situation normal, all fucked up) and CINCUS (Comander in Chief, United States). Can we come up with a title that sings when you make an acronym of it? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 20:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
'''General notability guideline'''
# Lets call a spade a spade. [[WP:N]] ''is'' the general notability guideline.--[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

;Substantiality
# This is the quality of having ''substance'' or being ''substantial''. This indicates that the topic of an article should be [[essence|essential]], [[distinct]] and of some [[Weight (disambiguation)|weight]]. As a recent example of where this concept might improve our project, consider [[Defense (military)]] which is a poor article currently at AFD. It is likely to survive because the word ''defense'' is used widely and so it seems that the subject is notable. However I feel that the article has failed because it does not have a clear topic and the subject matter is covered better in other articles such as [[Warfare]]. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 13:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
;''add more here''

== Inclusion of user subpage on "essays related to notability" ==

If the user subpage [[User:Hiding/What notability is not]], presumably one person's view, hasn't merited posting to the Wikipedia namespace, then should it be advertised as a reference on a Wikipedia guidelines article?[[User:Largoplazo|—Largo Plazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:*In my view, no personal essay should be advertised as a reference on Wikipedia guidelines. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 08:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

== Purpose of Notability ==

Hi. In trying to follow the various debates here and on the RFC I must admit that I'm a tad confused. Mostly because I'm not 100% certain about the purpose of the notability guideline. I thought I knew, but I'm concerned that either I was wrong, or that there are two (of three?) different perspectives, of which mine is one. So I was wondering if it was possible to clarify something here? It seems to me that there are three possibilities as to why WP:Notability exists:

:a) The guideline's purpose is to make sure that all articles in Wikipedia have sufficient independent reliable sources so as to allow an article to be written to an encyclopedic standard.<br />
:b) The purpose of the guideline is to make sure that only articles that are sufficiently significant (eg "notable") to warrant an article are included.<br />
:c) A combination of a) and b) - the guideline exists to make sure that only significant articles which can be referenced from independent reliable sources are kept in Wikipedia.<br />

I'm curious, as it seems to me that all three views can be supported by the guidelines as they stand to the exclusion of the others. Yet b) and c) involve value judgments of worthiness, (even though we don't make those judgments ourselves), and are therefore radically different to a).

Anyway, if this has been gone over countless times before just point out that I'm an idiot - I tried finding something, but nothing turned up that answered this with the clarity I was hoping for, but the way we run discussions doesn't make searching easy, I'm afraid. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 05:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: For me it's more about (a). But I think other people might disagree. WP:N is just an extrapolation of [[WP:BURDEN]], that we remove information that isn't supported by reliable third-party sources. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 05:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: One other reason for notability: it helps to prevent WP from being an indiscriminate collection of information; we simply cannot reasonably contain all knowledge while achieving WP's mission. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Would I be right in assuming that this placed the guideline in c)? That it is about what "should" be in Wikipedia as much as what could be written about to WP's standards? - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 05:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Why not? Why would ''verifyable'' knowledge intervene against mission? What's the point of added constraints? What's the point of a mission (quote please) if it can't get along with knowledge? [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 18:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:::b) is the most accurate description of NOTE. It's hoped that a) follows from b). - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 19:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I tend to disagree; Wikipedia "notability" has nothing to do with real-world importance anymore, if it ever did. The main use for WP:N is as an explanatory page for new editors, that we point to when they have created an article for which there are no reliable sources whatsoever. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:Historically speaking, notability was a concept raised as justification for deleting articles back in the wild and wooly days when we were not that big on citing sources. Over time, verifiability and lack of references stepped up as deletion reasons, and notability started to evolve, and to do so controversially. We had several stuttering attempts at a general notability guideline, most of which failed. The general goal, in all cases, was to set a threshold of importance to be in Wikipedia.

:Eventually we came to create subject notability guides that sorted this out in specific areas. The problem was that this led to decisions that were jarring - porn stars and academics had similarly permissive guidelines, despite the fact that this led to a glut of porn star articles, and led to lots of exclusion of pretty significant academic topics. The legacy of this can be found in some specific areas - the decision to include all high schools is an old one that remains basically unchallenged, even as topics that actually have wider support on the whole (episodes and characters, academics, professional athletes) become controversial, just because the high schools decision was made back when subject notability was the main approach.

:In any case, eventually someone created this page as an attempt to create a general case, which led to a significant transition as notability became about sources instead of importance - at least on the policy issue.

:But a lot of the problem is that various previous versions of the debate - including a debate on whether exclusion for unimportance is even appropriate, the subject-level notability decisions, and now whether importance or sourcing is the central issue - have remain entrenched in the dialogue. So notability has, basically, become a steadily worsening area of discussion within Wikipedia as the issues get progressively more confused and esoteric. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 19:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:*I am suprised that someone with education such as Phil should disparage the concept of notability. I think that sourcing articles by [[Standing on the shoulders of giants]] is the best method of writing encyclopdic articles. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::*Where did I disparage notability? I disparaged the process by which we developed the current guideline, but it's a sausage factory. I am not an "include everything" sort. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 23:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::Adding to what Phil said, and I think agreeing with him, I see it as also the original concentration on "article" left over from the printed encyclopedias we are all familiar with. (actually its not even that sharp--the Brittanica has experimented in the direction of both long and short & the major French & German encyclopedia have been in every possible variation--from short entries for everything to one article per volume.) There is a basic difference between ''articles as a measure of importance'' and ''articles as a matter of convenient arrangement''. It is no longer, as in the print days,a a matter of trying to give direct access without needing an index--automatic cross references have solved at least that one. The "articles as importance view" is fortified by Google's use of placement in a title as a major factor in ranking (not a bad idea from their point of view, but not necessarily helpful to us.) There is another factor, equally unfortunate and equally inescapable--the tendency of people o read only the first screen. Not that most non-academics actually ''liked'' long print texts, but that they are even less willing to read long texts on the web. I see no immediate solution between these different ways of looking at it. I certainly do se a long range solution--a database, in which we would write about,say,each fictional character once, and the material could be rearranged as either separate articles, or a long combination one for the work, or perhaps a very long combination one for the series or even the author, or as short one sentence mentions in a list. There should be no great difficulty either in letting the user choose the presentation and the amount of detail. This applies to other factors too--the reader should be able to choose either as a default or a one time setting, to see full bibliographies, or a few basic references, or none at all; to see links or not to see links or to see full word by word hypertext; to see lede paragraphs and pictures only, or to see all the content; to see an editable view, or to see a fixed view, as well as such trivial things as date and number preferences. (I'd prefer for my own reader, for example, to see all number except the word 'one' transcribed into figures, as in some technical styles. xml can do all this, and it's an open format. whether a volunteer community can organise the necessary controlled rewriting remains to be seen.
::The 2RS =N formulation, in particular, is an admission of incompetence at decision making. An arbitrary standard, whose usefulness depends entirely upon an increasingly complicated interpretation of RS. We can and in practice do, adjust it to meet whatever subjective notions of notability we have. Gavin's idea of sourcing relies on the giants being there on a consistent basis, and inherently makes us dependent on the limitations of conventional works and web searching, neither of which = notability, just media limitations. We should be more than the old idea, I think expressed by JW , of "a filter on the web." -- a mere enriched Internet directory, with selected excepts as well as plain links. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Hear hear. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 23:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If we focus on notability as importance, we get into an off track discussion about what's worth covering. But when we start from such policies as ''[[WP:V|"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"]]'' and ''[[WP:OR|"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources"]]'', we invariably end up with something like ''[[WP:N|"if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article"]]''. Calling that rule "notability" might come across as too judgmental. But the idea that we actually back up our assertions with sources of a high standard is a basic credibility and quality issue. But if you want to talk about what is or isn't worth covering, that's really a discussion for [[WP:NOT]]. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 22:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:You can't unfocus notability as importance. It's A) what the term basically means, B) what our usage of the term evolved out of concerns about, and C) how it's still widely used on AfD. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 23:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Why not? I happen to think it's a good guideline that's been given an inaccurate name, which las led to numerous misunderstandings at AFDs. After all, when you look at it in the context of WP:V and WP:OR, the guideline itself is a necessary conclusion -- regardless of what nickname we give it. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 05:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
*In answer to [[User:DGG|DGG]], the argument that [[WP:N]] makes us "dependent on the limitations of conventional works and web searching" is a spurious arguement. The fact is that over the ages, people have gathered knowledge from a multitude of sources, and have always relied on secondary sources for analysis, criticism and context for the purposes of interpretation. In the absence of any other source of guidance (other than POV) as to what topics should or should not be included in Wikipedia, I suggest we continue to follow this tradition. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 09:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like I was wrong, then. :) I pictured it as a), and feared c), but b) seems to be far more likely than I thought, or at least to carry more weight than I expected. As an aside on this, I have an insane love/hate relationship with discourse analysis techniques, (love the rigour, hate the work involved), so I was messing about with analyzing the RfC, and in the first proposal there was a clear distinction in support votes between "has reliable sources" and "is notable", which would seem to support b). (It's one of the first and most obvious patterns to emerge). If something can be sourced and not notable, then presumably it might not fit a), even though it may fit b). Although I guess that also runs into the "sourced to an encyclopedic level" issue. My concern on this is on two levels - personally, I was worried I had it wrong (and the jury is out on that), but more generally one of my collegues is fond of arguing that you can't understand, modify or build a system unless you understand its purpose. So in discussions she'd be the one asking "why", while I was the one begging for definitions. I'm still not sure what this discussion means in this case, but it looks like there is a pattern present. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 14:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:For me, the closest answer given there is b, but the explaination's not exactly why I support it; it's a combination that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that we have to have something that is scalable and maintainable as information grows; it is about what is appropriate to include as well as part of WP's broad coverage allowances to make us relevant yet trustworthy. It just so happens that when topics are covered by secondary sources, we nicely meet V, OR, and NPOV, but my read of the past is that notability was not designed to be for that purpose, it just is a great and quite usable happenstance that WP:N can be used for that purpose. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 15:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Once again, there is a difference between non-notable and non-referenced. ==

There seems to be a growing body of users who are getting confused on this point, as I've had it three times in the last two months. So let me be clear:

As I understand it, ''A lack of references is evidence of nothing other than a lack of references. A lack of references does '''not''' imply that the topic is non-notable.''

In spite of this being obvious to me, as I said, I've had three people claim the opposite in the last two months. Let's FIX THE DEFINITION to make this clear.

[[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 19:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

: A lack of references can mean a lack of effort on the part of editors, or truly something truly un-reference-able. And I think the AFD process does a decent job of tackling that: no consensus defaults to keep, and you need a consensus that there's no references to delete. Among the editors who chime in, it's really not hard to find one or two reliable third-party sources -- it's a pretty low standard. And even if an article is wrongfully deleted, there's [[WP:DRV]], and there's the ability to [[WP:USERFY]] the article until the sources can be found. I agree this is worth clarifying though. This guideline already says that "notability is distinct from fame or importance", so maybe we can expand on that. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 20:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

: Keep definition as is. No RS - no topic to discuss. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

: You're right that a lack of references is not an indication that something is non-notable, but it's also difficult to assess notability without references either. (And its also important to note that having references does not immediately confer notability). Users, across policy and guidelines, are strongly encouraged to reference articles from the point of creation; they don't have to be immaculate or in the correct format, but at least some indication that there's verifiable information. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 20:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Agreed. I haven't found it becoming when an author loudly insists on the notability of his article's topic, while treating it as everyone else's responsibility to search for the evidence that will corroborate his position. The motivation for creating an article should be helpfulness, so an author's refusal to help others make a valid determination of the topic's notability when doubt has been expressed indicates that something other than helpfulness was in play&#8212;self-interest, use of Wikipedia as a personal blog or website, promotion of the topic, just thinking it's cool to have written a Wikipedia article. In any event, it leads me to doubt even further the notability of the topic.[[User:Largoplazo|—Largo Plazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 12:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Notability of journalism articles ==

Is there a guideline on notability of journalism articles (articles published in newspapers, magazines etc.)? I am debating a merge of [[Is Google Making Us Stupid?]] and a notability guideline on the subject would be useful. --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 12:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:There's no exact guideline, so it would fall to the general notability guideline: that there need to be reliable secondary sources about it. This means the article itself and its author are primary sources, and there would need to be critical commentary about the article itself (not just used as a source elsewhere) to qualify. Looking at the article, I see such sources do exist, so the topic is notable; this doesn't mean you can't suggest merging it if you it can be discussed better in a larger context. I also didn't look at the text, but this is also the type of case where [[WP:OR|original research]] could abound, so it's a caution just to avoid. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 12:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, but I am also concerned about [[WP:NTEMP]]. In the cited article (but probably also in general) a newspaper article is likely to induce some short-term commentary, but then to fade into obscurity. The comparison is, for example, with [[The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power]]: this article generated lawsuits etc. and it represents an historical landmark on the media coverage and public opinion of [[Scientology]]. While in the case of the article I am suggesting the merge of, I am unsure (there is indeed evidence of higher-than-average discussion), it seems the discussion is more on the concerns raised by the sources cited in the article, than the article itself. But I don't want to delve too much into that peculiar case. I just would like a discussion on a guideline about journalism articles. What is the process to start such a discussion? Is this talk page enough? --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 12:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:::In in some cases writing an article here focused around a newspaper or magazine article is the best way of discussing a subject. In the case you mention, I too have have been trying to think what to do: the magazine article is not yet a classic, but a merge to internet seems impossibly broad, while I cannot think of a good more specific title. If you can, perhaps you should suggest moving, not merging the existing article. If not, I'd suggest we leave it, and add to it until someone has something better to suggest. We are not bound by any formal notability guideline, and can decide for ourselves Wikipedia article by Wikipedia article what we want to call "notable" enough for a separate article. Some people call this IAR--I don;, for aI don't consider ntability a principal or a rule, just a convention to use when appropriate. We decide first what we ''want'' to do, & then find or interpret the guidelines. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 03:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to survey the [[:Category:Magazine articles]] and [[:Category:Journal articles]] to understand a bit the situation. So far, that's my POV on the magazine articles:

Well sourced and of established notability:
* [[Frank Sinatra Has a Cold]]
* [[Man Will Conquer Space Soon!]]
* [[Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast]]
* [[The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power]]

Potentially notable but maybe better merged somewhere:
* [[Is Google Making Us Stupid?]]
* [[The Man Who Knew Too Much (article)]]
* [[New Yorkistan]]
* [[No Silver Bullet]]
* [[Tribal Rites of the New Saturday Night]]
* [[Uncensored from Texas Death Row]]

Mostly unsourced /of dubious notability:
* [[Epigrams on Programming]]
* [[Global Neighborhood Watch]]
* [[Parish Pump (CGA series)]]
* [[The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville]] <small>- This is '''not journalism''' at all. Didn't realize at first it's the Buffett statement we studied at college some 15 years ago. Fixed the refs. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 18:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC) </small>

Having a look to all those article in my opinion makes clear that a guideline on the notability of such articles is needed. Magazine articles suffer issues due to high [[WP:NTEMP]] concerns and often sources about their notability are self-referential. My own impression is that each "probably notable" article is surrounded by a brief burst of debate about itself but its general notability and long-term impact are questionable. They contain content that deserves to be mentioned or discussed on WP, but not in an article of its own -for example, [[Tribal Rites of the New Saturday Night]] could well be merged within [[Saturday Night Fever]]. However it is also true that the cultural impact of magazine/journal articles will follow different patterns from that of books or other subjects. In my opinion the survey shows that such articles need a consensual notability guideline. --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 11:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think they do (we're trying to avoid [[WP:CREEP|rule creep]] wrt to notability as much as possible. NTEMP definitely is more important for these works than for other areas The standards for references also fall under what we need from RS and secondary sources. There's really no other major criteria that a separate guideline could go into. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 11:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with [[WP:CREEP]] but in this case is not adding rulesets on rulesets on the same kind of articles: it's about having a well definite, ''separate'' guideline for this kind of articles. It's something that would substitute the general notability guideline. As for major criteria, the problem is that I don't know that much about journalism to fully understand if there are separate criteria that may be of concern, and I'm bringing here the issue to discuss. However thank you to remind me of rule creep, I will keep it in the back of my mind. --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 11:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:::What's wrong with WP:N that can be cured with local micro-rules? Why not perfect the upper-level guideline? The problem with uber-narrow notability guidelines is that they are compiled/discussed/consensused by a very small group of users; a small group is inevitably short-sighted and cannot take care of all possible situations. This limitation is normally noticed at the discussion stages, the project is marked an essay and goes to the trashbin. See the [[:Category:WikiProject notability essays|graveyard of notability exercises]]. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 13:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Also: there is [[Wikipedia:Notability (books)]]. What's wrong with it that makes WP:Notability (journal articles) necessary? [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 13:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

==[[WP:NPF]] conflicts with [[WP:NNC]]?==
WP:NPF: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability."

WP:NNC: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people[10]. Instead, various content policies govern article content."

Yes, BLP is a content policy, and NPV is a section of BLP, but I think it's worth discussing. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:Doesn't NNC say go look at NPF for content advice? - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:47, 13 October 2008

Sir Gladwyn[edit]

Hello. My name is Sir Gladwyn. I live in Canada. I make stop animation movies and 2-D computer games and many other things. I have an account on YouTube, Fingerprintguy, God Tube, Inkwell, and many accounts on many RPG games. I also have a website at: link title

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&oldid=245034058"