Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise and President Theodore Roosevelt: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Notability
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Sports: replied to EconomistBR
 
Redirect fixer (talk | contribs)
69,018 edits
Theodore Roosevelt has been moved; it now redirects to ..H....A....Ġ....Ġ....E....R?.
 
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT [[..H....A....Ġ....Ġ....E....R?]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}

{{RFCpolicy | section= RfC: Notability compromise !! There are two main issues with [[WP:Notability]] that need clarification by the community.
#Does every article need reliable third-party sources to prove it is notable, or can notability be inherited from another article?
#To what extent can the [[WP:GNG|General Notability Guideline]] be overridden by specific notability guidelines such as [[WP:Notability (music)]] and [[WP:Notability (people)]]? !! time= 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC) }}

== RfC: Notability compromise ==

{{notice|See '''[[Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise]]''' for the RFC itself}}

== Primary sources ==

Perhaps this has been brought up above, but I'd like a direct explanation from those who support [[WP:N]] as "policy".

In reading over [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources]], it would seem that [[WP:N]] is actually ''contrary'' to extant policy.

As long as the rather clear rules on synthesis, etc. are followed, primary sources ''are'' quite allowable. As they are in extant encyclopedias. Which is as they should be.

So please, explain how [[WP:N]] allows for this policy, and isn't in contradiction to it? - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 05:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

:I don't understand your question. WP:N doesn't disallow the use of primary sources. It simply insists that they are not sufficient to write an article on a topic. I would also contest your claims that primary sources are used in encyclopedias at levels anywhere close to their use (cited or not) in wikipedia. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::So your concern is the quantity of articles? Or the quantity of use of such sources, on average, in a single article?
::Also:
::<blockquote>"An '''encyclopedia''' (or [[wikt:encyclopedia|'''encyclopædia''']]) is a comprehensive written [[compendium]] that contains [[information]] on either all branches of [[knowledge]] or a particular branch of knowledge."</blockquote>
::Do you disagree with that definition of an encyclopedia? - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 07:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't agree or disagree with it, but that definition is far to broad to provide any useful guidance. As for your question, I am concerned with the quality of articles and the distribution of coverage. WP:N helps ensure (in theory) that each article has several second party sources with which to build it. If we follow WP:N religiously, we lose out a bit in the distribution of coverage on certain subjects. Hence this RFC is seeking to find out if we can broaden that coverage distribution without losing the quality expectations. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 15:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::::''"I don't agree or disagree with it, but that definition is far to broad to provide any useful guidance."'' - This is where I point you to where I quoted that from: [[Encyclopedia]]. That's Wikipedia's definition of an encyclopedia.
::::Other than that, your response looks fairly well-intended. Though I wonder if [[WP:N]] is even ''necessary'' for attining the goal of an encyclopedia.
:::: It seems to me that all that's really being attempted is to get a group of editors to agree on what the dividing line is between "indiscriminate information", and "information".
::::And I'm not sure that [[WP:N]] is the way to go with that.
:::: Indeed, as I said above, it would seem to contradict our mission statement, and our policies on sourcing. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 23:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::The policy you link accords with notability quite well, contrary to your assertions. It quite clearly states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." That seems to line with notability's GNG not only without contradiction, but in harmony. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::That's not all that is said. Other sources are quite allowable under certain circumstamces. (I've been trying to avoid pasting the section here, but I suppose I can...) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 08:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::PSTS indicates that articles should principally rely on secondary sources. Verifiability tell us that topics without third party sources should not have an article. Notability is coherent with these points. Notability does not prohibit or preclude the use of primary sources. You're inferring a contradiction where one does not exist. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 09:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't care if that is wikipedia's definition of an encyclopedia. The reason I said what I said is that sentence is broad enough to be pressed onto service to almost any content cause. It also has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of running an encyclopedia. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 03:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Don't care... Nothing to do with...
::::::Let's clear up somethinmg. The number one rule here is that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". All other rules, policies, and guidelines stem from that. Period. I'd be rather shocked if anyone in this discussion suggested otherwise.
::::::Now you may have a different interpretation of what an encyclopedia ''should be''. But that doesn't mean that that's the only interpretation, or even the best interpretation (or even an accurate interpretation, considering you seem to disagree with the definition itself). - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 08:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think I am being clear. It is true that the second global policy is [[WP:NOT]]. What I am saying is that appealing to the definition of an encyclopedia is so broad as to be meaningless. I could just as easily say "wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we can't carry sound files" "wikipedia is an encyclopedia so we can't reference primary works" "wikipedia is an encyclopedia so we should just cover what we cover now" as I could argue your point. There is no direct connection between wikipedia being an encyclopedia and the discussion you wish to have. If you think WP:N contradicts WP:OR (it doesn't), then that's fine. But mentioning the definition of an encyclopedia doesn't advance the discussion at all. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the contradiction you're talking about. [[WP:N]] doesn't say that "primary sources aren't allowed". Just that a topic needs at least *some* secondary coverage to merit inclusion. No smoke, no fire, no problem. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, has editorial standards of inclusion, drawing a distinction between "information" and "knowledge". [[WP:N]] is the practical implementation of general statements of principle such as [[WP:NOT#IINFO|"Wikipedia is not indiscriminate"]]. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 16:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you all are simply not "on the same page", and just "banging the drum" for [[WP:N]], without (apparently) understanding what I'm asking.

[[WP:OR]] (bolding mine):

*Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. '''''Any interpretation of''''' primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
**only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
**make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Now that would seem to be in direct conflict with [[WP:N]] (replaced ref tags with parentheses):

* ''"Sources,"'' (Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.) defined on Wikipedia as [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|secondary sources]], provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. (Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.)

And I love the fact that WP:N links to the section I quoted, but calls that link "secondary sources".

I see a conflict between this guideline and the policy at [[WP:OR]].

Yes, secondary sources are required for: ''"analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims"''. But that doesn't mean that secondary sources are the only [[WP:reliable sources|reliable sources]], and definitely doesn't mean that other sources are '''''not allowed'''''.

So please (asking again), explain to me how the [[WP:N]], isn't contrary to [[WP:OR]] (which it links to!), and further, how you may feel that this is ''correct'', and thus that you feel that WP:N should be ''policy''. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 19:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:Nobody is claiming that primary sources are not allowed. People are merely claiming that we cannot have analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims without secondary sources, and that articles completely lacking in analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims are not useful. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 05:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::If I can show that they are useful, would you change your opinion of notability? - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::No, because nearly every sort of article (e.g. plot summaries, directories, raw data) that is completely lacking in analytic etc. claims is called out in [[WP:NOT]]. When I say "not useful," I do not mean "completely devoid of worth," I mean "inappropriate for this project." - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 03:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::If ''"Nobody is claiming that primary sources are not allowed."'', then [[WP:N]] should be clear on that, rather than suggesting that secondary sources are the ''only'' sources allowed. (And honestly, look at the comments above my last one. In reading the comments, do you think that every one of the commenters agree with what you just said? I'm not asking if they do, I'm asking if it ''appears to you'' that they do. Be wary of indefinite pronouns like "nobody".) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 08:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::WP:N doesn't disallow primary sources. It just says that their use is not '''sufficient''' to build an article with. That is a pretty big difference. [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] are content guidelines and so can "allow" or disallow sources. WP:N cannot and does not. And I'll state for the record that I agree with what AMIB has said. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 03:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
(Note that the MiB's statements above generally don't apply to lists, since they can be purely factual in nature and still useful.) --[[User:erachima|erachima]] <small>[[User talk:erachima|talk]]</small> 07:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:The composition and criteria of lists still need some sort of referenced basis, or we get idiosyncratic non-topic lists. (I think I mentioned "List of three-legged chairs in popular culture" above.) - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 03:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Primary sources can be used to fill in the gaps. But according to [[WP:V]], if no reliable third-party sources can be found, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. [[WP:N]] starts from that basic point. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 04:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
*Don't forget [[WP:NOR]] also states ''Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.'' I tend to agree with AMiB's statements, we have allowed exceptions where articles can be based on primary source, [[Portal:Current events]] used to be the example, but they are becoming rarer and rarer. I don't see a conflict between [[WP:N]] and [[WP:OR]], given that [[WP:OR]] contains the statement I quoted. If Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources, I think it therefore follows that an article needs to contain at least one secondary source, which I think is what [[WP:N]] calls for. I don't understand the point you are making, Jc. You seem to be stating that [[WP:N]] does not allow primary sources to be used on Wikipedia. That isn't the case. [[WP:N]] does not allow an article to be written using only primary source. You seem to be misreading the guidance quite severely. The guidance is not defining all sources as being secondary, but only defining the sources contained in the "notability clause" as being secondary. That's why the link is to the section but piped as secondary. Could probably be solved by better tweaking the notability clause to insert secondary. This used to be the point the word independent made, but this is what happens when you allow guideline writing by committee, you get a dog's dinner. The point the guidance seeks to make is that if you haven't got a secondary source to summarise, you haven't got the basis of an article. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 14:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== Another data point of consideration ==

[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West]] is an AFD where a small Wikiproject has taken it upon themselves to create their own notability rules (SNG) to defend articles (specifically on what looks like coaches for college teams). Given that there's a great number of comments that point out that a WProject-limited notability guideline is not acceptable, I think this clearly shows that regardless of how we end up handling SNGs, they need to be globally reviewed first before the SNGs become guideline. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:This is one of the problems with goal directed guidelines. These guys have a strong desire to see coaches included. I don't have a strong desire to see coaches excluded, because I don't care at all about football. Once you break it down into individual topics, you wind up with strong "pro" feelings competing with apathy. That's why I prefer to keep the debate framed in terms of necessary sourcing, and try to avoid looking at individual topics. The reason I keep pounding on TV episodes in this discussion is because Phil has revealed in the past that he is goal directed, and the inclusion of TV episode articles is one of his goals. All of my comments are equally applicable to hamlets, garage rock bands, asteroids, high schools, shopping malls, and bridges.[[User:Kww|Kww]] ([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 14:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
: That's why it's important to come up with the appropriate interaction between the GNG and SNGs. That will let us deal with SNGs that outright contradict the GNG, with no effort to reconcile the two, and no justification but [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. We can get a request for comment on WikiProject-specific guidelines, and tear down "[[walled gardens]]". But one step at a time. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 14:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:*This example may be an indication that notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources, even if so called "expert" opinion says that it can.--[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 22:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
::*Where did expert opinion come in? [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 20:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
::I would not say I'm goal directed, except inasmuch as my goal is to find a way to provide good, thorough coverage of everything - which is to say, my goal is to write an encyclopedia. I am, personally, more inclined to work from first principles than not. But it's clear that many people are working from an outcome-based view - that is, they see particular outcomes as a priori bad, and are going to vote up or down proposals based on whether they advance or prevent specific outcomes. To this end, I think a goal-based discussion is an important one to have in parallel to a principles discussion.
::In practice, of course, I can't remember the last actual principles discussion we had on Wikipedia. We always do goal-based discussions. Sometimes they masquerade as principles discussions. Usually not. Right now, looking at the RFC, we're really not having a principles discussion or a goal discussion - we're having a posturing discussion where we shoot down principles based on goals. Which is fairly useless. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 20:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

== For consideration ==

I know the RFC is still going, but it's pretty clear where consensus is sitting at date. As such, I think I see a way forwards that considers both issues and the various pros and cons of each proposal, which I have formulated as a starting point at [[User:Masem/Inclusion Guideline]]. I'm not saying this is a final proposal from all this, but I am wondering if others see this as catching the spirit that the results of the RFC are generating. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 15:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:The idea that you know where "the RFC is going, and its pretty clear where consensus is sitting to date" is frankly a delusion of grandeur.--[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 03:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
::How so? The rough consensus (or at least relative proportions sup/opp each section) have remained relatively static. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 03:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
::* This proposal is not new, and basically boils down to [[User:Masem|Masem]]'s proposal to make the article inclusion criteria of the [[Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline|General notability guideline]] (GNG) less restrictive for certain subject areas such as fiction [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28fiction%29&diff=220168756&oldid=220159644]. How this is actually achieved would presumably depend on the subject area, but in fact can only be one of two ways, namely to exempt certain subject areas from [[WP:N]], or to assume that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged. Both of these paths face the same problem, in that if you bypass evidence based criteria for inclusion (i.e. GNG), then the only alternative to evidence of notability is "expert opinion" to determine the rules by which articles should be included or excluded. <br />Overall, I think Masem is presumptious to assume that he alone knows where "the RFC is going, and its pretty clear where consensus is sitting to date". I would say that his is only one of many viewpoints, and that I oppose his proposal to effectively create "editorial wall gardens" based on "expert opinion" which would enable special interest topics to sidestep Wikipedia wide policies and guidelines that currently cover all subject areas (see also [[User talk:Masem/Inclusion Guideline#Criticism]]). --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 12:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:::* Reading all the comments, both on the RFC itself and asides, here is what I see consensus sits:
:::** The GNG is here to stay, as it is a good measure of notability/inclusion
:::** Specific criteria SNG are '''not''' in addition to GNG requirements; they are their own separate requirements (though if an article meets both, hey, great.) That is, the correct wording in WP:N is that articles need to meet the GNG '''or''' the SNGs.
:::** SNGs are necessary as due to the broad coverage of WP, the GNG is not sufficient for every field.
:::** Unrestricted use of spinout articles that lack notability is completely inappropriate. However, there are well-thought-out uses of spinouts that may be necessary at times for appropriate coverage.
:::** Sourcing and adherance to other policies is a very high concern and any solution on the SNGs and spinouts needs to include how they interact with policies.
:::* I'm not saying every respondent to the RFC is saying things things, or even that being the viewpoint of a single respondent, but it does capture the ''average'' of their replies and that gives the starting point for where my inclusion guideline essay. I know there are points that people disagree with, but the entire point of this RFC was to get where the wind was blowing with respect to notability, and to figure out where to go from there, and I believe my proposed essay capture that, even if there are those that completely disagree with every point; unfortunately, they have to be taken as outlier points of data from the rest of the data set. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 13:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
::::* I think I could "get behind" the 5 points you list. The hard part is the details, assuredly : ) - perhaps a new poll? [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

::::*This seems to largely capture the sentiment as I see it, though I'm not sure it provides meaningfully useful guidance. In particular, #5 is very tricky, because we have very, very schizoid views on sourcing that tend to be founded on shifting sands. But I could go on about this problem for hours (and have in the past). Suffice it to say, I think the statement "sourcing is a very high concern" has many layers of unintended truth in it. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::* The way I'm reading sourcing from the RFC (and additional comments elsewhere) is that it is sourcing that first and foremost avoids OR and POV statements, and the concern of how much content vs number of sources. That said, I think if we consider that the sources (whether primary, secondary, tertiary, or first- or third-party) are what should guide ''how much'' (and to some extent, article organization) we talk about a topic without venturing to OR/POV, while notability or inclusion or whatever guides us as to ''what we should be talking about'' (with the GNG bridging the gap, but not also perfect for every area), we have something to work from. We still want, ideally, secondary third-party as sources, but when we're limited to primary first-party only or other situations, we need to recognize that write what we reasonably can from that and not any more. But key here: content vs sources is a separate issue from inclusion. I think this is a key step forward if we recognize this. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 21:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a useful essay to summarize all the factors that go into "does this topic meet our standards?" But is this supposed to replace WP:N? Because it doesn't really clarify anything. The scope creep actually leads to less clarity. "This topic doesn't meet [[User:Masem/Inclusion Guideline]]". "Oh yeah, which one?" "Ummm, the [[WP:N|notability]] one." [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:The clarity that is coming here is that the inclusion guideline is strictly talking about what content we include - either it is a topic we consider as part of WP's broad scope to be covered, or it meets the GNG. Then, with that established, as a ''separate'' consideration, we talk about how such content is covered with respect to the sources they provide, articles for topics that can be well-backed by reliable sources, sections of other articles for topics that can't. This doesn't replace N, but N has to modified to help make this work, with the focus being on what "significant coverage" should be.
:As to your second point, it is adding another guideline, but I think it's one that is aching to be added based on this RFC and recent comments at WP:N; it's creep, but necessary to resolve the issues. We can still point editors to the specific guidelines ("does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC"). This issue (how we point editors to the right place), I'm not too worried about, it is one I expect to see natural resolve if we go this direction. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:: In that sense, I think this is a good essay. It might even be a good "summary guideline". It probably needs a copy-edit, and I happen to think that less information is more clarity. But I would even support making it an official guideline once we hammer out the last of the details. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 02:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::*In response to Masem's earlier points, I can only see conflict between [[WP:N]] and the SNGs if they diverge on such issues as spinouts. On the one hand he says that "Unrestricted use of spinout articles that lack notability is completely inappropriate" and on the other that "there are well-thought-out uses of spinouts that may be necessary at times for appropriate coverage". I can understand why Masem would like to have his cake and eat it, but in practise this too vague. Either [[WP:N]] should apply to all articles, or an alternative set of inclusion criteria should be proposed. I see this as the Achilles heal in his essay and the [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_24#Prop._by_Phil_Sandifer|earlier proposal of Phil Sandifer for spinout articles]]: they want to make [[WP:N]] less restrictive, but they have not proposed any specific inclusion criteria that would either supplement or replace GNG to make it happen. As far as I can see, Masem's essay is an Inclusion Guideline that does not contain any inclusion criteria, other than vague references such as "GNG is here to stay, as it is a good measure of notability/inclusion". With only vague references to GNG but with no references to alternatives, this essay is analogous to a trying to sell us an airplane without engine - it just won't fly, like the previous proposal [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]]. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 11:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::* I am proposing that an alternate set of inclusion criteria be propsed, which right now are our SNGs, but they would have to be reworked to make them read as inclusion guidelines and checked again at the global level for consensus; but the key is the framework for what these inclusion subguidlines would look like exists already. So these aren't vague by any means.
:::* To be more precise, this proposed essay provided a two level guideline to determine two things about any possible topic: ''should it be covered in Wikipedia?'' and ''should its coverage in Wikipedia be given a full article?'' - eg separate issues of inclusion and presentation/organization. The method of answering both questions are more objective than subjective (the first moreso than the second). --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::::*I don't think you have answered my major concern: what if a SNG conflicts with [[WP:N]] by giving special treatment for specific topics? Because GNG is evidence based, [[WP:N]] will tend to take precedent over SNGs in [[WP:AFD|AFD]] debates in the long run. I don't see how you can apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines consistently if SNGs conflict with them. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 14:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::The concern you describe is a non-issue, because this is a wiki and the rules are not set in stone but rather determined by organically evolving practices and community consensus. If the community at large is against an SNG, it never gains status as a guideline. If an SNG is initially deemed acceptable but its practical application turns out to be flawed by creating unforeseen problems, then it is modified or demoted to reflect that change in consensus. Simple, self-resolving, and what happens every day with our current policy pages. See [[WP:CCC]]. --[[User:erachima|erachima]] <small>[[User talk:erachima|talk]]</small> 08:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::*On the contrary, the potential for conflict between [[WP:N]] and the SNGs is the single biggest issue highlighted by the RFC, and is addressed at length in [[User:Masem/Inclusion_Guideline#Inclusion_sub-guidelines|Masem's essay]]. The problem is that, at best, SNG's could be used to provide guidanance on the appllication of [[WP:N]] to their subject area, but at worst SNGs could provide complex exemptions from GNG for their favorite topics, such as [[trading cards]]. Although Masem's essay addresses this concern by saying that SNGs would be based on so called "consensus", the reality is that I have neither the knowledge or interest in topics such as trading cards, and any SNG regulating the notability of this subject would only be based on the consensus of editors interested in that topic. If Masems essay were to become a guideline, it would essentially be a charter to editorial "wall gardens" with their own article inclusion criteria based on so called "expert opinion", i.e. [[WP:POV|POV]] dressed up as "consensus". --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 10:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::* There is nothing wrong with "expert opinion" as long as it is agreed to by everyone involved; that's the basis of all of our policies and guidelines - people with experience suggesting things to be included and them proposing such changes to be implemented. For these inclusions guidelines, even if you don't know the field, you will be able to state your concerns if you feel that criteria would fail issues with WP:NOT. So you may not care or know much about trading cards, but even a casual read should tell you that if a criteria suggested that every printed trading card be a topic in WP, that's [[WP:IINFO]] and thus not a valid criteria. Furthermore, ''you'' are not the same as the entire body of editors - just because you don't know a field doesn't mean that the rest of the body doesn't; there's certainly likely people outside of yourself and the group that developed an inclusion subguideline that know the field as well and can comment further. Insisting that we have global consensus to validate inclusion subguidelines is the way to avoid walled gardens while still providing broad coverage and encyclopedic treatment. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 13:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::*There is a problem with getting "expert opinion" to provide inclusion criteria, rather than applying a global set of inclusion criteria based on the citation of reliable secondary sources. For every single topic area, we would have to have an RFC and although there are only 10 SNGs at the moment, what happens when there are 100 SNGs or a 1,000 SNGs all seeking global consensus for their inclusion criteria? I oppose this approach, not just because it would lead to the creation of walled gardens, but also it is going to take a lot of effort to build all these walls of these gardens through the process of consensus. Having one set of inclusion criteria in [[WP:N]] seems to me a much easier way to run our policies and guidelines. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 15:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::* But I point to the RFC that clearly shows agreement that SNGs are necessary due to the broad range of topics on WP that the GNG cannot fully account for. Now, I do agree we need to avoid any creep in subguidelines, which is why I stressed in the essay that the creation of a guideline should be avoided if the criteria can be included elsewhere; we need to have as few as possible and since each would have to pass the global consensus barrier, we can prevent that creep. There's also a point of making sure proposed guidelines are as generic as possible; we don't need different criteria for the inclusion of statesmen from the US as we do from Britain; instead, a criteria should be based on government officials in any country at a certain level. Global consideration of each subguideline as it passes through will help that there as well. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 15:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::*The trend has already started where by new SNGs are being proposed, and it is likely there will be many more SNGs in the future if everyone gets to write their own subject specific criteria (see [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:compromise#Another_data_point_of_consideration|above]]. This approach has been parodied at [[Wikipedia:Notability (Septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles)]]. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 15:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::*Right, and we would be able to correct that trend. Unless the proposed guideline passed through a global consensus checkpoint, that criteria cannot be used to justify article inclusion. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 15:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

== Suggestion: split it into subpages ==

I'm gone into an edit conflict, and I'm waiting for a 400 KB text to upload again (with a 56 Kbit/s dial-up modem). And probably the other editor was editing some other, unrelated part of the page. To prevent similar issues, I suggest to move the individual proposals (i.e. sections with third-level headings, such as "1.4.1 Proposal A.1: Every spin-out is notable") to subpages, and to transclude them into the main RFC page, so that editors can edit one of them at a time, reducing the risk of edit conflicts, and can watch them indipendently.

Is there anything who has currently nothing better to do willing to bother to do this? --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF; border: thin solid black"> [[User:Army1987|A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ]][[User talk:Army1987|! ]][[Special:Contributions/Army1987|! ]]</span> 12:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

: This thing has exploded with activity since the watchlist notice, which is great, but you're right about the drawbacks. I'm not sure I'm gonna have time to sift through it and keep an eye on it. But I'd like to find a way to keep the size down without making this into a confusing bunch of pages and subpages. Does anyone else have any ideas, or is splitting this the only feasible way to handle it? [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 17:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::We should probably split it and transclude it. Maybe something like [[Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/1.4.1 Proposal A.1: Every spin-out is notable]]? - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 17:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
{{done}}, even if with [[User_talk:Army1987#Splitting_document|some problems]] (fixed by now, I hope). --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF; border: thin solid black"> [[User:Army1987|A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ]][[User talk:Army1987|! ]][[Special:Contributions/Army1987|! ]]</span> 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

: I think we should have waited for a little more discussion before doing it. But I defer to broader consensus. Do people agree this is an improvement? [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 19:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think it's better, but maybe I'm missing a downside? I guess you have to watch the other pages now could be one. Things are happening so fast, the watchlist wasn't very useful to me. I've just been checking the page every so often. I'm most interested in the number of supports and opposes, since people are starting to repeat themselves. At some point we should put a count on the this page. That's something I'd like to watch. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 19:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::: Yeah I guess I'm don't fully grasp what transclusion has accomplished, but I thank [[User:Army1987]] for taking this on. Now that it's up there, I can't really see a downside. Someone has also added a tally... even though this isn't a vote, it's still somewhat useful to measure consensus. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 20:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:::: Transclusion greatly reduces edit conflicts, as two users can edit different subpages simultaneously. Now a edit conflict can occur only if two people edit the ''same'' subpage at once. Also, somebody can watch subsections individually (even if these pages are so active that the watchlist isn't going to be very useful). --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF; border: thin solid black"> [[User:Army1987|A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ]][[User talk:Army1987|! ]][[Special:Contributions/Army1987|! ]]</span> 10:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This page has become so large that it is an accessibility issue. It is too much to download all at once. Splitting each question to a separate page, and keeping this one as the index, is still a good idea. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 07:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

:BTW, ''this'' '''talk''' page ''itself'' is becoming somewhat large. If nobody objects, I'm going to auto-archive it with [[User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo]]. --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF; border: thin solid black"> [[User:Army1987|A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ]][[User talk:Army1987|! ]][[Special:Contributions/Army1987|! ]]</span> 10:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

== Confusion of meaning of "notability" per GNG and "verifiability" ==

I'm noticing that a lot of editors throughout the responses, typically as opposes to the proposals that suggest a more open approach to spinouts and SNGs, state that bypassing the GNG is failing [[WP:V]]. This is not a truism: the threshold for V is the existence of reliable sources which can include primary and first-party sources, though V does disallow full articles built only on these. Meeting the GNG helps to immediately meet WP:V, but it is not the case that failing to meet the GNG is failing WP:V. I'm wondering if this is a point that should be addressed to remind editors that there is a subtle but significant difference between GNG and V. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 10:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

: WP:V says "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:N says "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." (And "sources" is defined as "secondary sources" a few sentences later.) I'm not sure how you could fail to meet WP:N and yet still pass WP:V. The only meaningful difference is that WP:N requires "significant coverage", which to me is implied in the spirit of WP:V -- it's not just finding a source that says "X exists" but something that provides verification of a meaningful fact about "X". But perhaps you could clarify how you think an article could fail WP:N and still pass WP:V. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 15:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

:: I think point to be taken is that there is also a distinction between "topic" and "article"; they are not synonymous terms as used on Wikipedia (article is specifically an aspect of how we organize topics). --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 17:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

== At-a-glance numbers ==

To quote my edit summary:

*''"There are some excellent comments from all sides of these issues. Presuming that this can be equated to numbers is fallacious and is simply misrepresentative of consensus and the consensus process."''

This is not RfA, so there is no "voting" hybrid in play here. As a poll, numbers mean nothing, and should simply not be posted. I ''strongly'' oppose this. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 13:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

:Well, the numbers show that for all proposals (except perhaps B.2 and B.5, and maybe B.4), the number of people supporting and opposing is approximately the same order of magnitude, so there is no clear-cut consensus for or against any of them. And as for B.2 and B.5, one can immediately go check whether the arguments of the twelve people opposing B.2 and the eight people supporting B.5 have enough merit to say that there is no consensus about them, either. Maybe the numbers should be re-added, but with a stronger disclaimer? --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF; border: thin solid black"> [[User:Army1987|A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ]][[User talk:Army1987|! ]][[Special:Contributions/Army1987|! ]]</span> 14:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

::I've no idea what past experience led editors to believe that a poll was the way forward: polling is almost always divisive. And if numbers mean nothing, then why do the "!votes" begin with a # instead of a * ? The !vote has become one of Wikipedia's biggest lies. Voting is better avoided by simply not having a vote, not by having a !vote. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 14:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::: I'd concur with you in theory. In practice Wikipedia has come to a "legislative" deadlock in many areas where a few dedicated editors can stonewall the discussion with endless filibustering. Just like in real politics, !votes have become a necessary evil. This is how RfAs are conducted, and this is how ArbCom gets elected. Now !legislation is going to get passed the same way. Welcome to reality. [[User:VasileGaburici|VG]] [[User_talk:VasileGaburici|&#x260E;]] 14:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Elections for a person to recieve more responsibility are quite different. It's why they tend to be (at least) hybrids of "voting".

::::This page has nothing to do with "elections", but rather with consensus, and so "voting" is inappropriate. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 15:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: Free-form disussions have already failed in this area, for the reasons I've stated above. Unless you want the loudest, or those with most times on their hands to set the rules, a !vote is the only reasonable alternative to give everyone equal chances to express their opinion. [[User:VasileGaburici|VG]] [[User_talk:VasileGaburici|&#x260E;]] 15:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

:::([[Help:Edit conflict|ec]] - but posting anyway without change to the post below.)
:::(To GG) - I would have no problem with every # being replaced with an asterisk. (As is done at XfD.)

:::As for Army1987's comments, they are exactly why the number "quantities/totals" should not be on the page:

:::''"...the number of people supporting and opposing is approximately the same order of magnitude, so there is no clear-cut consensus for or against any of them."''

:::Not necessarily, since [[WP:CON|consensus]] is not determined by how many people comment on something. This is instead a case of quality over quantity.

:::And even if this page ''does'' end up without determining consensus, I think that through the experience we will have learned something about what others believe, and how others interpret certain policies and guidelines. And that may help frame future discussions. (It's part of why we archive such pages.) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 14:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Do you mean that 40 people supporting a proposal and 45 people opposing it can ever qualify as "consensus" for or against it?<ref group="Note">Unless the forty supporters are all sockpuppets of the same person — but seriously, who would ever bother to do that?</ref> (BTW, note the "approximately", the "[[order of magnitude]]", and the "no clear-cut" parts of my comment. I never claimed that the numbers alone can be used to draw definitive conclusions, only that they are not completely useless to guesstimate what the general situation is.) <references group="Note" /> --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF; border: thin solid black"> [[User:Army1987|A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ]][[User talk:Army1987|! ]][[Special:Contributions/Army1987|! ]]</span> 15:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::If we're speaking of hypotheticals, yes, a few well-explained opposes can (and should) easily "out-vote" 100 unsupported supports.
:::::That said, these discussion have some well-explained thoughts from several "sides". And I can see places where the "support/oppose" dichotomy is actually hindering the discussion in some ways. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 16:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that focusing on numbers is kind of divisive, and we should thus give a little more weight to cohesive arguments that tie together our policies and so on. I think looking at the numbers is a useful summary, but it was probably a bad idea to start doing some kind of !vote-tracking before the RFC was over. I know that RFA's look heavily at !vote counts, and it's not a matter of getting a simple majority... but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Just let people make good comments, period. [[User:Jc37]] is right on this issue. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

: I'm glad to see Wikipedia has both cynics and idealists - it needs both! Both the #'s and the support/oppose dichotomy hinder discussion, but I reckon anyone changing either would face resistance. For what it is worth, I've !voted with a bullet, but I don't expect that to last for long. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 16:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::If we didn't want to be divisive, we should have made no separate subsections for support/oppose/neutral. We would have one Discussion section for each proposal, in which editors would add <code><nowiki>* '''Support'''</nowiki></code>s, <code><nowiki>* '''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>s and <code><nowiki>* ''Comment''</nowiki></code>s in chronological order, as is usually done on XfD. --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF; border: thin solid black"> [[User:Army1987|A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ]][[User talk:Army1987|! ]][[Special:Contributions/Army1987|! ]]</span> 17:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::This was started by a group of people that really were at a "show of hands" kind of stage to judge consensus for various positions. That isn't true of the large group that has been attracted since the watchlist notice. This wider group has valuable input, but hasn't really spent a lot of time coming up with a cohesive view on the topic. I don't think people have to worry about a vote, here. I can't envision a policy that would incorporate A1.2, A2, A3, '''and''' A4, and remains very wishy-washy about SNGs (only B2 and B6 are getting wide support, and neither of them clarify the relationship between SNG and GNG much at all).[[User:Kww|Kww]] ([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 18:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: I am part of this wider group, although I have been involved in notability discussions in the past. I believe I have an extremely cohesive view on the topic and I think if you read my comments on each of the proposals, you will find them pretty cohesive too. I have long argued that the idea to exempt articles from notability guidelines is the wrong way forward. Instead, the SNGs should clarify what notability means for particular types of article. B2 is a proposal that takes such a view, and it is essentially the only positive proposal with clear overall support so far. The only other reasonably clear messages are solid opposition to A1, B1, B4 and B5. Apart from B1, where I am neutral, these all agree with my perspective. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 19:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: I think that this thing isn't going anywhere. People will simply go on !voting until ... I can't foretell when (until everybody realizes that we're not going to achieve consensus this way?). If we wanted to work towards consensus, we would have something [[User:Army1987/Example RFC|like this]]. <span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF; border: thin solid black"> [[User:Army1987|A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ]][[User talk:Army1987|! ]][[Special:Contributions/Army1987|! ]]</span> 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Enlighten me: how is that example different from the current RfC? [[User:VasileGaburici|VG]] [[User_talk:VasileGaburici|&#x260E;]] 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::: The fact is, I don't think that the 167th person adding a !vote for one of the proposals bothered to read all the 166 !votes added before, including both supports, opposes, and neutrals. Evidence for this is that most !votes aren't followed by any comment by someone else. People just voice their opinion without hearing others'. And it is impossible that consensus emerges this way. With my suggestion, people supporting a position would read all the comments done before theirs, including their rebuttals, before adding anything to the discussion (at least in theory). --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF; border: thin solid black"> [[User:Army1987|A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ]][[User talk:Army1987|! ]][[Special:Contributions/Army1987|! ]]</span> 09:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::So consensus would end up being determined by the two people most willing to go at it the longest? [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 14:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
If you really want to get some good ideas out of this now extremely long poll, I recommend asking [[User:Sam|Sam]] to evaluate consensus. It is a big job, and he may not accept, but he is simply ''the best'' at reading through long discussions, evaluating comments against pre-existing consensus and policy, and making helpful recommendations. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 21:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
: Trying to analyze the current consensus might be a little premature, but I think it could help to have someone try to parse through it and summarize it. Can you point me to some discussions that [[User:Sam]] has been involved in? Just for future reference, if and when we'll need someone to take this to the next step. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 21:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:: I agree and was proposing Sam for the next step: I don't think he'd be up for making an interim summary. He closed [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_11#Good_article_signs_.28closed.29]] and also [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/FritzpollBot]]. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 22:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
== The problem with this process - too many options ==

The way this thing is structured, it won't yield a consensus. What it can do is cut down the number of options for the next round. We probably have to go through this again, but minus the options that didn't get much support. Remember that N-choice voting is inherently ambiguous. See [[Voting paradox]]. --[[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 16:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sports ==

Is there a quick option or place to vote for the status quo to remain in effect under WP:Athlete as there is alot of reading, around the subject reading and thought involved. [[User:Fronsdorf|Fronsdorf]] ([[User talk:Fronsdorf|talk]]) 13:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
:[[WP:Athlete]] represents raw madness:
::''Every single retired or active professional player of any sport in any country is notable.''
:How can sensible sports fan agree with that? This SNG is an aberration that mass-produces thousands upon thousands of articles about non-notable players. On top of that [[WP:Athlete]] created a backlog of 100,000+ athletes that are entitled to an article and that backlog will '''never''' stop growing.
:Worst of all is the lack of quality and there is no commitment to raise it. Tens of thousands of low quality, rarely edited perma-stubs that nobody but die-hard fans care polluting Wikipedia for no reason other than vanity. <span style="background-color:green">[[User:EconomistBR|<font color="yellow">EconomistBR</font>]]</span> 03:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::We have added other questions after the RfC has begun. We could add this, although I'm neutral on the issue. There may be a second RfC similar to this to further delve into the issues. It might be appropriate there, I don't know. This may be a good time to ask about WP:ATHLETE. Who knows if we'll be allowed another watchlist notification, and it is one of the more contentious NOTE issues. I'd like to know what Gavin, KWW, Masem, DGG, Phil Sandifer, etc. thinks about this though, since this is kind of their baby (I know no one owns this). Personally, I support ATHLETE because it is one of the most inclusive guidelines, and there are a rediculous number of sources for athletes from the modern era. On the other hand, it's contentious. Why not check its temperature. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 06:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::*I agree with EconomistBR that [[WP:BIO#Athlete]] is not based on any sensible reasoning, and it is an example of where an SNG has become an editorial "walled garden" in which notability is assumed to be inherited/presumed/acknowledged without exception, even though there are many examples of articles about atheletes that have no sources at all, and this and this is where presumed notability breaks down. If you have no evidence of notability, what is there to fall back on? Simply the opinion or one editor over another. The net effect of presuming that a topic is notable in the absence of reliable secondary sources is the burden of evidence is shifted from the editor who creates an article to everybody (and nobody) else. It has also given rise to the creation of thousands of articles which fail [[CAT:CONTENT|Wikipedia content guidelines]], and therefore are not encyclopedic at all. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 12:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::*If you don't know what I think of this by now, Peregrine, I must have not been explaining things correctly. It's a grotesque travesty of a guideline. SNGs should be documenting exclusions: people and things that, despite meeting the GNG, are too trivial to get an article. This guideline attempts to subvert [[WP:N]] by declaring an entire class of people inherently notable.[[User:Kww|Kww]] ([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 13:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::::"most inclusive guidelines"?!! Wikipedia is buckling under the weight of 2.5 million articles, that have to be watched, expanded and updated. Quality is not going up, already we have articles that are only visited by bots. <span style="background-color:green">[[User:EconomistBR|<font color="yellow">EconomistBR</font>]]</span> 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The [[WP:ATHLETE]] criteria seems overinclusive to me. We could easily include a lot of academics in Wikipedia using a similar criteria "ever belonged to a professional higher education establishment", but we don't. There a lot of academics at top 10-20 universities that don't have a page on Wikipedia, and you could easily write a substantive article about any of them. The current [[WP:ATHLETE]] criteria generates lots of infobox-only pages, effectively transforming Wikipedia in a [[WP:NOTDIR|directory]]. This is a clear example of bad guidelines overriding policy. [[User:VasileGaburici|VG]] [[User_talk:VasileGaburici|&#x260E;]] 14:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::The inclusion of hundreds upon hundreds of virtually anonymous e.g. football players has really bothered me recently, but I was not aware of WP:ATHLETE until now. Merely being a professional should not be sufficient; it is not sufficient for anyone else, even for professions where such status almost invariably confers notability. Mass creation of this kind of articles does not really help Wikipedia: lists of sportspeople such as e.g. [[List of A.C. Milan players]] are vastly more useful to readers. We need a new WP:ATHLETE (regardless of how the GNG vs SNG debate will end), but it is not going to be easy; it might end up being more elaborate than [[WP:MUSIC]]. [[User:GregorB|GregorB]] ([[User talk:GregorB|talk]]) 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:::IMO changing WP:Athlete is almost impossible, sports fan will never let it happen. They will argue that the hundreds of News articles that mention players' names convey notability to them. I favor a split to WikiSports or something. <span style="background-color:green">[[User:EconomistBR|<font color="yellow">EconomistBR</font>]]</span> 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: Arguing on their talk page is indeed unlikely to work (see my comments in the previous section about the virtual impossibility to achieve local consensus on any policy). Making a Wikipedia-wide RfC ''might'' work. [[User:VasileGaburici|VG]] [[User_talk:VasileGaburici|&#x260E;]] 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:42, 11 October 2008

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:compromise&oldid=244540833"