Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:45, 28 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:N WT:NN WT:NOTE

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82Auto-archiving period: 14 days

To discuss the notability imparted by specific sources, please go to Misplaced Pages:Notability/Noticeboard. See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Relevance (and archives)

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

checking the temperature for a name change (in principle)

I know changing the name of this guideline is a perennial proposal. But in light of the frequent debates over the content of this guideline, I wanted to show how these frequent debates might lose steam if the guideline were called something else.

This guideline is about best practices around sourcing a stand-alone article. We refer to these sourcing requirements under the heading of "notability", but this name leads to several other perennial debates and problems:

• Drama: Many editors (especially newbies) react poorly to hearing their work isn't "notable". I've never seen the same reaction to hearing our requirement for sources. (The reaction is usually "ok, what sources can I use?")
• Bad PR: Having a notability guideline has led to media accusations that we're elitist. Having sourcing guidelines has led to *GOOD* PR, that we try to be responsible.
• Wikilawyering: Often, editors who know better still try to say that notability isn't about sources. "It's notable because it has youtube hits!"
• Learning Curve: There's a lot of wasted time and energy from explaining "... Notability means WP:Notability, not Notability."
• Least clear policy name. "No original research" or "... is not a dictionary" strongly indicate what Misplaced Pages expects from editors just from their title. "Notability" doesn't.

I'm not sure what a new name would be. Maybe as matter of fact as possible ("third party sources"), or maybe a more descriptive version of what we have now ("Verifying notability of article topics"). But I'd like to see how others see the connection between this guideline's name and this guideline's drama level. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Drama and PR will happen regardless of what we call it presuming there is no change otherwise to the process; arguably Wikilawyering will too as long as whatever it is remained to de-emphasizes the importance of popularity and page hits. The last two are pertinent but difficult to work around without introducing new problems (not saying we can't just that I think we need to focus on those two the most). --MASEM (t) 17:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that a name change will be an uphill battle that will fail. But I think that concern over the learning curve and its various adverse effects is well-placed. Instead of changing the name, maybe (once all the other stuff about the nutshell yada yada yada is resolved) something in the nutshell or the lead section could say, very clearly, that WP:Notability is not the same thing as Notability. I'd even favor thinking up a catchy WP: shortcut that would lead right to it, so it would become easy to point out in discussions elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the wider community would ever accept a more practical title for this guideline or not is a difficult question. However, if we going to be brutally honest with ourselves then this guideline would be called Misplaced Pages:Article Inclusion Criteria and its partner in confusion WP:NOT would be called Misplaced Pages:Article Exclusion Criteria. Nothing substantial would have to change with the standards, we'd just have to get rid of what John Locke calls the Abuse of language--we shouldn't have to refine notability into WP:Notability for ever new editor that comes along. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Two problems: one, we've tried the concept of article inclusion before but that leads to people wanting to claim inherit notability (read: "We should be including every X that meets Y!"). Second, WP:NOT is both content policy and a standard for standalone articles, so we can't just rename it to that.

One aspect to throw out here is if the GNG should be separated from WP:N or whatever name it comes up to be. This helps to make it clear that notability ( or whatever we call it ) is best demonstrated by the GNG but can be demonstrated by other factors but we're still aiming to write non-stubby encyclopedic articles here. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The GNG is very successful as the heart of WP:N. The GNG could very well be renamed, though I don't think it is necessary or desirable. People does misunderstand the full "General notability guideline" due to real world usage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, here, the GNG is one way to meet WP:N. The subject-specific ones are another. The GNG works most of the time and should be the default if the SNGs don't fit. However, we should be clear (if we're throwing out ideas) that WP:N != GNG. It's a point of confusion I've seen, and lets us discuss the more philosphocial aspects of what we expect notability (or article inclusion, or whatever) gives. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Masem, I disagree with your nuance. The GNG is the main way to meet WP:N. There is a very strong trend, especially at DRV, that if a SNG question is in dispute, refer to the GNG. I do think you are wrong about the relationship of WP:N and the GNG. WP:N is the GNG, with the explanations and caveats in its footnotes and in the subsequent sections. None of the subsquent sections detail additional criteria. The SNGs are introduced in the lede, immediately following reference to the GNG, in parallel, though kind of subserviently, like supplementary information. It's all fully logical.

Philosophical aspects? WP:N, and its subguidelines, present the criteria by which a new editor may quickly assess whether it is worth attempting to write an article on a topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been considering notability for so long (mostly as how fascinating it is) that there is definitely the way it is put into practice that seems obvious for 99% of cases of AFD (going in either direction), but the nuances of WP:N, WP:GNG, the SNGs, and other factors that come into play for the one 1% make complete sense - but very difficult to grasp initially - of why the GNG is a component, but not the whole, of WP:N. WP:N is a concept, GNG is a "quick and dirty" metric that is easy to demonstrate, but beyond that as long as the article can trends towards meeting WP:V, NOR, NPOV and avoid NOT, and yet fail the GNG , there might be a chance we keep it that the GNG or the other SNGs simply don't account for. Maybe that's the IAR part of WP:N, maybe there's something there that will make the concept easier to put to newer users. Hence thrwing it out there as an option.--MASEM (t) 06:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Aside: I don't think it's useful to speculate about the chances that the name change will fail. I'm more interested if those who frequent the guideline see any flaws with the current name. I'm setting the bar very, very low. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  That's very reasonable. But do please consider the possibility of a change along the lines that I suggested. My temperature is kind of luke-warm on the name change per se. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am in favor of a name change. I believe notability on Misplaced Pages has two prongs, and the current name only reflects one of them. As well, notability being a word with a meaning somewhat different than what we mean has caused problems both within WP and outside. Gigs (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the name of this policy. It doesn't have to be interpreted literally. It is just the name for a policy. WP:TWOPRONGS also mentions "subject specific notability guidelines", in which are found 12 separate areas. Within those areas are found yet more subject areas. And so on and so forth. Within WP:PEOPLE are we considering the notability of a WP:POLITICIAN or a WP:PORNSTAR or an WP:AUTHOR? The word "notable" is simply a catchall term. It is addressing a question as to whether we should have an article devoted to a certain subject. If a better term than notability can be suggested we can consider it. But as it stands I for one see nothing wrong with the term that we are presently using for the overall policy heading. The criteria for notability are obviously not the same across the board. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but the problem comes in when people get their feelings hurt because we call them "not notable", or we get outside ridicule from press coverage of an AfD and our use of the word "notable" to mean something different from what it means to the rest of the world. Internally we have confusion as well. Only recently we changed the BLP policy to clarify when we meant "Misplaced Pages notability" vs "Real-world notability". If we can't even keep the term straight in our own policies then it's a lot to expect the rest of the world to do so as well. I agree it would be a large tasks to change the name, it would have to be changed in many places, with large "human inertia" as well, a task not undertaken lightly. Gigs (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop - Its obvious that your position is completely uninformed by John Lockes Abuse of Language. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Notability is a very good description. People are going to argue for their favourite idea whatever the criterion is called and they are going to have their feelings hurt that it isn't included however you phrase it. Dmcq (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support I agree that notability (as a term of art here) and notability (as commonly used in English) are different notions and this use of jargon is detrimental to the project. I suspect we will struggle to find a name folks can agree on so we may end up back where we started, but it's worth a shot. Thanks to Shooterwalker for initiating this discussion. Hobit (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Mike Cline. Move this page to Misplaced Pages:Article Inclusion Criteria (or should it be Misplaced Pages:Article inclusion criteria?). Not to be confused with Misplaced Pages:Article inclusion which was an overambitious attempt to write something new and different. The very easy misunderstanding that WP:Notability is about notability would go away. WP:Notability should remain a hard redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Be aware, we once tried to pass WP:Article inclusion before. Furthermore, be weary that WP:N does not fully encompass what we would consider inclusion guidelines (this is where NOT, BLP, and a few other bits and pieces would come in). --MASEM (t) 02:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure. WP:Article inclusion was an overambitious attempt to start again. I was there. A rename from "Notability" was a good idea, but the proposal was not for a rename. I think I thought it was a derailed good idea, and that I refrained to speaking to it at all. I am aware that these discussions are wearying, and yes, I am wary of broadening this discussion from a rename. WP:N is the main collection of inclusion criteria (assuming it includes the SNGs). NOT & BLP are exclusion, not inclusion criteria (as well as positive advice on how to write good content). NOT and BLP are also policy, to which WP:N is subservient, and NOT and BLP also speak directly to content, redirects, and other namespaces while WP:N speaks only to mainspace standalone articles. Do you have any specific examples of what should be considered an inclusion guideline (not exclusion) that is not appropriate to include at WP:N, or on a page called "WP:Article inclusion criteria"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
      • The "inclusion" aspect gets in the way when one of our founding principles is "WP is not paper" and can theorhetically have an article on any topic. Instead, perhaps it is "article appropriateness", some parts of whether a topic can merit an article, and some parts if the only possible content for that article is unwarrented. --MASEM (t) 05:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: A common objection I see to a name change is "people who hate the guideline will hate it no matter what it's called". I think that's true for some people, but not for everyone. Some of the comments here are evidence of that: You're seeing plenty of people here who think a name change would add clarity, and that notability is really about sources. Those comments are evidence that a name change WOULD help (or at least COULD help). (Whether we'd be able to agree on a name is still a tougher question, but again, I'd rather just take the temperature at the present moment, rather than start that discussion.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support change to WP:Standalone  It is an ongoing issue at AfD with people thinking that WP:N is a content policy.  This confusion seems to be a mix of old-timers who don't know that the guideline changed five years ago, and new-comers who get bad guidance from these old-timers.  WP:V is the threshold for inclusion, not WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That's wrong. WP:V is an absolute minimum, but is not sufficient. WP:NOR must be read concurrently. Together, see WP:A, they basically say what WP:N says, except WP:N is the special case of an entire topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this changed after 2006.  In 2006, WP:N was a "minimum threshold of notability", where "This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a ] encyclopedia article about the topic."  Now, WP:N is about the topic, not about the article.  WP:N frequently says that it is not about content.  For example, the nutshell states, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles".  The lede states, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list...For Misplaced Pages's policies regarding content, see "  WP:N#Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article repeats the idea three more times.  WP:NRVE states, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable."  WP:V, on the other hand, states, "Verifiability...is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Misplaced Pages."  Unscintillating (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the nitpicking.

A change to WP:Standalone is a very good idea. The purpose of WP:N is to help writers, and participants at AfD, decide whether the topic/subject of the article should be a standalone article. If not, the article should be merged or deleted. Many notable (real-world usage) subjects get merged or deleted, and therefore the current title is misleading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The redirect Misplaced Pages:Standalone (to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists) can be deleted, and its six incoming links retargeted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to a name change, and several decent suggestions have been put forward here. A merge of names might be possible, like Stand-alone article inclusion criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• It's another Misplaced Pages attempt to coin new usage (like it's coined disambiguation). A better word is noteworthiness.

Notability - a question

In connection with an on-going dispute I am engaged with, can someone involved with "notability" as a policy please tell me if they have any evidence to show that a man by the name of Willielmus fil' (filius) Pauli is notable? With thanks, doktorb _words 20:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A better place to ask your question would be WP:N/N. This talk page is just about what the policy should say, not how it applies to particular articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wording change

I propose changing the wording from "Significant coverage means that the sources the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content" to "Significant coverage means that some of the sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content". This should be done for clarification purposes. I made the change but I was reverted without a reason so I am unaware what the issue is. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The revert was not done without a reason, the edit summary gave the definition of "significant coverage".  The definition was enough to explain, and there was no more room in the edit comment to add any further analysis.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem with the change (to add "some"). We obviously allow a mix of sourcing, as long as some part of that sourcing, as a whole, provides significant coverage. It could hypothetically be that every source is a good significant secondary source, it could be that 5 out of 100 refs are actually the "significant coverage" with the other 95 provide fact references. We don't require every source to be a contributor towards "significant coverage". --MASEM (t) 14:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this change is to highlight that the specific references that do give significant coverage are required to exist. i.e This helps highlight that sticking together a lot of passing mentions doesn't make something notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" was noted in the edit summary of the revert.  Allowing that "some" sources don't need to have significant coverage is saying that in considering WP:GNG we consider sources that have trivial coverage, which is contradictory.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're over-reading it. There's no contradiction since the GNG is the requirement of significant coverage in secondary sources. That says nothing that ties weaker coverage (say, trivia) to "significant coverage". The clarity is that not all sources used have to contribute to significant coverage. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"all sources used" to do what?  Are we talking about WP:GNG?  We have two adjacent sentences, one specifies that "significant coverage" is "more than a trivial mention".  That creates two sets of sources: (1) significant coverage and (2) those that are trivial.  What is the problem we are trying to solve?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't two different sets, they're the same set: what the editors consider to be "significant coverage" and that the set shouldn't just include "trivial mention". Outside of this set, sources can be primary and trivial mentions, but not the block of works that are contributing towards significant coverage. I recommend ignoring the edit summary and look at just the addition of "some" as a reasonable statement that not every soruce in an article needs to be towards significant coverage. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So the previous post is really arguing that trivial mentions are a part of "significant coverage".  The context here is WP:GNG, this is not a definition of article sources.  Please provide an example of a trivial mention that can source the encyclopedia.  And again, what is the problem being solved?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the point of the definition of "significant coverage" is that "significant coverage" is material that can be used to write at least one sentence in Misplaced Pages.  If it has no depth; if it is trivial; if it is of the nature, "The deceased was employed for four years at Zimbalismus Corporation"; then it cannot be used to write an encyclopedic sentence.  We could say, "Zimbalismus Corporation had employees." or "Zimbalismus Corporation existed for at least four years." or "Zimbalismus Corporation is known to have employed at least one person for four years". or "Zimbalismus Corporation employees die."  None of these sentences suffice as being encyclopedic content, thus supporting the idea that the source is trivial.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The point of significant coverage is that more than a passing mention is given in some sources that can be located. I.e there exist multiple sources, each of which, dedicates whole paragraphs/chapters/books to the topic. Trivial coverage is merely a passing mention or a single sentence. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a footnote in WP:GNG that provides an example of a trivial source, that being the reference to the "Three Blind Mice".  WP:ORG offers additional examples.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and to reinforce it, I was just putting it in the definition of significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the change suggested. The GNG reads "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources ...". It cannot be reasonably read that this means that the topic must have significant coverage in every reliable source. Therefore, some is implied without ambiguity. The footnote does not need to emphasize this obvious some. The footnote currently defines "significant coverage" with respect to the "reliable sources" to which it refers, and the definition in isolation should not use the word "some". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)