Template talk:Notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for comment[edit]

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Request for comment to request that Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) be re-promoted to guideline status. Using {{Notability|Geo}} shows the following text: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for geographic features." If it is determined that Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) should not be a guideline, then there may need to be a change to Template:Notability. GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Use for sections?[edit]

I want to put in question the notability of some of the individuals on this list: Taipei First Girls' High School#Notable alumnae. Does a header for sections exist with this template?--'Prisencolinensinainciusol 08:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the same situation with Warp zone#Unreal. Seeing as I haven't been able to find any reliable sources at all, I'm thinking about deleting the section, but I'd rather let someone who knows a bit more about the topic handle it. Can't we let this template work with sections as well? Maplestrip (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
{{Importance-inline}}. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Undo revision 600884649[edit]

An "Academic journals" parameter was recently added to this template. As was already pointed out at Template talk:Notability/Archive 6, the template message and the template documentation incorrectly refers to WP:NJournals as "the notability guideline for academic journals". However, that page is an opinion piece, not a community-adopted notability guideline. (In fact, some years ago it was proposed as a guideline, and was rejected.) There is, in fact, no notability guideline which specifically covers academic journals. All the other parameters correspond to bona fide policies or guidelines, not essays. Please undo revision 600884649. Or alternatively, add parameters for the dozens of other subject-specific notability essays, and clearly mark them as essays rather than guidelines. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneMr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts[edit]

This template needs to be deleted. It should be sent back to TfD at the earliest permissible opportunity to see if consensus has changed. I also observe that TfD is a niche area and that the previous deletion discussion was so 'well advertised' that I did not even know that it was taking place. The primary effect of this template is to deface articles on topics that are notable. A secondary effect is to encourage and facilitate large numbers of erroneous nominations of articles on topics that are notable, by providing a list of articles on notable topics to nominate and creating the illusory impression that they are all a massive problem that can only be solved by going on a massive deletion spree (especially of plausible redirects and mergeable content). I have just found one of these templates on the article of an author who had an obituary in the NYT, where it should not have been. I have seen large numbers, possibly hundreds, of erroneous nominations caused by this template. It seems to me that if an editor has complied with BEFORE, he will nominate the article for deletion; and if he has not complied with BEFORE, he should not be placing this template on an article whose notability he has not attempted to investigate. NRVE and BEFORE provide that notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation, and that articles therefore do not have to assert or demonstrate the notability of their topics. I therefore see no legitimate use for this template. Placing this template on an article about a notable topic will not help a new editor in any way, is likely to confuse them (by creating the impression that our notability guidelines are stricter than they really are), and might cause them to leave the project. James500 (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments certainly have some merit, and though I'm not sure if they're so persuasive as to get me personally to support a deletion nomination, I think it would be worthwhile for the community to discuss them. Why are you raising the issue here, though, rather than formally nominating the template for deletion? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@User:Psychonaut: (1) The template is fully protected, so I presumably would not be able to complete the nomination, as I do not possess the user right needed to edit the template to add the notice of the discussion. (2) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is so large that the web browser of my device cannot load it. It has been a number of years since I last nominated a template, and I can't even read the instructions. (3) This template was nominated in 2013 without success and I was not sure if a sufficient amount of time had elapsed since that nomination ("earliest permissable opportunity"). (4) I would have expressed my opinions in the previous deletion discussion, if I had known it was taking place, but can't do so. James500 (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no set time one needs to wait before renominating a page for deletion; you can do so whenever you feel consensus has changed, or could change due to new facts and arguments you intend to present. To nominate a protected page for deletion you will need to use the {{edit template-protected}} template here and an administrator will add the deletion tag for you. If your browser chokes on the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, you'll have to use another device, at least temporarily, in order to perform the rest of the nomination. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)