Template talk:Notability guide

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

General Discussion[edit]

This template overlaps with Category:Subject-specific notability criteria, which is just fine, I just wanted to note that there's a relationship there. Also, I wondered if Wikipedia:Schools might belong on this list? --Interiot 00:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no agree guideline on schools, let alone on school "notability". --Rob 16:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Adding it as "under construction" as per User talk:Thivierr#Hi. --unforgettableid | talk to me 18:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are the links to the talk pages called "h" and "p"? Ardric47 02:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

h=historical and p=proposed --Rob 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks...but then why do they link to the talk pages? Ardric47 03:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Shall we delete the table?[edit]

"h" and "p" not self-evident; the list was a POV selection. The "notability criteria" category is available, I see no reason to use this confusing list. --Francis Schonken 19:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I found it helpful and not confusing at all. It helped me find related notability discussions that I wouldn't otherwise have been aware of. There is no reason not to use the list. If you feel it is POV (a poor choice of words, I'm sure you'll explain before using it again) then improve it, don't remove it. The Crow 13:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say "POV", I said "POV selection", meaning: pushing the non-approved guideline attempts, and leaving out some of the more important active ones. And, most of all because of not linking to the "notability criteria" category.
I don't say it isn't interesting to find the links to pages where the active discussions on such issues are going on. But that should be done from talk pages (from categories at most), not from the top of guidelines. Or, alternatively, by a template linking these discussion places (but then not as a primary navigational template on top of the active guidelines)
Otherwise, and maybe I think this the most sensible proposal, we could do away with the "Subject-specific notability criteria" category, and have the "IncGuide" navigational template instead of that more or less redundant subcategory of Category:Wikipedia notability criteria (that still can contain "essays" and "guideline proposals with active discussions".
"h" and "p" is not established practice enough to be self-evident for most wikipedians, neither do I think it a good idea to make links to various proposals and rejected guidelines in the same list (even if the qualification would be more explicit), *especially* because there is a big level of quality difference in these various proposals and rejected guidelines. Note that neither a "rejected" nor a "proposed-but-not-(yet)-accepted" guideline should go under a header "Guidelines".
As for linking proposals with an active discussion, please consider to publish such list, for instance, at wikipedia:current surveys, or maybe publicize via Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, or, as suggested above, from talk pages of guideline (proposals). --Francis Schonken 17:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The idea of linking proposals is to help encourage discussion. The designation "p" is because placing "proposal" after the name usually makes the box a lot larger (it's a space consideration). Once people go to the page and realize it's a proposal they should be able to figure out that "p" meant proposal. As for historical entries, I don't know that those should be listed.
In any event, I'll be reverting you. If you want to remove the historical entry I probably won't object, but the pages currently marked as proposed should stay. —Locke Coletc 21:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care why "proposal" is abbreviated to "p": the result of it in the table is not self-evident in a general user-friendly way. I don't see how anyone can doubt that.

"Once people go to the page and realize it's a proposal they should be able to figure out that "p" meant proposal." - nonsense, in a "wishful thinking" way.

I don't know what gave you the idea that wikipedia would be a place where we aim at multiplying discussion as much as we can. We don't need to "help encourage discussion", as if there would be a shortage of discussion. If a problem needs solving, it should be encouraged that it is rather solved by discussion than by revert war or voting. But this inviting to discussion without marking the object of such discussion is contraproductive. Above I gave a short overview of how discussion plaforms for guideline issues that need solving are created, and how to publicise them. But this out of process system by navigational template is simply no good. It is used on actual guidelines in order to give more breath to proposals that (maybe!) only deserve a quick burial. Some of them have competing proposals... and the template only picks one, maybe not even the one with the most favorable reception, for instance, for lists it picked wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia. Its talk page makes clear that it is very, very, unlikely it will become guideline in any foreseeable future. Then, there are also the competing proposals Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia/Alternative version and Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia/Alternative version2 – WHY ON EARTH SHOULD A TEMPLATE THAT IS ON SOME TEN GUIDELINES AND PROPOSALS GIVE PRECEDENCE TO ANY OF THESE THREE PROPOSALS FOR "LIST" NOTABILITY????? This is of course completely unacceptable.

So I revert your changes to the template. The only "proposal" I would be prepared to negotiate about is the one for the List notability: I could accept it to be a piped link to Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia/Alternative version2 (that happens to be my favorite). If that is not possible, none of the other proposals are IMHO. Rejected guideline proposals are of course out of the question, what were you thinking? The only link in that sense that would be acceptable to me is a link to Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance#No - Jimbo's comments there explain why most guideline proposals centering around "notability" fail: these thoughts by Jimbo would IMHO prove to be very useful to many people that unsuccessfully tried to work out notability criteria. So linking to that poll makes IMHO much more sense than linking to any other failed notability project. --Francis Schonken 22:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of 'p' is self-evident once someone clicks on one of the entries marked as such. I disagree that these are "POV" (and POV is irrelevant, NPOV only applies to articles, not the policy pages). I also disagree that we shouldn't be encouraging discussion: absolutely we should be encouraging discussion. Whether or not these proposals "deserve a quick burial" is not for you to decide all on your own. If you have problems with individual proposals, make such a statement on the appropriate talk page.
I will, again, be reverting you. If you have a problem with that, I'm sorry, but I've yet to see any compelling reason to omit them just because you have a problem with them. Good day. —Locke Coletc 13:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"The meaning of 'p' is self-evident once someone clicks on one of the entries marked as such." – no it wasn't, see above. Besides if needing to "click" it is by definition not self-evident.

If I have a problem with it, then there's no consensus to include. sorry. your behaviour (close to WP:OWN) is not of a nature to convince me into adhering to a consensus that apparently doesn't exist.

You didn't reply to my most important points of critique, so I can only interpret that as you having run out of arguments, and trying to resolve this without discussion, by force. --Francis Schonken 13:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I replied to what I felt were the relevant portions of your critique. Regarding consensus, that's not quite the way it works. As you can see above, The Crow "found it helpful and not confusing at all". The best thing for you to do right now would be to discuss this further or try to gain consensus for removing it (as you don't have consensus for it right now). BTW: Please don't say I'm trying to "own" the page when it's clear you're the one ignoring the discussion so far... —Locke Coletc 14:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Move[edit]

I moved this template to {{notabilityguide}} to avoid non-standard CamelCase title for a template; also to accord with the topic. Transclusion using the former name will still work. John Reid 03:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --unforgettableid | talk to me 12:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

link to WP:AFDP[edit]

Francis, do you think having a link to WP:AFDP is a problem? Why? I think it's convenient. In addition, could you fully explain why you reverted my edits? Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 12:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with your last version ([1]) - why would I? --Francis Schonken 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So I reverted the Noinclude[edit]

I confess to having no idea what's going on here. However, the previous Noinclude change broke links in a large number of articles which were using this template. This is not good. --Xyzzyplugh 05:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that the above is referring to Template:IncGuide. If someone wants to begin using Notabilityguide instead of IncGuide, they should go fix all those articles which still use the old one instead of breaking all their links by killing the redirect to here. --Xyzzyplugh 05:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Books[edit]

It's incorrect to list the naming conventions guideline for books in the list of accepted consensual guidelines for notability. Pascal.Tesson 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The new proposal is rejected. The "notability" recommendations in the *existing* books NC guideline are at least consensual. The attempt to create a new (different) consensus failed thus far. --Francis Schonken 07:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey wait a minute. Why are you the one who should judge that the proposal has failed? These things take a lot of time and I think there clearly is consensus to have something other than the useless existing guideline which pretty much says that any published book is notable. The discussion is still quite active on the talk page. None of the existing guidelines were accepted until a number of months had elapsed. Pascal.Tesson 07:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Schools3[edit]

I personally think we should include a link to Wikipedia:Schools3 below the link to Wikipedia:Schools, as they are concurrent (if not competing) proposals. I'm not BOLD enough to do it myself without some sort of consensus, but I believe it's a good idea (and not just because I strongly support S3). -- Kicking222 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Internet/Web content[edit]

I have changed "Internet content" to "Web content" as I think this will be more immediately recognisable. I was looking for the Web notabiity guideline link and missed this altogether because of the wording. The page linked to is called Wikipedia:Notability (web) and the short cut is WP:WEB; the introduction on the page uses "web" and not "internet". Tyrenius 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

tv episodes[edit]

I'm being bold and including the TV episodes guideline from WP:EPISODE. SWATJester On Belay! 04:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

years[edit]

I've added a link to the proposal on years: Wikipedia:Notability (years). -- BenBildstein 06:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Streets and Roads[edit]

All Wikipedians agree that there cannot be an article about every little side street in the world. But there should be a general guideline as to what makes a street or road notable for inclusion in an article of its own. I have created many articles on roads where I live, and expanded on others that already exist. A few have been proposed for deletion, with varying results. The AFD debates that have resulted have opened up the discussion as to what is required for a road to be notable.


In my opinion, a road is notable if it fits into one or more of the following criteria:

  • Roads that link two or more cities, towns, or communities should generally be considered notable. These are the type of roads you would find on a wall map or road atlas that does not display every little side street, but does show main roads. If you were to look at a detailed street map of a neighborhood, these would be the roads that you would view as the "main road" (or few roads) of the community or town.
  • In the downtown area of a major city with a gridlike pattern of streets, the major streets that are considered the city's main streets would be considered notable. However, more minor streets (which there are in most downtowns) would not be considered notable, unless some other factor else establishes them as such. For example, in Manhattan, where there are a few major north-south streets which transverse the town a long distance (mostly numbered Avenues), these would be considered notable. However, not all west-east numbered streets would be considered notable. Most of these are narrow, with one lane for thru traffic, and parking on each side. A few (like 79th and 86th Streets, for example) are wider, transverse Central Park, have bus lines operating on the streets, and other stand-out factors like these, and therefore, would be considered notable.
In Washington, DC, not all lettered or numbered streets are notable. But a few major ones, like K Street or 16th Street are notable.
  • A side street or small road divided by a yellow line that is contained to one area and is not close to being the "main" road in the area is generally not notable. Exceptions are if the street plays some role in popular culture (such as being the location of a major news event or is featured in a movie), or is the subject of some highly notable writing.
  • One of the arguments that has made been made in some AFD debates is that a road has to be "numbered." This in no way is a limit to what streets and roads could have articles. There are many streets that are not numbered routes that all agree are notable. Besides, some jurisdictions do not have numbered routes. Being a numbered route is no free pass to notability either; there are many short, seemingly unimportant roads that just happen to have route numbers.Sebwite (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit[edit]

I have added Why was my page deleted? to the see also section. There was some discussion on the helpdesk that new users find it hard to find assistance with the reasons for deletion and what they can do about it. – ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Software, fonts, etc.[edit]

Anyone up for guidelines on software, fonts, and so forth, especially of the variety being made available for download? This seems to have fallen through the cracks. See Marvosym, for example.—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:WEB Secret account 16:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

interwiki[edit]

Please add ko:틀:저명성 지침 둘러보기 interwiki. Thanks -- Tsuchiya Hikaru (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

GNG[edit]

Perhaps we could link to the GNG at the top somewhere? Likely to relevant to the pages this is found on. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)