Jump to content

Template talk:Notability/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

"significant" / "important"

It has not been suggested by God Almighty, nor in the media, nor in the course of debate even, that the article might not be "significant" enough for Wikipedia. It's been decided by someone who has looked at the article and cannot be bothered writing a message to your talkpage or that of the article explaining what their problem is. My formulation is much more gentle and much more general, not aimed at the originating editor of the article but at anyone who stumbles across it. Clearly, the originating editor believes its subject is significant enough for Wikipedia; that's why they wrote the article. Grace Note 02:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This template was created because editors were taking it upon themselves to unilaterally remove all instances of a different tag that referenced Wikipedia:Importance because that was "non-policy". This template was carefully created to convey the message "Yes, if you only take those items marked 'policy' as policy, you may think that an article on 'X' will be perfectly accepted by everyone; however, if you actually want to deal in the real world, you should be aware that articles do regularly end up on VfD and do regularly get deleted because the articles gives absolutely no indication why the subject would be found significant by anyone other than the person posting it." This is the gentle formulation, thank you very much. Create your own damned tag instead of castrating this one and unilaterally misrepresenting what everyone who has already applied this tag meant when they applied it. Do you somehow think you're acting in some kinder and gentler spirit when you decide that everyone who put on a tag saying "I see reason for concern about whether this subject is significant" will now be saying "Oh, there might be concern about whether this subject is significant, but just delete the tag and ignore the possibility if you don't think it's necessary!" No. People have a right to their opinion, and you really don't have a right to go introducing new clauses to modify their opinion, just because your opinion is different. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I think I prefer Grace Note's version, mainly because of the "it has been suggested" in the other version, as though the suggestion has come from on high. The active voice is better English and more accurate. The only part of Grace Note's I disagree with is the "Please remove this notice if you feel this has been done or is not necessary." I would get rid of "or is not necessary," because lots of editors will take that as a sign to remove it, especially vanity-page creators, who often believe their own significance is beyond needing to be explained. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but I think you need to take into account that editors are perfectly entitled to untag it if they don't think it's needed, Slim. I think that there is too much of an attitude of "I tagged it and that means it MUST be explained". Well, no. No one is obliged to explain anything here and if you feel they are, they have talkpages on which you can ask for explanations. If Antaeus thinks article X is not "significant", he's entitled to VfD it or query it with the originating editor (and I'd encourage the latter) but he cannot demand explanations in the article itself. What worries me is that a new editor might come across a page, think to themselves that someone "official" is saying that this subject might be barred from WP and not understand that all it is is the opinion of another editor. What also worries me, of course, is that I come across an article on something that I feel is obviously significant, remove the tag and put a stub on it to request expansion, but someone comes along and reimposes the tag, saying "you can't remove the tag until you explain the significance of the article". Why does that worry me? Well, the editor who slapped on the tag does not need to refer his tag to policy, nor to make any argument for its use, but expects that from the tag-remover. That doesn't seem right to me. Grace Note 03:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, those are fair points, especially the point about needing to make clear that these issues are matters of opinion, and that people are allowed to disagree. On the other hand, if a subject is significant, it should be easy to say why, and in fact, the article should make clear why e.g. with reference to a newspaper article about it, or similar. So asking for a brief explanation on the talk page probably isn't asking for too much, in my view. But I think your point about new editors perhaps misunderstanding that this is official is a good one. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
On the talk page is fine, Slim. By means of a template is, I argue, not.
I'm a bit disturbed that having encountered opposition for one template demanding that a subject's notability be explained, the answer that Antaeus came up with was simply to invent another template. We have a little profusion of them, all saying similar things. Grace Note 04:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I see that the similarity in what they say is due in no small part to your editing those templates as well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

policy

I think this template could be very usefull, if it were to become policy that articles listed on vfd for non-notabillity first have to have had this template slapped on and subsequently removed by someone disagreeing. Wait a minute, this is very similar to countdown deletion. --MarSch 18:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TfD'd

This template was listed for deletion on Templates for Deletion. The decision was to keep this template. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/June 2005 for more information.

Please note that this template is remarkably similar to {{cleanup-importance}}. The only reason I didn't delete this and redirect to cleanup-importance is because the latter is not as clear, and (IMO) tries to combine lack of verifiability with lack of information- two very different problems. I'm really not too familiar with either of these templates, but I think that lack of verifiability should be a completely separate template altogether. I hope that somebody will take a look at this so that we don't have to go through another TFD. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change to drop reference to non-policy

It is inappropriate to reference non-policy (importance/notability) as a reason why an article may end up being deleted. I have edited to reference the actual policy, our gold standard of inclusion, verifiability. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me. Radiant_* 13:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • You did far more than just that. You removed or warped several of the useful aspects of the template that were mentioned in its WP:TFD discussion, such as the link to the talk page and the warning that nomination for deletion may occur if nothing happens. Assuming good faith, I'm considering that to have been accidental. I've partially restored them. Uncle G 14:49, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming less good faith now, given that you've done incremental reversions rather than discussing here on the talk page. These are important aspects of this template, specifically brought up in the WP:TFD discussion. Removing them is not acceptable. Uncle G 18:33, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Then add those aspects in if you think they're important rather than revert to what was contentious. Grace Note 06:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • They were already in. It's you who has reverted to what was contentious. Uncle G 12:10, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
      • It seems to me that what you want to add in is stuff about the "notability" of articles, in the form of a demand that (I'm guessing you intend it for the original author and/or anyone who stumbles across the page) someone places "proof" that the subject of the article is "notable" on the talk page, so that you (the tagger, I mean) can judge it. This is utterly inappropriate. Templates are not means for individuals to communicate. Drop a note on the originating editor's talkpage with your concerns and watch the article. Follow it up. I hate to have to point out to you, Uncle G, what should be obvious: that the originating editor clearly believes that what they wrote about is "significant" enough for Wikipedia. What you have is a difference of opinion with them, no more, no less. Grace Note 00:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not "adding in" anything. You are subtracting text. Claiming that I'm adding things when I'm merely restoring the text, reflecting points that came up in this template's TFD discussion, that you are deleting is a gross mischaracterization. Uncle G 00:46, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Get over yourself. Reverting to your version adds what I removed. You add to my version; I remove from yours. The version you prefer was not floating about in the aether, Uncle G. It was not provided by the gods. It's more or less than the version I want. No one is "mischaracterising" you. Grace Note 02:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And please, stop pointing to something you yourself said on the TFD page as a reason for reverting. It was suggested to you that you could put a message on the talkpage of the article and you replied "well, it points to the talkpage" as though that were the same thing. How does that justify demanding that the article's "notability" be proved to you in a template? Grace Note 02:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of "cleanup-importance"?

It seems there is a fundamental problem here. I see the point about notability not being official policy (although in practice it is invoked as policy many times a day, just surreptitiously), but on the other hand, this template isn't called "cleanup-verify", it's "cleanup-importance", and it really ought to mention notability in some way. The category it fills is even called "Articles of dubious importance", and yet the template is talking about verifiability, which is really something completely different. I've tweaked it to try and help resolve the conflict, but I'm wondering if we aren't trying to get the notice to say two different things at the same time, and if so, should it perhaps just be split in two? sjorford →•← 00:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...

I just wanted to say that this is a good outlet for marking a fair few substubs that have survived. Thanks :) --Joy [shallot] 1 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

move rationale

The word "significance" in this context, according to my WordNet dictionary, means "importance", so I've moved it to that. I've also moved it to use "cleanup" because when something essential such as significance/importance needs to be explained, then the article is implicitly unclean.

Whether we want to link the proposed policy on importance (I'm ambivalent, but I included it for now) is orthogonal to the issue that "Explain significance" and "Cleanup-importance" were referring to the same thing, and that they were not referring to verifiability. --Joy [shallot] 7 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)

It is very much not orthogonal, since linking to Wikipedia:Importance was exactly the reason certain editors, including one who is an admin and an ArbCom member and should have known better, felt entitled to go through the entire category and remove the tag from every single article that had it, for linking to "bogus policy". By taking the template that was carefully constructed to address the same concerns without linking to that policy and thus giving an excuse to censor any such concerns, and adding to it exactly that feature which was avoided, you have only given those who do not believe Wikipedians should be allowed to have such concerns the excuse to conceal the fact that they do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 7 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
Okay, so I'll remove the link. There's no reason to get silly about it. The template went through TFD once and survived it, so I really don't see how anyone could mind. Who was this who removed the warning without checking if it actually applies? --Joy [shallot] 8 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

category name

Remaining choice is the category name:

--Joy [shallot] 7 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)

The category names also illustrate the duplication fairly well - there is a semantic difference between those which could be improved, and those that are dubious, but we don't want those assessments, we want the thing in the middle - simply to state that there is something wrong, without qualifiers, and request that it is fixed. --Joy [shallot] 7 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)

I've moved it to Category:Wikipedia articles that need their importance to be explained. The old categorization will wither away eventually, for now it's just semi-redirects. --Joy [shallot] 14:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently some good people running WP:CFD noticed this and speedied up the process using some special tags and bots. Thanks, guys :) --Joy [shallot] 12:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
For reference, the merged category now contains 498 articles. --Joy [shallot] 12:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

The new Criteria for speedy deletion includes articles "about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance". So if you find yourself reaching for this template to put on a biographical article, consider using {{delete}} instead. :) Coffee 16:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Or rather, {{db-bio}}. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 00:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia:Importance

I think it is a very bad idea to have an official looking template being used to prominently tag articles in the main article space, when the template derives its authority from a page that is neither policy nor even a guideline, but rather a highly contentious essay. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 06:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Cleanup"

I don't like the text "To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article may require cleanup." being the most prominent feature. This template isn't to do with cleaning (spelling, wikification etc) it's about demonstrating the importance of the subject! --kingboyk 02:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Significance

I've amended the template to refer to significance rather than importance, since significance is referred to in a number of style guides, notably Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, which avers that a "lead section ... should establish significances, large implications and why we should care", and that "the basic significance of a topic may not be obvious to nonspecialist readers, even if they understand the basic definition. Tell them!"

I would also propose we move the template to significance, and amend the associated category accordingly too. Hiding talk 21:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not like this edit. I understood this template as a way to mark articles that did give enough information that they are within our notability guidelines. I took it as a part of notability discussion. This way it simply seems as a stylistic problem. Sort of "this article is indeed notable for wikipedia, only some people might not be able to understand why". --Jan Smolik 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Fair play. I took it to mean that the article did not assert why the subject was of importance, and I also don't see that my change amends that. Hiding talk 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I do think the template could use work. Linking to the essay on importance seems off to me, but I don't like the notability template, which is too big and threatening. So I use this to be nice, even though it lacks helpful linkage to actual guidelines. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Success stories

If you discovered something that needed doing thanks to this template, feel free to list it here.

Changes

I've made several changes. First, I change the wording from [[wikipedia:notability|importance]] to [[wikipedia:notability|]] (importance), so it's clear that they refer to pretty much the same thing in the context of Wikipedia. Secondly, I changed the documentation/usage/whatever you want to call it text to make it sound a bit less rigid. Finally, I added Template:context to the see also section, because they seem like they could overlap in some cases. Discussion/objections welcome. Picaroon 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed icon

... to match other notability templtes Rich Farmbrough, 10:39 25 September 2007 (GMT). {{editprotected}}

I suggest to make the image "blank" instead of "none" for correct alignment, since this template often occurs with other cleanup templates. -- Lea (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is this protected, by the way? The template isn't used that widely, is it? Couldn't we go for semi-protection if vandalism is an issue? -- Lea (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
About ~3,500 current transclusions, fyi. :) I'm not sure as to the exact threshold, but there comes a point where edits to widely transcluded templates can cause some server lag. Regarding the suggested change, that sounds reasonable -- would we perhaps even want to change {{ambox}} so that none and blank have the same result, or would that be a bad idea? Leaving up to hopefully get some discussion before implementing anything. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that it would be most consistent to always use an image: if we wish to not have a visible image, we can simply scale Image:Transparent.gif to the right size. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 18:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Went ahead and implemented the change LeaW suggested; the other stuff can wait for another date, perhaps. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

ENKA Schools

I was wondering if someone could make a template just like this but instead of having it say:

it would say:

Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article needs to taged with the template; that's why I named this section "ENKA Schools".68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Display date

{{editprotected}} Could we please add display the date in the template, as other cleanup templates do. For example, from Template:Notability: 

{{#if:{{{date|}}}|<br> <small>This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''.</small>}}

I slightly prefer the less-verbose form from Template:Unreferenced: 

<small>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}}</small>

Jfire (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Style tweaks

{{editprotected}}

I've started a sandbox which contains some tweaks to the template layout to match contemporary ambox styling, and to better explain what's needed. If there are no objections I'll requestion that it be synced to the main template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As there's been no opposition, requesting editprotected. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done with a minor rewording of my own. The "with which" phrasing you added sounded very odd to me; let me know if think yours was better and I'll be happy to change it (or if you have any other ideas for how to word it). --CapitalR (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reworked it again, as I wasn't happy with context being left to the second line. (that's one of the main differences between this template and {{notability}}.) Code's in the sandbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
All set, I just updated it again. --CapitalR (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

{{sudo}}

The link [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] should be changed to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] so that it is clear where the link goes to. --Blooper (Talk) 02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 03:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge with {{notability}}

It seems that there is now very little difference between these two templates, the latter of which is a more intuitive and informative name for the attribute that is actually being questioned. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 13:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. {{notability}} says "this subject might not be notable"; {{importance}} says "this article doesn't adequately reference its claim to notability". i see the former as being akin to {{unreferenced}} and the latter to {{refimprove}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, instead of merging the two, how about making this template {{Notability2}}? That would remove the need to merge and would end the argument of which is better written. The reason I'm doing this is to clear up {{Importance}} so I can bring in the code from {{Impor}}, which is the Importance-equivalent of {{Class}}; it was made by me for {{WPBannerMeta}}. I need this template title because the main parameter can only be impor, and not importance, which is the needed parameter for rating importance.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Or simply transfer it to {{cleanup-importance}} if you don't agree with {{Notability2}}.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind. I've figured out how it works better.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Importance" is a strange name for this template, seeing this word does not even appear in the text of the message. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Of course this has nothing to do with me wanting to rename Template:Impor to a better name ;)

Follow-up. Would there be any objections to renaming this template to Template:establish-notability? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
what about moving this one to {{unclear notability}} and {{notability}} to {{non-notable}}? That would give a better indication of the difference. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Happy‑melon 11:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I think in the absense of verifiable evidence, it is hard to argue that a topic is "important" unless you count personal opinion as evidence of such a claim. The problem might be a lack of reliable secondary sources, and I think this is where this is the issue this template needs to move towards addressing.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That sounds more like {{primary sources}}, but they're all loosely related. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I am not making myself clear. It seems that a topic can be the subject of a secondary source, but that source has issues, e.g. the source is not independent, or it is not reliable. Perhaps this template can be adapted to fill that gap. Otherwise I am in favour of merging with {{notability}}, since a lack of references with which to establish notability is effectively the same as not meeting the general notability guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a note on Template talk:notability in case anyone has any thoughts about this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected this template and fixed all the double redirects. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Film?

Can "Film" be added to the template, alongside fiction?Shawn in Montreal 20:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, will this template take the place of this:

{{importance}} Shawn in Montreal 13:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Film is there. I think {{importance}} has a separate existence. Rich Farmbrough, 10:49 1 October 2007 (GMT).
I actually added Film to the Template documentation but couldn't add it to the Template itself, because it's protected from editing. That's what I was referring to. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 13:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Companies

Resolved
 – template changed by user:Nihiltres 10 October 2007 DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

At present the Companies category points at WP:CORP which is also WP:ORG and is also applicable to entities such as educational institutions, hospitals, national or local government agencies and charities which may not be commercial organizations. As such, some groups seeing this template may not recognise that the appropriate text for them to click on is "Companies" to obtain additional information.

I'm not sure which single word best describes the alternative, perhaps "Institutions" or "Organizations", but I do think that something needs to be added in the template to provide such a link for editors who are working on articles that are about organizations other than Companies. Perhaps replacing "Companies" with "Organizations" would be sufficient? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Meantime a fix is {{notability|other|[[WP:ORG|Notability (Companies and Organizations)]]}} or, for products, I guess {{notability|other|[[WP:PRODUCT|Notability (Products and Services)]]}} DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add the following two option values to the template:

| organizations = [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)|notability guidelines for companies and organizations]]
| products = [[WP:PRODUCT|notability guidelines for products and services]]

Optionally, the following could also be added:

| institutions [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)|notability guidelines for companies and organizations]]
| services = [[WP:PRODUCT|notability guidelines for products and services]]

And the following option value:

| companies = [[Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)|notability guideline for companies]]

Could be corrected to reflect the current page name:

| companies = [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)|notability guideline for companies and organizations]]

Thanks. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, see the diff for details of implementation. - Nihiltres(t.l) 21:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed editprotected request template, added resolved template. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Notability/Archive_2&oldid=1138650741"