Template talk:Notability/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Reason parameter

See Special:PermaLink/839073573. I really think that a reason parameter would be helpful for this template. There have been several times when I've added notability to a page, but I would have found it very nice to be able to explain the precise reason. I know there's already the first parameter, but a reason parameter would allow to specify a precise explanation, which although may not be necessary the majority of the time, could be very helpful sometimes. Also, if anybody has any questions about my intentions with this, I'm more than happy to answer them.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 02:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Is e.g. {{notability|products|date=April 2018}} insufficient? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know there's that (that's what I meant when I said "I know there's already the first parameter"), but there are still cases where it would be nice to specify a specific reason as to why the article may not be notable enough.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 02:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 May 2018

Change

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

to

| organizations = [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)|notability guidelines for companies and organizations]]
| product
| products = [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services|notability guidelines for products and services]]

Almost all of the other options that have commonly used singular terms allow them as an alias. Biography and biographies, book and books, event and events, film and films, movie and movies, list and lists, and sport and sports. I can't think of any reason why this could possibly be controversial either, so I don't think discussion beforehand would be necessary. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: Don't you mean:

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

| product

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

? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ahecht: Ah, yes that would be correct - my typo, sorry about that. I've changed it now. Thanks for pointing that out. :)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512:  Done I modified the template to just strip the "s" off the end of the parameter, so all singular forms should work now. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have undone this edit. Several of the plural forms were broken, and strange words like "biographie" and "companie" were introduced. Whilst I can see that the proposal was placed in Template:Notability/sandbox, I don't think that it was tested properly at Template:Notability/testcases. Please see WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The template was set up to strip the trailing "s" from the input, so an entry of "biographies" would match "biographie", and an entry of "books" would match "book". All the plural forms listed at Template:Notability/testcases were unaffected by the change (and you can notice that I added more testcases to that page before publishing the change to the template, and I added even more just now to check that the sandbox version detects them correctly). Did you actually see plurals that were not handled correctly, or were you surmising based on the code? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I still fail to see any testcases that were broken by my change, either as the testcases stood before your revert or in the expanded testcases I put in afterwards. Should I assume that this was just a misreading of the code, or is there something I'm still missing? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please put it down to misreading the code. Lua totally puzzles me, and when I see {{#invoke:...}} I get panicky and skip right over it. So I must have missed its significance. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"Product" parameter links to incomplete advice

Using the "product" setting the template currently links to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services. Despite its name, this section only contains a few bits of advice about the possible relation between company and product articles, but completely lacks basic information about the notability requirements for products and services in general - which would be far more useful for a new editor writing their first product article. These basic criteria are described at WP:ORGCRIT (despite the acronym the section covers products aswell in a somewhat intermixed manner). Suggestion: Change the link to WP:ORGCRIT, or maybe even better: include both links with WP:ORGCRIT as the primary first link (assuming the template accepts 2 links in this part of the text with a bit of tweaking). GermanJoe (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Broken notability categories by group

I noticed that the notability categories by type (e.g. Category:Lists with topics of unclear notability) do not work. I suggest that this be addressed for the sake of organiztion by specific notability guideline. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The template respects a parameter |cat=, so using |cat=Lists places the article into Category:Lists articles of unclear notability - which doesn't exist. I suspect that something has been partially altered somewhere along the line, without making sure that everything else was synchronised. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Since this is awkward and obscure, I propose deprecating the |cat= parameter and automatically placing articles based on the parameter |1=. The script necessary to do this is here; all category names are current but may need to be changed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've incorporated it into the sandbox. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Broken categories

The categories intended to subcategorize notability-tagged articles by guideline are broken. As noted above, by @Redrose64, this is because it is determined by a separate cat parameter (not in the template documentation) rather than the 1 paramater for the template message. A draft of the proposed fix may be found in my userspace. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you need a formal WP:RFC for this? How does your new proposal differ from the one that you described at #Broken notability categories by group above, and put into Template:Notability/sandbox almost three months ago? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It evidently was not implemented into the actual template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Video Games

Please can a product category be added for video games, per Wikipedia:Notability (video games)? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: Why do you need a full-blown thirty-day RfC for this? Have you followed WP:RFCBEFORE? If so, where was the discussion held - I see none earlier on this page. Also, please note that |video games notability is not a valid RfC category. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I wasn't aware such a ludicrously involved process was required for such a minor change. That's beyond bonkers. Sheesh, useless bureaucracy. Sorry I brought it up. Praemonitus (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, even without WP:RFCBEFORE, RfC is a ludicrously involved process. It lasts thirty days, during which time dozens of people will be selected at random to be informed of a matter about which they probably have little interest. Some of them may well question the need for an RfC, just as I have done. Usually a plain old ordinary discussion is far more productive; and only if that fails should you consider RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It will be easier to just make my own template for video game notability, copy the code, then let somebody else bring it up in TfD and do a merge. Praemonitus (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, forget about the RfC. Just hold a normal discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought I was making a request for change, so I messed up. Praemonitus (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support doing this. We have a separate notability guideline for games, so I don't see why we shouldn't allow for the first parameter to specify that the relevant notability guideline for a certain article is the game one.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose because the notability is an essay, whereas none of the other ones are essays but guidelines. We might provide advise to judge video game related topics under the GNG, but the GNG still is sufficient for VG notability in general and there is no need for a specific guideline. --Masem (t) 22:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It should be processed through the appropriate project team first. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: grammar

Please change

...and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention

to

...and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention

The former is awkward at least, and possibly ungrammatical. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Template generating a redlinked category

I've just fallen across Tosser, Gunman, which populates Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from September 2018, but which also tries to populate the non-existent Category:Book articles with topics of unclear notability from September 2018. Either the latter category should be created automatically, or it is unnecessary and shouldn't be redlinked.

I don't know what the situation is for any parameters other than |book. Narky Blert (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like all of them - academics, biography and so on. I came here because there were suddenly 10,000 new entries on a Quarry query I do that is equivalent to Special:WantedCategories, all in red-linked dated versions of the categories for different types of notability. This needs a resolution, quickly (at least before the next run of SWC, as they will just swamp all the "real" entries).Le Deluge (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

An edit today [1] by Fayenatic london caused it. Based on Template:Ambox#cat2, cat3, all2, and all3, and Template:Ambox#cat versus Template:Ambox#all, it looks like the edit should have said all2 instead of cat2 to avoid the monthly categories. Either that, or we should create a huge number of subject-specific monthly categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A search shows 119 monthly categories have already been created today. 118 subcategories of Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability were created by AnomieBOT, operated by Anomie. Category:Products articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2011 was created by BrownHairedGirl. I guess she saw a red category on one of the articles. That's how I came here. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I saw a redlink in Special:WantedCategories, and filled it.

It troubled me, 'cos it didn't seem to fit, but I didn't see a change causing it, so creation seemed the least worst option.

Now that I see how this was triggered, I suggest reverting @Fayenatic london's edit pending a clearer consensus on whether subject-specific monthly categories are actually desirable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have changed cat2 to all2 for now.[2] This will categorize in undated subject-specific categories like Category:Products articles with topics of unclear notability and the other subcategories at Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. The job queue means it takes time to automatically populate the categories. We have three options: A) No subject-specific categories at all. B) Undated subject-specific categories. C) Monthly subject-specific categories.

The situation was A) before today, C) after today's edit by Fayenatic london, and B) after my edit. I support B). PrimeHunter (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @PrimeHunter.

I suggest that we give the templates time to purge before making a final decision. I support either B or C, with the final choice depending on the size of the Undated subject-specific categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, @PrimeHunter.

I was only trying to follow up renaming of the TV category, which I found unpopulated, as I was not able to populate it using the cat= parameter which was then stated on the topic category page (I have since edited that page). I noted the section above where user:LaundryPizza03 had done some work that was apparently unopposed but still waiting to be implemented, and made it live.

The option B) sounds best to me. – Fayenatic London 19:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: FYI, the dated category didn't get created by AnomieBOT because the base category, Category:Book articles with topics of unclear notability, is not directly in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month (or Category:Wikipedia categories sorted by month). For details on properly setting up a dated maintenance category, see Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category. Anomie⚔ 21:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

removing Notability box

I have updated the page for Hyperlinked and would like to have removed this Notability page. Is that something I can do or do I need you to do this for me. Hbrindy (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Google prioritized?

The links in the bottom of the template are mostly to Google searches. Could we include some other search engines in an attempt at neutrality and to avoid systemic bias against areas of the world that can't use Google? I'd also prefer that the links show that they are Google searches (i.e. "Google Scholar" and "JSTOR", not "scholar" and "academic archive"). Actually, I'd have a search of other Wikipedia articles, too; that often helps. HLHJ (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe add link to the talk page?

Just a proposal, maybe you should be able to add a link to the talk page discussion using a |talk= parameter. Other similar templates already have this, and it would be useful if the talk page is already full of discussions. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The use of "establish" (×2) in the template's language is not technically wrong, but it may tend to mislead

Clarity in template language is always good, and this one gets quite a lot of use, so it would be nice if it did not imply by its use of the word "establish" in two places, not only something wrong, but something that may reinforce a rather common misunderstanding about notability. To wit, that notability is about what exists in an article (that a topic is or is not notable based on its content), rather than that notability does or does not exist based on what the topic is – and that the existence of the right types of sources, treating the topic in substantive detail, demonstrates/shows/evidences the notability of the topic.

As headlined, the word choice of "establish" is not technically wrong – because establish, as one of its secondary meanings, can denote "demonstrate"/"prove"/"evidence" – but it is more commonly used to mean "founding", "instituting", "building". If understood in that way, for its more common meaning, it implies that adding sources can make a topic notable, rather than evidence its notability. It thus, in its current form, may reinforce the exact misunderstanding noted. (We so often need to explain to new users, for example, because they have this misunderstanding, why A7, based on on article's current content, is not speedy deletion for lack of notability, or why doing a WP:BEFORE search is important before taking an article to AfD on the basis of notability.)

I give you the word's first and second definitions from dictionary.com:

1. "To found, institute, build, or bring into being...";
2. "to install or settle in a position [or] place..."

So let's avoid that vocabulary choice here. I propose:

Note: a slight modification to my initially proposed language (immediately below), was later made based on the discussion following it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That's actually quite a well-founded argument. I always interpreted it as proving/demonstrating notability, but I can understand where the confusion comes from. The only thing I have to add is that I personally think the sentence "Please help demonstrate notability" sounds a bit odd to me. Although it's not a grammatical error, changing it to "with demonstrating" or something would help making it easier to read. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying JochemvanHees. I actually think we can thrust more clarity on the first use (in the same vein as the concern I'm posted about) by changing it to: "Please help demonstrate the notability of the topic by..." – which, I think, also gets rid of the awkwardness you note. I actually originally thought of suggesting that, but my experience, over many years here of honing policy and guideline (and as we've become more de facto bureaucratic), is that the larger the change you suggest, the more the likelihood of misunderstanding and knee jerk rejection. I know, I know, but that's how I've experienced it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. I think it's a good idea. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Strong markup

In this revision, Bsherr change the bold wiki-markup to use <strong> instead. On mobile, maintenance tags intentionally strip the bold markup (it gives them a lot of visual weight on a small screen), but it doesn't strip the strong markup. Not sure if the solution here is to add a similar strip rule for <strong> on mobile maintenance tags (not sure where that is implemented), or to revert the change made here. — Goszei (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Goszei: That's a great observation. Distinguishing semantic emphasis is important for accessibility, so a solution that disregards that is problematic. This raises a few questions for me. In removing bold text from banners on mobile browsers, was there an intention to distinguish between semantic strong text and other bold text? Which should be stripped, or should both be? How is italic text treated (and semantic emphasized text)? Assuming this is a feature of Template:Mbox, would that be the best place to discuss? --Bsherr (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bsherr: This implementation is actually part of the Minerva mobile skin (see [3]), and it only applies to <b>. I am not sure the reasoning behind that, but I had assumed that it was because the devs felt that weighty text is too prominent on a small screen. That might be off, however, and I don't know their actual intentions. Not sure of the venue for a discussion about this. — Goszei (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Goszei: I see. Thanks for that. I still think Template talk:Mbox is the best place, since the skin discriminates based on the class with which Mbox templates are tagged, if I have that right? --Bsherr (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:VPT might be the best venue, since the matter seems to concern the mobile skin more than the box implementation itself (and it also will cross more eyes over there). You're right about Mbox, though I will note that Ambox has more watchers. — Goszei (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)