Template talk:Notability/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

The notability template's google newspaper search is broken. A simple change to the search string should fix things, I hope?

An editor has tagged the Bonanza Air Lines article with a notability template. I strongly disagree with that action, but I'm here to address not that issue, but the template itself. While the notability template tries to be helpful by generating links that supposedly help you find sources, in actuality the template's newspaper search is currently broken.

Here is how the template does a Google newspaper search for the exact string "Bonanza Air Lines"...

• https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Bonanza+Air+Lines%22+site:news.google.com/newspapers&source=newspapers

The result from Google is No results found for "Bonanza Air Lines" site:news.google.com/newspapers.

Now, try this Google newspaper search for the exact same string...

• https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bonanza+Air+Lines%22&newwindow=1&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks&start=0

The result is a page filled with 100 newspaper articles, the maximum it can show at once. There are an additional 100 more hits on the second results page. Simply put, the notability template is using a broken search method. If people patrolling for notability are relying on the template's newspaper search link to determine if they need to tag the article, I can state without qualification they're being terribly misinformed by the bogus template search results.

Another issue, albeit probably beyond the scope of the template's logic: the template search used only "Air Lines" as part of the search string, but it did not attempt to also find "Airlines". Both terms are valid when dealing with mass-media searches for airline names, because people (including newspaper editors/writers/reporters) pretty much don't care if the official airline name uses "Air Lines" or "Airlines"; it's all the same to almost everyone, right? I don't know how/if it would be possible to make the template newspaper search aware of such nuances, of course, but I'm just pointing it out as another way the search can be misleading.

Clicking on the working Google newspaper searches below, using both terms, will result in just under 400 hits...

• "bonanza airlines" (results page 1 of 2) 100 hits
• "bonanza airlines" (results page 2 of 2) 100 hits
• "bonanza air lines" (results page 1 of 2) 100 hits
• "bonanza air lines" (results page 2 of 2) 96 hits

Bonanza Air Lines/Airlines getting mentioned in about 400 newspaper articles goes a long way towards establishing notability; yet when I clicked on the template's newspaper search link, I got no hits. I suppose it's possible, even likely, the template's search method worked in the past, but google (as they are known to do) might have changed something to break it, without notice.

It appears to me that a minor tweak to the generated search string should fix things. Can someone please look into this? Thanks. – Itsfullofstars (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: this is implemented at Template:Find sources mainspace, which in turn is implemented by Module:Find sources/links/google newspapers. — Goszei (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe that I have made the necessary change at Special:Diff/1036028100. Like User:Itsfullofstars says, Google appears to have moved its newspapers to Books search, with special url parameters (instead of the previous News search). — Goszei (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's working again! Thanks for the incredibly quick response. Bravo! – Itsfullofstars (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request 3 August 2021

Add the value neo for WP:NEO (neologisms) in the SNG parameter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done firefly ( t · c ) 08:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: Make phrasing more suitable for use in Draft namespace

Core change: When in Draft: namespace, change wording to suggest that notability should be fixed before publishing an article or submitting it for review.

Specific changes to the wikitext are implemented in the sandbox and shown in this diff between the primary template and sandbox.

A demo of the /sandbox version as seen in draft-space is available at Draft:Anti-War Committee of Russia.

The testcases all appear to still work with proper "article" text displaying outside of the draft namespace. I'm not familiar with the test case methodology used here though and haven't been over each case with a "fine-toothed comb" so any extra eyes there are appreciated.

Reasoning for requested change:

• Wording specific to the purpose of the WP:Draft namespace may help avoid moving notability issues from draft namespace into main-space.
• This template is already transcluded on over 500 pages in the Draft namespace. [1] Since there doesn't appear to be any prohibition on using this template in Draft, it will likely continue to be used there. Indeed the "find sources" links provided in this template can be particularly helpful for drafting new content.

Why this is presumed to be uncontroversial:

• WP:N is well-established guideline which, if not addressed in draft, typically results in disposal of the main space article at a later time by merging, redirecting, or deletion.
• If drafts are carried over to main-space with this template intact, the messaging specific to drafts just reverts to the same message currently used on articles. (So this is essentially no change in main article space.)

(edited to clarify presumption of uncontroversial-ness at 20:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)) --N8_wilson 20:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Template:Unencyoclopedic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Unencyoclopedic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 6#Template:Unencyoclopedic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability tag after no consensus AfD close

If the notability tag is removed, then the article should be nominated for deletion (if anything) rather than retagged. If the discussion ends in Keep, then the tag should not be re-added. But what if the discussion ends in No Consensus? The practice that I've seen is that the article is usually (though not always) retagged. This seems appropriate to me -- the article should not be immediately renominated, but tagging it as something that should possibly be nominated in the future may be of some value. Should the instructions be updated to handle this case? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering this, too, and to add some background, the problem derives from this:

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says:

Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep".

Template:Notability says:

Do not place this message on an article that has already survived a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as "keep". This is not a badge of shame to show your disagreement with the AFD outcome.

It turns out the latter is a very recent addition to the template page made on 15 June 2022 by the personal account of a Wikimedia Foundation employee, who is not an administrator. I agree this issue needs some clarification. 5Q5|^✉

When to remove this tag

Currently, the documentation for this template says:

If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag. It is highly desirable, but not technically required, for you to add a list of good sources to the article or its talk page, so that other editors will know about the existence of these sources.

The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group.

I don't think this makes sense; the purpose of this tag is to help identify articles that need work to address notability issues. That includes articles that some editors are convinced are notable, but no one has demonstrated are notable.

It also can result in wasting the communities time; if we can avoid an AfD by demonstrating that a topic is notable prior to the AfD then we should encourage that, but the current text of this template does the opposite.

To address this, I suggest changing this to:

This tag can be removed when the article contains sources that plausibly demonstrate that the requirements of WP:GNG, or the relevant WP:SNG, are met. This does not mean that the article is guaranteed to be kept at AfD on the basis of the sources contained within it, just that it is possible to make a good faith argument at AfD that GNG or the relevant SNG is met on the basis of included sources.

Once such sources have been provided this template must not be readded. Please do not edit war over it. Further questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group.

BilledMammal (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed revision. In my view the template is useful when the cited sources don't appear to satisfy our notability criteria. However I know other editors feel it should only be used if the article is likely to be deleted at AFD. Looking for past discussions I did find [an old RFC] that closed as no consensus. Looking at the template revision history I found where the language was added ( Revision as of 13:20, 17 March 2007 ) but no comments about why. Looking at the Template talk archive #1 I found no discussion of the 'when to remove' material. Gab4gab (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly implemented. BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

"Template:Notable" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Notable has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 24 § Template:Notable until a consensus is reached. ~UN6892 ^t_c 14:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Notability television N:TVSERIES is not a guideline

Notability television is an essay rather than a guideline, yet for 'Television' this template produces text stating "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for television. General notability is the guideline that should be referred to for Television. I wonder if it is helpful to include specific categories in this template that don't have separate guidelines. Gab4gab (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it's quite confusing to link to an essay from this template. The template link also goes directly to the section about "Television pilots, future series or seasons, and unreleased series", even though somebody who added the template probably expected it to go to a general page about TV episodes, series, films, etc. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the custom output for the "Television" input to the first parameter – it links to an essay when the correct destination should be GNG. Tollens (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Would it perhaps be better to leave the option out altogether rather than just relinking it? The template still seems to imply there is a separate notability guideline for television when there is not. If the option was simply removed I believe instances of the template using the parameter would still work – they would just fall back on GNG. Tollens (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Understand your concerns, editor Tollens, and had thought about that. Came to the conclusion that GNG is the general guideline for all subjects, to include TV, so would rather leave it as it is to perhaps stimulate the completion of an actual specific guideline for TV. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense to me. Thanks! Tollens (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Technical; category and displayed guideline; GNG/SNG

Hello, A discussion on my TP has led Rosguill to suggest a "change to the template's coding so that the topical sorting is a separate parameter from the control over the guideline advice that gets displayed." For example, if I want a page to appear in the category Category:Film articles with topics of unclear notability but only want the message on the page to be the standard "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline." (and not (or not only, at least) "Wikipedia's notability guideline for films") displayed (and the page categorised also in the general category for topics of unclear notability, I suppose), is there a simple way to do it? (if no one objects to the idea, that is). Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC) (@Rosguill:, if I made a mistake in the way I presented your suggestion, feel free to change/delete/add and clarify as you wish; and consider I support whatever you think is best).

NSOFT

Could support for WP:NSOFT be added to this template? jlwoodwa (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That is still an essay, so doesn't have sufficient support to include here yet. — Masem (t) 19:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Technology articles with topics of unclear notability has been nominated for deletion

Category:Technology articles with topics of unclear notability has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Broadcast articles with topics of unclear notability has been nominated for deletion

Category:Broadcast articles with topics of unclear notability has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Media articles with topics of unclear notability has been nominated for deletion

Category:Media articles with topics of unclear notability has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)