Wikipedia talk:Notability (published works)

How can this page accomplish its goals?

So what is it about those 4 SNGs that would form this new guide (WP:BK, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB and WP:NOTFILM), what is it about them that makes them so long? Why is it that they are so specific about certain things that they have to flush out every possible contingency? For example, look at WP:BK, which is the longest of the 4. There are 6 sub criteria. What is it about books that these points can't be adequately summarized in a paragraph or two? The same with WP:BAND, theres 12 possible criteria. More to the point, in the act of condensing these guides, if all these are basically extensions of the GNG, then how can they be adequately condensed without just effectively turning them into redirects to the GNG? If the GNG suffices, then why not just have the GNG, and if GNG needs specific details on certain topics, how can this page accomplish that? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Nick. There's a reason those pages exist, and I'm rather amazed that a lot of content has been lost in this proposed merger. Within this rewrite there seems to be a complete lack of the pragmatism displayed within the source material. I'm also failing to understand the problem we are seeking to solve here. Unless there's a similar proposal to merge all the European related naming conventions to one page that I've failed to spot, there's no call to remove clarity from Wikipedia in the name of reductionism. The idea that simply having guidance on an issue means it is bureaucratic is somewhat ridiculous, after all, isn't it? Yes, we want Wikipedia to be easy to use, and we actually have a very easy to use framework, detailed at WP:5P. And if you want it simpler than that, it's there too, in ignoring rules. These particular guidelines don't cause Wikipedia to become a bureaucracy, they actually prevent it from becoming a battleground. Hiding T 19:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it isn't finished - that's why so much appeared to be lost! :) The purpose was simply to make the guidelines more manageable. There is a lot of crossover between the guidelines that this proposal seeks to subvert - I can't imagine it is sensible to have several pages all saying the same thing from the point of view of comprehension or maintainability. So if they can all be merged into a single guideline then it gives a single page to be pointed at for guidance. Not sure what the relevance of the 5 pillars and IAR links are in this particular context - they both remind us that our defining purpose is to produce a neutral, comprehensive encyclopedia, and that we should ignore any rules that prevent us from doing so. But how that relates to reducing the number of notability pages is...puzzling. I think the problem is you've viewed this and evaluated it, but it is a work-in-progress - I only wanted a bit of feedback on the first few points that were immediately common to all the guidelines, hence my post to WT:N. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think both sides need to just calm down. This is clearly not finished yet, however the points raised are justificable if they don't appear in a final draft. As it stands right now, it should not pass unless it can inoperative everything as that is its goal with explanations. FE: Criteria #6 from books is missing. This shouldn't be seen a way to remove certain criteria. It should also explain why those other criteria are relevant. However, I realize at the same time the page is relatively new so I'll withhold judgment. 陣内_Jinnai 09:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Help me out here, Jinnai - I can only see five criteria in books :) Did you mean one of the others? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are the 5 main criteria (the 5th which is currently not used in any form in this proposal), and the various other considerations.陣内 _Jinnai 20:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - When I said there were 6 sub criteria, I was speaking about the Other Considerations section of the article. There are 5 main criteria, and there are 6 specialized sections. By no means do I think this merge is a bad idea; I very much would like it to work. But I ask these tough questions because they require realistic answers, else this page will not be accepted by the community. The goals of this page can be accomplished, but this page needs to be able to explain for itself why it is more sufficient than several significantly longer pages. When it can do that, it is ready for wider community support, and a vote. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 13:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could support something like this, if it has all the same extra criteria of the four guidelines (probably reformatted in a more condensed way). Is this supposed to make our notability guidelines stricter for these subjects, or just condense some pages? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over at WP:N where this was proposed, this statement should prove instructive:

I've had a go at merging the general criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (published works) to give an idea of how I think the separate SNGs of books, films, music and web content can be merged. I've not done a lot on the "other considerations" beyond thinking about it - this contains commentary on how to handle anticipated works, self-published works, and more historical works. These essentially represent the commonalities between books, films and music. Web content's SNG is actually quite small, so I think it is completely covered by the general criteria. Since the objective is not to me any more or less permissive than existing guidelines, I'd appreciate some eyes on this now and any appropriate feedback on the talkpage over there. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

So all that needs to happen really is that the "other considerations" are ported across. But for that reason I think this merge is unworkable, because for starters this guidance is a land-grab across more areas than is currently covered, and I don't know as yet how that will affect those areas. And I'm also not clear on how we can get the granality that subject specific criteria allow, if the goal is to merge them all back. But I'll keep an active eye on th proposal and see how it develops. The goal as stated is to replicate what we have already. Hiding T 10:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I, too, could throw my support behind this idea to condense the many SNGs that are starting to develop. Unfortunately, it appears that the flame for this project lasted no more than two weeks in September. Location (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing fiddling

I've removed a couple of sections, and restored the other considerations section, since I believe the "Forthcoming publications" section amply covers the "future" criteria of each of the individual guidelines. Please comment if you disagree. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty good. I was thinking of doing the same thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a few sections already covered: Online books is covered by general criterion 1c), for example, and the first two web criteria are essentially duplicates. Need to check that No Future Films is suitably covered by Forthcoming publications - feel free to make any changes Fritzpoll (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting is also inconistant between each major media. They should all have the same basic format with each other.陣内 _Jinnai 21:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

inline notation links not working

Just went and clicked on the notation for Academic books and it didn't work. This should be fixed or removed.陣内 _Jinnai 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're remnants from the copy and paste - I'll add the appropriate tag at the end to make them work, but most of what's here is goign to be wildly manipulated over the next couple of days, so don't get too attached to the contents or the format! Fritzpoll (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page better than all the other pages?

Now that basically all of the other pages have been merged into this page, and only some minor fixing/moving around is left to do, how will this page be promoted as being advantageous to the other pages? This will clearly face a vote some day soon, so what are some of the reasons that people will give to using this page as opposed to others? The main benefit is the having everything in once place, but people are largely unconvinced by only one reason. So lets be prepared with several good ones. What makes this way of doing it better than the status quo? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler overall? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything other than that? I forsee a lot of "No it's not" responces, and regardless of it being true, I think some people will need something more substantial to go on. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, change is usually resisted so we'll see what people think, but I think it's commonly felt that we have too many guidelines and policies (WP:CREEP). This is an attempt to go the other way. It isn't supposed to change the rules at all, so it isn't like "it's stricter" or "it's looser" or anything like that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe more participation, since the people who do those four pages can now talk to each other. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at this issue once we've finished fiddling - I still have about another 30mins work to do on this, but I'm in haste Fritzpoll (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Criteria

The problem I have with the General Criteria is that the same mistake that is being made in the SNG's is being repeated here. There is an underlying presumption that has not been challenged that the following sources are somehow different from reliable secondary sources, namely:

2. The published work has won a major award in its field, or has received a notable award for some aspect of its production.

3. Reliable sources consider that the work has provided the basis for, or otherwise significantly influenced another notable published work, event, political or religious movement.

4. The published work is the subject of widespread use as a teaching aid in educational establishments.

5. The published work was selected for preservation in a national archive.

6. The published work was a unique accomplishment, a milestone in the development, or has contributed significantly to the development of its field.

Surely the only way to establish these facts is through reliable secondary sources? For instance, if a book has won an award, surely it makes sense to cite a reliable secondary source to establish this fact, rather than cite the primary source itself? I am not sure what these extra criteria provide, other than I know they are the staple of most SNG's, and perhaps now is a good time to challenge these truisms. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the only likely way to establish these is through secondary sources, but I think part of the purpose is to give editors a checklist of things to think about when they go creating an article. Has this won any awards? Is it significantly influential? Is it taught in school? Is it a significant national or artistic milestone? If the answer to these is all no, then they shouldn't create the article. From what I can tell, most articles are created with no sources, and I can only assume the creator believes they will "turn up eventually". I think these criteria are intented to discourage the creation of frivilous articles, not just lay out the lowerst threshold. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albums, singles and songs

That last paragraph looks to be just rehashing general principals we have on topics about future unreleased works and it would be better if it were pushed as a more mainstream one so we could use that at video games when E3 comes around every year and 2 minor sources try to make an entire article about a game that'll be released 3 years down the road.陣内 _Jinnai 08:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

worldCat limitations

It is true, but not the full truth, that WorldCat "Contains 1.8 billion items in 18,000 libraries worldwide.:" These items are very heavily biased to those in United States libraries, and, to some degree in Canada. Almost all the coverage elsewhere is from a few nation and major university libraries, with a sprinkling of a few public libraries in England, Australia, and New Zealand. WorldCat is however making efforts to add more international coverage, [1] but as can be seen from the press release it will not go very far to completeness. A much better place for non-US material is the Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog KVK, metasearch engine addressing many libraries, especially in Europe, and including Worldcat and many other general purpose and academic catalogs (but still underrepresenting the non-European world).

other comments on books

I would disagree that Questia should be especially cited as a source. They are merely one of a number of competitors.
The link to [Special:Booksources should be supplemented by Wikipedia:Book Sources which list the range of sources available to be searched and permits them to be searched independently searched.
For older books, having an OCLC number is a substitute for ISBN -- they were used as identifiers before the ISBN system became universal--and before that, LCCN (Library of congress control Number). DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming notable books

What are the standards of notability for forthcoming books? The article doesn't say. Let me mention three big examples.

William Gass's new novel, Middle C, [2].

It's described as a major literary event, due March 12 this year. Major publisher.

Joseph McElroy's new novel, Cannonball, [3]

It's not described, but the author's importance is emphasized. Due June 11 this year. Minor publisher, they list the book.

Thomas Pynchon's new novel, The Bleeding Edge. Not yet on Amazon. Some time this fall.

One tweet and the literary blogosphere has gone nuts. [4] Title is tentative.

Is listing by Amazon considered a milestone? I've known books to be pushed back for years.

In all three cases, the information about the book is on the author's Wikipedia article. Choor monster (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]