This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Notability. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Have a bot notify the article creator for past and future additions of the template (this is being worked an at present)
Warn the editor if the template is about to be added without the appropriate notability guideline parameter (org, bio, books, film etc) and a new parameter of "reason". The {{cleanup}} template has this sort of funtionality.
The oldest ones should be trickled through to AfD, AFC or user namespace (somehow)
Of these 1 and 2 gained good support and need to be implemented. Option 3 did not gain support. A forth option
Add {{find sources}} to the bottom of this template in small print the same way it is used on the {{AFC submission}} template.
Have a bot add a {{find sources notice}} to the talk pages of articles that have this template.
It looks like {{find sources}} needs a recode. As well as the problems with implementation we had here, I'm seeing a lot of redundant code use. I'll have a go at making a new meta-template in the style of {{user multi}} - that should solve both of these problems in one go. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪11:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Find sources link
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Either the edit adding this link to this template needs to be reverted or the {{Find sources}} template needs to have the check removed that prevents it from being used in articles. We currently have thousands of articles displaying an big unsightly red message that means nothing to the general reader. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This could be resolved with a one-line tweak to the template, and an addition to the documentation.
However, I wonder if this is really workable. The template is usually added through WP:TWINKLE, which I suppose could be adjusted to cope wit the extra parameter, tho it would be a bit complicated. It seems to me that if we are going to go down the road of categorising by topic, then it should be done by using the same parameter as applies to the specific notability guideline.
If editors do want to categorise by topic, wouldn't it be better to make a more radical change to the template so that {{notability|biography}} does the categorisation?
While we are at it can it be set up so that it is entered as "topic = film". I may want a "reason = " parameter added as well per the current discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Organization articles with topics of unclear notability states "To add an article to this category, tag it with {{Notability|type=Organization}}. (Or if "Organization" is a standard argument for {{Notability}} you can use {{Notability|Organization}}.) The other categories have similar descriptions. I think that using these categories may help interested editors work on resolving the backlog or articles within their area of expertise (e.g. astronomy, books, film, music) GoingBatty (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Not done for now: This will be quite a complex change, so it's probably best to work it out in the sandbox first. Once you're sure everything is working, please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template. Also, it might be a good idea to wait until the end of the TfD discussion too, as that might affect what changes we can make. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪10:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I've now modified the sandbox to add placement in topic categories based on the first parameter and modified the Template:Notability/testcases to add a few missing cases.
Sorry, I was unaware of this discussion when I posted below at #Categorising_by_topic. Some of what I have written there is relevant to the discussion here, particularly my suggestion that that if we are going to categorise by topic, there should be one parameter which sets both the category and the specific notability guideline. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed that there should be one parameter that categorizes and provides the link to the specific guideline. Having the "Unknown" category would then make it easier to find those that aren't categorized. GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
cleaning up categories and template arguments
As noted above some changes are needed to category system
Template {{Chemical-importance}} now redirects here following the TFD. The original category had a slightly different name and new one needs to be created.
Nice job putting this together! There are a lot of articles about television episodes/shows/characters with the template, so I say keep the TV category. Fiction (e.g. characters) is different than non-fiction media (e.g. radio stations), so I suggest those two be separated. One of my bot tasks has been to populate the Notability parameter based on the infobox - see User:BattyBot/Notability. Once the template has been updated, I'll update my bot's list (suggestions welcome), and then we can look to see if any more categories should be created. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the goal of the categorization should be to encourage people to use their areas of expertise to determine whether the {{notability}} tag should be removed, if the article should be improved, or if it should be sent to AFD. For example, some people might be more comforatble with music articles than with chemistry articles. Having said that, would the editors in WikiProject Companies and Wikiproject Organizations want them separated? GoingBatty (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
OK I think I'm ready to go live with this now. Initially it will have the following cats
It does involve a few minor changes. Recreation of Category:TV articles with topics of unclear notability which was recently deleted. Changing the categories when the cat parameter is specified from [[Category:{{{cat}}} articles of unclear notability]] to [[Category:{{{cat}}} articles with topics of unclear notability]] which impacts 5 pages. It might be an idea to deprecate the cat parameter as its been very rarely used.--Salix (talk): 16:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, I think it may be better to remove "with topics" from each category name, since it's the article that is of unclear notability, not topics within the article. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Googling
Am I the only one who has a problem with what amounts to Wikipedia’s tacit endorsement of Google™ as the go-to media corporation of choice? Not only as the default search engine, but particularly, having links labelled “news,” “books” as well—essentially being used as genericized trademarks without specifying they’re part of a specific company’s Google News and Google Books services. I understand this could quickly become cluttered with a million different search links, but, still, I find the unquestioning embrace of non-free platforms troubling. —Wiki Wikardo07:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it's more that they just happen to be the broadest results set given a specific type of search - if they are what consensus considers the best for searching news, or searching academic papers, or the like, then naturally they will have several services offered, but otherwise shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of their services. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Village Pump discussion regarding closing the Notability Noticeboard...
Personally, regardless, I'd like to suggest suggest adding qualifications that if an article is noted as falling within the scope of specific WikiProject(s) it would be prudent to seek feedback through them before elevating the discussion to WP:AfD. Especially if — as appears likely — the current option of posting to the Notability Noticeboard ceases to exist.
If consensus fails to be reached through the articles talk-page by requesting feedback from the relevant WikiProject(s) it would then be sensible to elevate to broader forums—such as AfD and/or whatever page is deemed best to redirect the current Notability Noticeboard to.
Otherwise, it seems sensible—to me, IMHO—to let those with specific interests in the relevant genre(s) weigh in first.
I went ahead and took the initiative to add a line to the doc.
If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group.
Phrased as a soft suggestion/reminder (as opposed to a commandment) it seems benign to me. Of course that's just my opinion. If others feel it was too bold, feel free remove it pending further discussion here.
The Notability Noticeboard was closed as a result of the above mentioned village pump proposal, and I removed the link accordingly.
I think it makes sense to suggest soliciting input from from relevant WikiProjects when discussing notability, and indeed, suggested the same (general concept) at the village pump discussion; some agreed, but at lease one editor disagreed, believing input from WikiProjects would be too biased (towards keeping potentially non-notable content) to be helpful in most notability discussions. ʍw14:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Some wikiprojects are very helpful (I can cite the video games one as one that can rationally discuss this, they aren't the only ones) but there are other projects that resist attempts to apply global-wide notability to their own project. Hence why we can't just toss the question to the wikiprojects - it needs to be global discussion. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Mail announcement to the creator of article
Notability templates can be missed by the creator of the article if he/she doesn't enter with password and check the watchlist. Thus I think the default option should be that an announcement regarding the positioning of the template would be sent to the creator email Shoshie8 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Remove 'general'
This was raised a few years ago but didn't really get resolved. This maintenance tag is used on articles where notability is doubted, and the link in the template takes you to Wikipedia:Notability, but it still states "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline". While there are specific tags for subject-specific guidelines, this template (correctly) links to Wikipedia:Notability rather than WP:GNG and should state "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines", given that the GNG is only part of the notability guidelines. In short, the text that is linked should match the destination of the link. --Michig (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
When I click on the "news" link to look for sources, Google displays an error message: "The search option you have selected is currently unavailable." I don't know if that means it will be available, but I suspect they changed the syntax from what is used in this template. I have no idea how to go about fixing this, even if I could, so I leave it to those who understand the search syntax to fix. Thanks. - Gorthian (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Gorthian (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It may be related to a relatively recent change that Google did in f'ing up its ability to search news (can really only easily search the last year or so now), but I would have to investigate more. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course, this would be spread out over 2 lines.
Could an admin/template editor reading this please add it? I think there are enough articles about journals that we should be able to use a specific notability template for them.
Jinkinsontalk to me23:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I just now see this (because of the flurry of edits of Battybot to journal articles). Personally, I have nothing against this. However, I think it is important to note that the template now says "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academic journals." Technically however, this is incorrect, because NJournals is not a guideline, but only an essay. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
