Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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|^✉

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]