Wikipedia talk:Article inclusion/Archive1

message: I like changing the name, I have issue with the "subjects must have encyclopedic value." though.  I can easily see this being twisted to delete plenty of pop-culture, even the best sourced ones. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that this isn't central by any means.  The governing principles would still be at the subject-specific notability guidelines for that topic.  This is merely a centralized page to point people to the various policies and guidelines, it isn't meant to act as any sort of governing document. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll try to reword it, given your and Night Gyr's concerns.  Thanks for the input! --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you expect anything else from me? d;-)  Thanks for your input so far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: I think "comprehensive" should be clarified, or else people would get into useless arguments over whether there's enough info for a subject to be comprehensively covered. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 13:29Z
:Any suggestions?  At the end of the day, I'd rather be having that discussion rather than "is this notable enough," but you have a valid point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the old issue with the definition of "non-trivial" sources, from a new angle.  I'd say a good place to start would be to point out that "comprehensive" involves more than directory-style information (address, etc.) or purely statistical information.  In theory, WP:NOT already covers that.  Problem is, there're numerous vocal individuals who feel that any X (where X can be school, shopping mall, fictional mecha from a given series, band, or whatever that individual's interest happens to be) whose existence can be verified should be included.  I don't have a good solution to suggest to that one. Shimeru 07:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the word comprehensive is too strong, since it implies that we have to have sources for every aspect of a subject in order to write about any aspect of it.  I'm not sure what the right word is, though -- perhaps "substantial". —Celithemis 08:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same problem.  What's "substantial" mean? Shimeru 20:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, I'm wondering if it's accurate.  For instance, a good amount of primary/self-pubilshed information helps make a "comprehensive" article - third-party information alone is often not enough.  "Substantial" is probably better, but you're right - same problem.  Do we even need a qualifier? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably.  After all, a single mention in passing is "enough information to write an article."  Sure, the article is "X is a Y located in Z," but it's an article and verifiable, so it'd meet the letter.  What we need is enough information to make it something more than a stub, which means... well, information beyond directory info and statistical info.  It means having secondary sources which have conducted an analysis of X on a level deep enough to let us say something about what impact X has had.  In order to avoid conflict of interest, those sources should be independent.  In order to minimize bias or POV, those sources should be plural.  The point about coming from different dates is also significant; it shows some extended study has occurred. Shimeru 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that some qualifier is needed, whether it be "comprehensive", "substantial", or other wording. Good points about the sources, too. ChazBeckett 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certianly agree to a qualifier of some sort, as long as it doesn't attempt to override what's required for notability at the specific guidelines.  Maybe "acceptable" article, to keep within the theme of the page - the article must be acceptable per the policies and guidelines listed, while not acting against comprehensive stubs? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "... an article suitable for an encyclopedia"? —Celithemis 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An article suitable for Wikipedia, since we have articles that your standard encyclopedia would not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's necessary in context.  "A subject is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia if sufficient attributable information is available to write an encylopedia article about it."  Since we're talking about sufficient information, that doesn't lend itself to the misinterpretation that we only cover the kinds of topics Brittanica covers. —Celithemis 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If this isn't to override "any specific guidelines", what's the point of having it at all? Regardless of any other considerations, shouldn't we have sufficient sources for a comprehensive article? Certainly, no guideline can override WP:NOT a directory or indiscriminate collection of information. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  I'm not following your context here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was a reply to your post above, you stated that you didn't want any guideline to override subject-specific guidelines. What would be the point of having any primary guideline, if it had no real effect? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't see the point of a primary guideline for notability.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess what I'm wondering then, is what is the purpose of this, if not to be a central inclusion criterion? Why would we have a guideline called "Article inclusion" if it doesn't determine what articles get included? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensive? 

message: What is the point of this page - i.e. what does this add that isn't really already included in WP:NOTE? Is this just another example of instruction & policy creep? Dr Aaron 13:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the point?

message: First, this says "an article's subject is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia if sufficient information is available to write a comprehensive article on it."  Then, it turns around and says "All articles on Wikipedia should generally meet a standard for notability for the subject matter it falls into."  Why the contradiction?  Many of the subject-specific guidelines contain rules of the form "a blurble is notable if it's more than 10 feet wide".  This is why many people don't like the subject-specific guidelines.  This is just inviting people to assert that their favorite blurble is notable, despite not having adequate coverage in good sources, is it not?  Friday (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What contradiction? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Am I missing something? Does it actually say somewhere "Notability is the only criteria for inclusion"? I don't understand why so many people think it is otherwise. -Amarkov moo! 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the people in the "topics need sufficient coverage in good sources to allow a non-permastub" camp do frequently think this should be a minimum requirement, I think.  That's not to say there might not be other criteria also, but it's saying that this basic criterion is a requirement.  To me (and, I think, a good deal of others) adequate coverage in sources is necessary, but not always sufficient.  For example, things that are extremely specific might be deemed a poor topic for an article, despite having adequate coverage. Friday (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the contradiction? 

message: When it's a fork of WP:N which is a guideline?  We shouldn't try to have two guidelines that cover essentially the same topic.  Friday (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a fork.  It's intended to act as a replacement.  Have you bothered with the talk page at WP:N yet? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's too much repeating of the same crap over and over, and little communication going on.  But, the solution is not to fork.  Friday (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And no one is proposing a fork, so you have nothing to worry about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:N attempts to describe what makes a topic suitable for the encyclopedia.  So does this page.  Unless there's something I've missed, this is a fork.  Friday (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to request that you read what was written here before commenting further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can this be a proposal? 

message: I can see the value in having a shorter and more concise guideline than WP:N; however, I think this one is too vague. It's fair enough for the guideline to direct the reader to the various category-specific notability guidelines (such as WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC), but the fact is that WP:N summarises the one major criterion that is common to most questions of notability: has it been the focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources? This is the most important criterion for article inclusion, and the one most commonly cited at WP:AFD. So isn't it convenient to have a guideline that summarises that particular point? Walton Vivat Regina! 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this isn't meant to be a governing document like WP:N is - it's simply meant to act as a document to summarize what makes an article worthy of inclusion, and how we handle articles that don't meet that standard.  WP:N does not address "notability" well, as the talk page over there has shown, for inclusion or exclusion.  At the end of the day, there isn't a "most important criterion" for inclusion, as people have said they all work together, so I believe it's more convienient to have a centralized page that addresses what governs inclusion, rather than trying to shoehorn a one-size-fits-all guideline into things that don't actually fit.  Am I making any sense, I feel like I just rambled there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is this a guideline proposal, or an essay?  Friday (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it needs a tag at all, I'd call it a guideline as it's nothing more than a directive toward other guidelines and policies, but my personal vision for it is that it's simply a page that explains what already exists in policy and our guidelines.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I said "most important criterion", I didn't mean to imply that it takes some sort of formal precedence over other criteria; however, it is undoubtedly the most commonly-cited notability criterion at AfD, and the most useful in deciding whether or not a borderline article merits inclusion. I realise that there are special exceptions to the "multiple non-trivial coverage" rule, but it's the test that we apply to most articles. WP:ATT isn't enough on its own, because an article which is not reliably sourced isn't automatically deletable; however, if the notability is in question and it is not reliably sourced, then it is deletable. I understand what you're saying about not being a "governing document", and I absolutely agree that the specific notability guidelines (WP:BIO and so on) are very important, as it would be absurd to apply exactly the same test to every article. But WP:N is a good general summary of what notability is all about. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," is the aphorism to apply in this case, particularly as unnecessary renaming of policies or guidelines tends to confuse everyone. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the discussions at WP:N, however, it appears that it is broke.  It doesn't appear that there's any actual agreement as to what "notability is all about," thus the attempts to reimagine the entire concept of article inclusion and how to direct users to the relevant policies and guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see all that much disagreement with the basic thrust of WP:N that a subject should have multiple nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. I just see one or two people over there whose argument would have the effect making it difficult to eliminate nonencyclopedic articles. This essay is an unnecessary addition to the discussion of what an article has to have to be encyclopedic. We are already getting articles about individual run of the mill buses and locomotives. Edison 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a bad idea but...

message: I can't disagree with anything on the page.  I can't because there's no actual content to disagree with.  The page is a restatement of a fragment of WP:NOT and a few other policy pages.  It provides no new or useful guidance to editors that I can see.  I'm sure this is well-intentioned but I do not see this as a viable alternative to supercede the concept of Wikipedia:notability.  Rossami (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  seems toothless 

message: Just reading through it the only problem I had was with the default notability condition sentence.  As written it left open the possibility of, for example, a well written article about a random sporting event or local crime story based on some articles on that day as being notable.  To close that loophole, I appended that the third party information should be published "over a period of time (ie not in the same one or two day period)".  As an example, a typical baseball game might have articles about it on the day after or day before the game.  But a championship series game will have more extended coverage and independent articles that appear over a period of a week or two or more.  The former would generally not be considered worthy of inclusion as a seperate article, but the latter would be.
Personally it doesn't matter much to me whether WP:N is used or this page is used as the "bare minimum notability for inclusion" guideline.  I do, though, think there should ultimately only be one guideline page to avoid unnecessary duplication of discussion and effort. Dugwiki 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, that may be the case, but that's not something we can force.  I may tweak your wording a bit more, but not yet - if anything, that's something that would be handled on a specific guideline rather than here.  Thanks for looking and your input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I doubt my wording is optimal.  The main thing is that, as a bottom line general rule, an article should have more than one source and the sources shouldn't all be from the same date.  There are probably some exceptions to that rule, but by and large articles that don't meet that standard are very likely to not be something most editors would find worthy of inclusion.  Most of us, for example, are suspicious of articles that only have a single source, and in particular for news events multiple sources all on the same day and no follow-up probably indicates it's a very limited event.  Of course all guidelines will have a few exceptions, but if the guideline fits the bulk of the cases and most editors agree with the reasoning then it's probably a good guideline. Dugwiki 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ammended the "default" sentence to include "period of time" for publication 

message: I added a line on fictional subjects:
*Articles on fictional subjects or works of fiction should be shown to be encyclopedic in a context outside of the fictional universe. See WP:FICT for guidelines on writing about fictional subjects and works.
Any comments would be much appreciated. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded it slightly and placed it in context w/WP:NOT, but it's otherwise sensible.  I wish I had thought of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrite looks a lot better, thanks. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added line on fiction

message: I'm really not entirely sure about that, if we were to put that, we may as well not have WP:FICT. Usually, a fictional character can be covered "out of universe" just fine in the parent article. If there's enough out-of-universe information on the character (e.g. :Superman), it should certainly have its own article, but usually a fictional character's entry growing large with in-universe information calls for some cutting, not putting it in a subarticle to accumulate more. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrmmmm. Actually, I think I just came up with a good "rule of thumb" for fictional character notability-just imagine using the character in casual conversation with a non-fan. "Who's that idiot walking on the train tracks think he is, :Superman?" "I hate my new boss, I'd rather have :Darth Vader." "That guy has more gadgets then :Batman." All of these make sense. On the other hand, "Wow, that guy has better aim then :Vash the Stampede!" is likely to get a blank stare. I'm not sure how this would be worded exactly, though? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if the language is necessary, only because I think it confuses the multiple uses of subarticles, but I do know that it reflects current practice, and if WP:FICT is different from that, it needs to be adjusted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FICT actually suggests placing detailed material, annotations, etc., on Wikibooks. That would seem to me to be a far better option-having an encyclopedia article on the work and on truly iconic fictional characters here, and then do a more detailed annotation and "in-universe" analysis of the characters over there. We can do a softlink box to a Wikibook in an article. A lot of current fictional character articles are probably great transwiki candidates over there. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah, analysis being different than description and information here.  I wouldn't go around transwikiing a bunch of stuff, but we're sliding a bit off topic, anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subarticles as in gameplay subarticles for, say, a video game series as a whole. The article will naturally not have as much out of universe infromation as its parent article, which has already established notability and need for comprehensiveness. — Deckiller 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notability", yes. "Need for comprehensiveness", no. We have biographies on some people, that doesn't mean we need to "comprehensively" have biographies on all people. We have articles on some companies, that doesn't mean we need to "comprehensively" have articles on all people. Encyclopedia articles should be an overview of the subject as it relates to the real world. Wikibooks is for "comprehensive" texts which can cover all possible facets of a subject. (They also, to my knowledge, allow a greater degree of original research and interpretation of a primary source, so long as the claim is not ridiculous or ludicrous). An article about a video game should be an article about the game's "real-world" importance, with a plot synopsis covering the main characters. Have a look over at Wikibooks at b:Half-Life Fact File. That's far more comprehensive on Half-Life then we could ever get here, which is why transing to Wikibooks is the perfect way to do it. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I see you're against subarticles and comprehensiveness in general then. Very well, I won't push the argument further, because I know you'll just strongly disagree. — Deckiller 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not against subarticles "in general", so to speak, but I'm certainly against use of them to include everything conceivable that wouldn't support its own article in any other case. For a subject like :World War II, subarticles are absolutely necessary, there are tons of notable subfacets to the subject, trying to write about it all in one page would be a 5 MB blob. On the other hand, the vast majority of fictional works can be covered in a single article, with a quick plot synopsis providing an encyclopedic overview of who the characters are and what the major events were. If a bunch of "in-universe" stuff is starting to pile up on a fictional work, it's very likely time to cut, not to start spinning subarticles. However, "comprehensiveness" should never be a sole criteria for inclusion. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (Also, we are rather offtopic for purposes of this specific proposal, for which I apologize. I've started work on a separate proposal to address the issue.) I still don't particularly like the subarticle bit for this proposal though, it effectively makes the whole thing meaningless (just call it a subarticle!) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; subarticles for individual games are usually uncalled for, unless they are significant enough to the outside world and/or numerous in-universe sources to warrent a general page (Jay and Silent Bob, Samus Aran, etc). However, subarticles for a 40+ game series, on the other hand, are fine, because it requires more space to describe the main points on a level consistent with the coverage norm on Wikipedia. Naturally, these general subarticles probably have more reliable sources and out of universe information than, say, an article based on a fictional organization appearing in a video game. — Deckiller 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure that's such a good rule of thumb -- it relies on the editor's own cultural context.  I'm not so sure the "Vash the Stampede" remark would sound odd, for instance... if the speaker were in Japan.  (Outdated, perhaps.)  And by the same token, I think you might get a blank stare from a lot of people if you said "I'm so tired I could sleep like Endymion," or "She's about as faithful as Cressida."  Generally, I would think the major protagonists and antagonists of most works that merit inclusion probably merit articles themselves. Shimeru 07:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All very true, which is why I presented it as a way of making a rough guess rather than anything which should be solely relied upon. The best method of judging how appropriate a subject is would still always be to look at how much secondary source material is out there on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 14:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subarticle exception on fiction

message: Hi.
I saw this:
"Biographical articles on living people are held to a much stricter standard, due to legal and ethical concerns. While there are many nuances to articles concerning living people, the guiding principle, especially for controversial figures, is that Wikipedia should "do no harm". "
How exactly is a more stringent notability criterion needed in this case? How does reporting on someone with less "notability" than this "stricter" standard potentially harm them? Is it because then there may be a paucity of published material on which to base the article, and/or much of the available material may be less than par and hence citing it may lead to potentially harmful statements? Mike4ty4 06:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that some information isn't really public. For instance, I exist, and multiple things show that. However, since I am not notable, nobody will know about me, meaning that information about me is not public. But if someone posts an article on me, my private information is now known to anyone who searches for my name. -Amarkov moo! 06:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so then it's because that to write an article in that case would induce disclosure of private material without the person's permission, then? Material that would be known to the larger world for a "notable" person. mike4ty4 05:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this? 

message: Is this proposal intended to be policy or guideline?  Will articles be deletable based upon non-compliance with WP:AI?  Or will WP:AI exist to point to policies?  SmokeyJoe 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My intent, when creating it, was that it may qualify as a guideline.  That doesn't mean anything here, generally speaking, would be actionable - every line item points to the specific policy or guideline that deals with any issue a user may have regarding the inclusion of articles.  This doesn't mean it may not evolve into something more solidly actionable in the future, but consider it an aggregation of sorts. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: This should supersede WP:N, absolutely. Abeg92contribs 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just want to express my full support for this. 

message: Phew!  Since the draft changes I suggested in the "Nipping in the bud" thread above appeared to get generally positive feedback, and since Jeff recommended being bold about adding them, I did exactly that and pretty much rewrote the proposal from the top down to incorporate that language.  
Hopefully, the new draft version of the guideline is useful for a couple of reasons. It focuses squarely on quality and quantity of sourcing as opposed to trying to define terms like "unencyclopedic" or "trivial", etc.  Instead the aim is to provide a fairly objective, measurable standard that, if an article fails to live up to that guideline, acts as a red flag for editors that we probably should look very closely at whether or not to keep the article around.  There will be some exceptions to these rules of thumb, but my guess is most editors would agree that many of the articles which fail to meet the new draft of the guideline should be improved, merged or deleted.  
I also took out some of the references to subject-specific things like WP:FICT and WP:BIO.  The reason is that the new version is intended to be a fairly simple to understand general rule of thumb guideline to inclusion, and I felt that leaving subject-specific links in the main body of the guideline would clutter that message.  I instead simply made a general comment that exceptions for specific articles and subjects would likely be discussed in other guidelines and essays and left it at that.  I also made notable mention of WP:NOT, which is a fairly good complimentary policy to this guideline since both WP:NOT and this guideline deal with when to remove information from Wikipedia that is otherwise true.
Finally, note that this guideline is a fairly low bar to pass.  I intentionally tried to write it so that controversial articles would probably pass the guideline.  My feeling is that the guideline should reflect something upon which most of us can agree, leaving things on which we don't agree as topics for detailed debate elsewhere.  Thus the guideline is a low bar for inclusion, and we can usually (I think) get editorial agreement on deleting most of the articles that don't meet this standard. 
As always, please feel free to discuss, ammend or revert anything I changed if necessary.  Dugwiki 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added in a point on neutrality as well, as above, please revert or amend if desired. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm extremely impressed.  *thumbs-up*. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not bad at all. Shimeru 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Glad you guys like it. :)  Seraphim, I revised your neutrality statement to say that articles still should abide by other policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOT and then used your example as something that would violate WP:NPOV.  Basically it's to make clear that just because something is well written and well cited doesn't mean the article subject as whole can't have a serious issue which violates policy. Dugwiki 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, this has improved immensely since I last saw this. Not everyone may like my last change, though, so feel free to revert bold discuss. Moreschi  Request a recording? 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I like this. It still needs some work, and some copyediting, but it's heading in the right direction in my eyes. Trebor 20:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, not offended at all. I'm not a fan of the whopping great war between deletionists and exclusionists: it's as silly as it sounds. Quote from my userpage, "As far as these things go, I'm a deletionist transwikiist, but all those terms are hopelessly reductive and pretty idiotic. Really, we're all just trying to improve the encyclopedia." I mean, what the hell does "trivial source" mean, anyway? A stupid source? The topic only gets trivial mentions within those sources? Certainly: "will the sources provided be adequate to establish an article on an encyclopedic topic" is what is important: the reason why I haven't written stubs such as Elena Croce is because I don't have the sources for this person to be able to do that. Moreschi  Request a recording? 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporated the changes in "Nipping in the bud" thread 

message: For more specific issues - I only bring this up due to Moreschi, because the way the summary is phrased even before his changes are contrary to what I'm hoping we can try to do here.  This is a response to the general lack of consensus for WP:N, which exists in part due to exactly the language Moreschi put in here - and that's not a knock on you, by the way.
I think the discussions of notability have lost sight - and I'm guilty of it, too, perhaps more than others.  At the end of the day, we're still writing an encyclopedia.  Counting sources isn't going to help that, and quibbling over the triviality/comprehensiveness of sources isn't going to, either.  I pushed "sufficient" at WP:N, but I think we can do better.  I'd like to think we can focus our attention mostly on "will the sources provided be adequate to establish an article on an encyclopedic topic."  If we're able to do that coherently and without insulting either side of the inclusionist/exclusionist divide, perhaps we can have a singular criterion as opposed to pointing to the subject-specific guidelines, but we have to, at the very least, iron out those details here first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, not offended at all. I'm not a fan of the whopping great war between deletionists and exclusionists: it's as silly as it sounds. Quote from my userpage, "As far as these things go, I'm a deletionist transwikiist, but all those terms are hopelessly reductive and pretty idiotic. Really, we're all just trying to improve the encyclopedia." I mean, what the hell does "trivial source" mean, anyway? A stupid source? The topic only gets trivial mentions within those sources? Certainly: "will the sources provided be adequate to establish an article on an encyclopedic topic" is what is important: the reason why I haven't written stubs such as Elena Croce is because I don't have the sources for this person to be able to do that. Moreschi  Request a recording? 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nitpicking thread

message: Assuming this proposal is eventually accepted as a guideline, should we also have a template for it similar to Template:Notability?  Something to tag an article so that the authors know that some editors might be concerned that the article isn't meeting the minimal standards of WP:AI. Dugwiki 17:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should think so, it'd probably be much the same thing. "An editor has expressed a concern that this topic is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Please see our inclusion guidelines. If you can add material to the article which shows that it is suitable, please do. Unsuitable articles may be nominated for deletion." Etc., etc. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create template similar to [[Template:Notability]] ? 

message: I'm liking it, but I still have an issue with the title.  It's so vague that it's hard to get its meaning at a glance.  The phrase that's been kicking around in my head is "Articles need sources."  Kinda want to give that title to this one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be argumentative, but I don't understand what's vague about it.  It seems overwhelmingly clear to me - Article inclusion: what's necessary to have an article included.  "Articles need sources" seems a little ham-fisted and leads discussion to a different place that I don't think we want to head, but that might just be me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's just so vague that it could be applied to most of the content policies.  I get the idea that it's basic standards for what we can include, although I might change it to topic inclusion, because the whole idea of these guidelines is that while the current article may not have multiple sources and all that, we should have articles about topics for which those sources will be available. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I like "article" better than "topic", since what we're talking about in the proposal is articles.  Topic could also refer to subsections or articles or category descriptions or maybe other things.  Article sounds more specific. "Articles need sources" is a true statement, but it also would apply to WP:ATT which is a different subject. Also the proposal does talk a little bit about other things besides sources, such as stub articles.  Still, I'm open to other suggestions on the proposal title. Dugwiki 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't seem to see any problems with the current title, however. Article inclusion seems simple enough. Alex43223 T | C | E  01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Liking it

message: FYI, I reverted a revision by Jossi to the "unreferenced information" bullet point that emphasized that articles which remain unreferenced for lengthy periods of time stand a risk of deletion as being presumed to be unverifiable.  Jossi had removed that sentence, claiming WP:ATT contradicts this statement, but in this case his assessment appears to be incorrect.  Information and articles which consensus deems to be likely unverifiable are routinely deleted, and on afd that often includes articles which have been unreferenced for a long time and which editors haven't found satisfactory verification after reasonable attempts.  
So while an article should be given time to collect references (ie you shouldn't delete a relatively new article just because it's incomplete), an article which shows no signs of current or likely future verification has a very good chance of eventually being deleted as being unverifiable. Dugwiki 15:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "unverifiable" information 

message: I removed this, because it's problematic:
Editors interested in an article that appears headed for deletion can copy the article to their personal user space for informal archival purposes. This allows topics of limited interest or limited verifiability to be discussed less formally outside the scope of the Wikipedia article space.
I'm not sure we want to encourage this. People will then move all manner of nonsense to user subspace, which may be cached by Google just like everything else, claiming this page supports them. My suggestion is that we pass over this possibility without comment so that admins may delete material from user subspace more easily if, for example, it violates BLP or is clearly absurd. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how problematic it is, given that it's fairly common practice.  Perhaps a line about the allowance upon request?  I don't know how to word it, but it wasn't wrong per se. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally I make that suggestion to others when the topic comes up in afd, which is why I included it here.  But I'm neutral on whether or not to include it in the final version of the proposal.  If there are possible problems with suggesting people use their user space for ill-referenced or subjective topics, then I don't have a problem leaving it out of WP:INCLUSION. Dugwiki 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User subspace

message: I just wanted to make a general comment of thanks to everybody who took the time to clean up the wording and style of the draft I posted.  It's really sounding and looking a lot better than when I first posted it.  I know I'm pretty verbose, and the pruning and moving around of bits and pieces has made this a better read overall. Thanks guys. :) Dugwiki 19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for all the help guys 

message: (suggested wording change) There are practical problems with "assert"--articles are   being nom for speedy that are clearly notable as shown in the article text, with the reason being that the article didn't specifically say so in the first sentence. When this was discussed earlier, neither I nor anyone else was able to find a substitute word for "assert" that wouldn't cause similar problems. In the current deletion policy, the word "indicate" is used, and I suggest that as an alternative., either as "indicate basic notability" or "provide some indication of basic notability"; this will still get the appropriate articles speedied. ("He is a notable drummer in my high school band" and the inappropriate ones "She is mayor of .."  reserved for the other deletion processes if deletion is thought appropriate. DGG 19:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're talking about is actually more of a topic for WP:CSD.  The language in the section of this proposal that you're talking appears similar to what's in WP:CSD#A7.  For reference, though, I went ahead and added links for each example to the corresponding bullet point of WP:CSD. Dugwiki 20:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "assert basic notability"

message: This has some good ideas but on the whole mainly restates what is already found on other pages. It should be merged back into WP:N, because forked discussion and divergent guidelines aren't particularly useful. >Radiant< 14:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is designed to replace WP:N, so a merge is inappropriate at this time.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I correct that by "replace" you mean "incorporate the useful parts of WP:N and replace that by this"? Because that's pretty much what I meant with "merge". >Radiant< 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no.  Mainly because there's little of use in WP:N that can come here that may not be here already.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree that we shouldn't have two guidelines trying to cover the same thing.  There's some good stuff in here, but as Radiant said, it's elsewhere too. Merging this back in would be good- we should not fork guidelines. Friday (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained to you before, this isn't a fork. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's an explanation, I don't get it. All I see is an assertion.  Friday (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'm sorry.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A case of WP:HORSE, apparently. >Radiant< 15:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  Very helpful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a helpful comment, I can't tell what it means.  Either way, this sub-thread is not currently fruitful, so why is everyone continuing it?  GRBerry 15:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: *I've been following the notability discussions/arguments for more than two years, and I've tried to give this proposal and discussion a thorough read.  The proposal has been substantially improved by recent edits, and the underlying discussion has been more rational and more grounded in connecting the core policies to practical applications than is often the case on WP:N's talk page or on various essays like WP:BASH, let alone the rants in individual AfD's when people get frustrated.  (It's good to see that badlydrawnjeff and I are far closer in viewpoint at this basic level than it often seems in individual cases.)  While we should continue debating and fine-tuning, I'll give this proposal my tentative support for eventually replacing WP:N.  In practice it should make little difference except to reduce the unnecessary offense given by AfD/DRV use of terms such as "not notable", and perhaps to reduce confusion by explaining relationships between seemingly conflicting policies and guidelines.  This title better specifies the core purpose; "Wikipedia:Notability" can more readily be disregarded as "just another essay on some wikilawyering term somebody wants to use to get rid of my favorite article", even though it's intended as a policy-based guideline.  The continued strong lack of consensus for the old stuff, including frequent calls to get rid of it by editors who aren't single-purpose ILIKEIT folks, makes me more in favor of changing to this than I otherwise would be.  The rework of WP:V and WP:NOR into WP:ATT also increases my support, as it shows that the system won't be thrown to hell by a change in how Wikipedia expresses how-we-do-things, the way it would by a big change of policy agreed to by a dozen editors but not by the next few thousand of us.  Barno 19:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly support this as well -- Only, approving this change in principle should not be taken to mean detailed approval of all the points in the present draft. I think there will be consensus around the basic change, but many of the details have still been discussed only by too narrow a group. DGG 04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my feeling here as well.  It's currently a suitable replacement for WP:N, but it still has some bugs to work out.--ragesoss 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Now that the policy-page merge to WP:ATT has essentially been reverted by Jimbo, we need to learn from that, and not declare that this proposal "supercedes" older policy page(s) without a much broader discussion and some consensus among more than a few editors.  No other change to my comments.  Barno 15:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preliminary support 

message: Just an FYI, the talk page at WP:ATT has a note from Jimbo as to how bad an idea the ATT merge was.  It appears his undoing of the merge is likely to stick, so I've relinked everything back to WP:V and WP:RS for the time being - those are easy edits to reinstate again if the merge does end up holding up long-term.
I don't believe it will affect anything here, although I viewed WP:ATT as a pseudo-template for this page.  The reason for the ATT reversal had to do with how important V and RS were to the project and the coherency of the merge, and, frankly, notability (the main thing this seeks to adjust) is not anything close to a core issue for this project, so I don't think that those of us who are looking to make this work have anything to worry about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the WP:ATT revert doesn't seem to have much impact on either WP:INCLUSION or WP:N.  Jimbo's concern was that WP:ATT was attempting to combine very distinct policies into one policy article.  WP:INCLUSION and WP:N don't suffer from that problem, though. Dugwiki 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding WP:ATT 

message: This proposal would be far easier for a newcomer to understand than WP:N. Also, there is a growing gap between our notability guidelines and results of discussions at WP:AfD. If anything, I would go further and archive the notability sub-guidelines and rely on a summary of conclusions from WP:OUTCOMES. Addhoc 15:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really would not go for that, WP:OUTCOMES would be a self-feeding loop (it came out this way, so it goes to outcomes, so that can be used as an argument in the future). I think we need some real standards, and some real discounting of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT/etc. at AFD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is essentially why I like this above and beyond WP:N, even if I'm not as adamant about the sub-criteria as Jeff is (in fact, I'd rather see the majority of them wiped). It starts with the policy, and applies it to AfD, rather than stating a rule and inferring policy is involved. Nifboy 09:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversely, why I support