Template talk:Notability sidebar

message: This template overlaps with :Category:Subject-specific notability criteria, which is just fine, I just wanted to note that there's a relationship there.  Also, I wondered if Wikipedia:Schools might belong on this list?  --Interiot 00:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no agree guideline on schools, let alone on school "notability".  --Rob 16:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding it as "under construction" as per User talk:Thivierr#Hi. --unforgettableid | talk to me 18:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: h=historical and p=proposed --Rob 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks...but then why do they link to the talk pages? Ardric47 03:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Discussion 

message: I moved this template to  to avoid non-standard CamelCase title for a template; also to accord with the topic. Transclusion using the former name will still work. John Reid 03:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --unforgettableid | talk to me 12:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Francis, do you think having a link to WP:AFDP is a problem? Why? I think it's convenient. In addition, could you fully explain why you reverted my edits? Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 12:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with your last version () - why would I? --Francis Schonken 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to [[WP:AFDP]] 

message: I confess to having no idea what's going on here.  However, the previous Noinclude change broke links in a large number of articles which were using this template.  This is not good.  --Xyzzyplugh 05:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So I reverted the Noinclude

message: It's incorrect to list the naming conventions guideline for books in the list of accepted consensual guidelines for notability. Pascal.Tesson 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new proposal is rejected. The "notability" recommendations in the *existing* books NC guideline are at least consensual. The attempt to create a new (different) consensus failed thus far. --Francis Schonken 07:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey wait a minute. Why are you the one who should judge that the proposal has failed? These things take a lot of time and I think there clearly is consensus to have something other than the useless existing guideline which pretty much says that any published book is notable. The discussion is still quite active on the talk page. None of the existing guidelines were accepted until a number of months had elapsed. Pascal.Tesson 07:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: I personally think we should include a link to Wikipedia:Schools3 below the link to Wikipedia:Schools, as they are concurrent (if not competing) proposals. I'm not BOLD enough to do it myself without some sort of consensus, but I believe it's a good idea (and not just because I strongly support S3). -- Kicking222 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schools3

message: I have changed "Internet content" to "Web content" as I think this will be more immediately recognisable. I was looking for the Web notabiity guideline link and missed this altogether because of the wording. The page linked to is called Wikipedia:Notability (web) and the short cut is WP:WEB; the introduction on the page uses "web" and not "internet". Tyrenius 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet/Web content

message: I'm being bold and including the TV episodes guideline from WP:EPISODE. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tv episodes 

message: I've added a link to the proposal on years: Wikipedia:Notability (years). -- BenBildstein 06:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  years 

message: All Wikipedians agree that there cannot be an article about every little side street in the world. But there should be a general guideline as to what makes a street or road notable for inclusion in an article of its own. I have created many articles on roads where I live, and expanded on others that already exist. A few have been proposed for deletion, with varying results. The AFD debates that have resulted have opened up the discussion as to what is required for a road to be notable.
In my opinion, a road is notable if it fits into one or more of the following criteria:
*Roads that link two or more cities, towns, or communities should generally be considered notable. These are the type of roads you would find on a wall map or road atlas that does not display every little side street, but does show main roads. If you were to look at a detailed street map of a neighborhood, these would be the roads that you would view as the "main road" (or few roads) of the community or town.
*In the downtown area of a major city with a gridlike pattern of streets, the major streets that are considered the city's main streets would be considered notable. However, more minor streets (which there are in most downtowns) would not be considered notable, unless some other factor else establishes them as such. For example, in Manhattan, where there are a few major north-south streets which transverse the town a long distance (mostly numbered Avenues), these would be considered notable. However, not all west-east numbered streets would be considered notable. Most of these are narrow, with one lane for thru traffic, and parking on each side. A few (like 79th and 86th Streets, for example) are wider, transverse Central Park, have bus lines operating on the streets, and other stand-out factors like these, and therefore, would be considered notable.
:In Washington, DC, not all lettered or numbered streets are notable. But a few major ones, like K Street or 16th Street are notable.
*A side street or small road divided by a yellow line that is contained to one area and is not close to being the "main" road in the area is generally not notable. Exceptions are if the street plays some role in popular culture (such as being the location of a major news event or is featured in a movie), or is the subject of some highly notable writing.
*One of the arguments that has made been made in some AFD debates is that a road has to be "numbered." This in no way is a limit to what streets and roads could have articles. There are many streets that are not numbered routes that all agree are notable. Besides, some jurisdictions do not have numbered routes. Being a numbered route is no free pass to notability either; there are many short, seemingly unimportant roads that just happen to have route numbers.Sebwite (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streets and Roads 

message: I have added Why was my page deleted? to the see also section. There was some discussion on the helpdesk that new users find it hard to find assistance with the reasons for deletion and what they can do about it. – ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: Anyone up for guidelines on software, fonts, and so forth, especially of the variety being made available for download? This seems to have fallen through the cracks. See Marvosym, for example.—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software, fonts, etc. 

message: Please add :ko:틀:저명성 지침 둘러보기 interwiki. Thanks -- Tsuchiya Hikaru (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki 

message: Perhaps we could link to the GNG at the top somewhere? Likely to relevant to the pages this is found on. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  13:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNG 

message: I notice that WP:NMEDIA, the notability guideline for media (e.g. television and radio programs, whose specific guideline is WP:TVSHOW) is missing. This should be added to the template list if WP:NFILM is included... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NMEDIA]] 

message: I've started a discussion on whether we should remove the essay WP:NMEDIA from this template at WT:N#Should WP:NMEDIA be removed from the SNG sidebar?. Feel free to weigh in. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove essay [[WP:NMEDIA]] from this template?