Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 5

message: This merge/rewrite appears to have been done wholesale, when there seemed to be agreement against doing this. It has completely overwritten all that was there before, without including its major points, and has apparently produced considerable disagreement. This could have been avoided by a gradual change that would allow for objections to each addition to be directly met, rather than having people react with blanket disapproval that hastily extends the principle altogether. If there is a complete rewrite of a guideline, there should usually a temporary page where it is worked on before it is dumped in. —Centrx→talk • 07:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was erroneously basing part of this statement on other changes that happened after the edits you made; the rest on closer inspection preserved the previous content. Regarding the merger: there was agreement to do the merge, but there were reversations about doing it drastically, because of the uncertainy and uproar the might result (and which did happen but which could have been unrelated specifically to the merger). My changes were mostly re-organization and re-wording, along with a partial revert of some changes to the introduction and re-adding the Rationale that was removed (all after your merger). The diffs for these changes were divided so that it is clear what exactly was changed, if you look at them particular rather than taking a diff of all the changes, which looks like a substantial over-writing because of some section re-organization. Anyway, the page is fine. —Centrx→talk • 06:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The wisdom of the merge/rewrite 

message: Is WP:N, and especially the "Primary Notability Criterion" (PNC) too subjective? If so, how?
*Response to Point 1: Read Uncle G's essay "On notability".  It specifically deals with this concern.  --Jayron32 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point I. Subjectivity.

message: Does the PNC supercede other notability criteria (NC)? The page does not seem to suggest so. Why do some believe it does?
*Response to Point II. The only point of the PNC is to meet the shortcomings of WP:V; there are many verifiable facts out there to be found, but not all of them are encyclopedic.  The PNC is to assure that somewhere are verifiable facts that are worthy of an article.  Nearly every business, for example, exists in the Yellow Pages, and thus their addresses verifiable.  However, if the business ONLY exists in the Yellow Pages, there are no facts we can populate the article with beyond an address; thus the subject is not notable. --Jayron32 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point II. PNC supersedes other NC.

message: There you go. You can answer "in this post" if you want (put your responses under each point description above), which would make it easier to organize this discussion. 170.215.83.4 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it seems that there is some degree of consensus that notability, in some form, is a valid criterion for inclusion and deletion. The fact that so many use notability does suggest some sort of degree of consensus in the community! 170.215.83.4 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The notability concept is breach of NPOV, and is being promoted by a determined group of POV pushers. Trollderella 16:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as I understand it, it isn't, and not as it's worded in the current guideline it isn't.  Please explain what's "POV" about insisting that non-trivial sources have to exist in order to sustain a a verifiable encyclopedia article? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it seems related more to verifiability and WP:NOT. 170.215.83.4 19:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that your understanding is not the one used most often. Notability is used as a way to shape inclusion criteria to exclude things that the current crop of editors are not interested in. So we have discussions about whether a particular verifiable person 'deserves' an article, or whether they are 'interesting enough', and claims that 'boring' articles that are not of interest to editors should be deleted for that reason because they are 'not notable'. The definition here is redundant, because it restates verifiablity, and the definition actually used is damaging, because it erodes the idea that editorial preference should not shape which articles go into the encyclopedia. Trollderella 19:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Trollderella is partially right. Although the intent of notability criteria is not to delete based on someones interest in the article, it can, and has been, abused in such a way - and many others. I disagree that notability violates policy, but I do believe that making this article a guideline does indeed violate consensus (which is I think what he might have been trying to say). Fresheneesz 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trollderella is correct that my understanding of this guideline is not the one used most often.  That's why I'm trying to promote it.  I share you guys' objection to the prevailing attitude about notability, but thinking strategically, I suspect it's much easier to get a bunch of people to change the definition of a word to something less subjective and more consistent with policy than it would be to get that same bunch of people to drop a concept entirely, giving them nothing to substitute for it.  I'm speaking as a teacher here - people respond much more willingly to "don't think of it that way; think of it this way" than they do to "just don't think that way".  The former gives them something to work with; the latter tends to make them stop listening. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with much of what you say. However, we do already have something else to give them - WP:V, and WP:NOT. Trollderella 21:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with WP:NOT, and I have stated this before, is that it is too long, and often self-contradictory.  When referencing a policy/guideline, having to weed through a long, drawn out page to find a specific policy isn't very helpful.  Also, certain aspects of WP:NOT are self-contradictory.  Not paper is a statement of Wikipedia's infinite capacity.  Not a collection of indiscriminate information is a statement that there is a baseline level of worthiness for a piece of information to be considered "discriminate".  The problem with combining these too ideas is that the larger the capacity, the lower the threshold for worthiness.  Infinite capacity means infinitessimally low threshold.  We need a short, concise, and easy to understand policy/guideline page that clearly spells out in simple terms, what makes one article of verifiable information worth keeping, while another article of verifiable information should be deleted.  The PNC allows us to decide on the difference.  --Jayron32 05:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see 'not paper' and 'Not a collection of indiscriminate information' as contradictory. I am concerned at the value judgement of 'worthiness' though, it is exactly what worries me about this. We should not be judging whether a topic is 'worthy', we should be looking at whether there is enough verifiable information to write an article on it. Notablity one of those appealing answers that is short, apparently simple, but wrong. Trollderella 19:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There it is.  Right there.  You just said it.  That word "enough".  Right before the word verifiable.  The wikipedia definition of "enough" is the Primary Notability Criteria.  Notability is not about worthiness, it's not about importance, it's not about who cares, or any other subjective opinion.  The entire point of Notability, indeed, of the Primary Notability Criterion, is defining, in simple terms, for all to see, what "enough" means.  Do you get it now?  --Jayron32 04:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Wikipedia:NOT gives the critera when it says that WP is not a directory. If there is enough verifiable material to write an article that is not a directory entry (or one of the numberous other things in there) then that's enough. No need for more rule-cruft. Trollderella 20:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abritrary break

message: Here's Washington Post article on this policy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/02/AR2006120201111.html
My take is that deleting an article is considerably more easy than writing one, so scales should be tipped in favor of keeping somehow. See also the tidbit on surreality of deletion debate: "There's this debate going on about me, but Wikipedia seems to dislike self-promotion, so saying anything on my own behalf would probably undermine my cause. It's like I'm on trial and I can't testify.". Valters 11:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mising Link 

message: 1. WP:N detractors say [and provide reasoning or examples to demonstrate — SMcCandlish, 11:00, 7 Dec 2006] that WP:N is subjective; supporters simply retort that it isn't and that it can't be because it says it isn't. That's faulty logic. Most people accused of crimes maintain their innocence, but that doesn't mean some of them aren't lying.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it is as subjective as you think because in my view, it does not look subjective. Your view may differ. If you consider it too subjective, why not modify the page?74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ?!? Um, do you have a response that isn't a tautology? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This was not meant to be an argument (not the "tautological" part, anyway), but rather a statement of my position -- namely that I do not see it as subjective, or at least not as subjective as you want to think: you seem to think that the definition on the page (what _exactly_ are you talking about? The PNC? The thing at the top? A combination of things?) is totally subjective. If it was that subjective we could distort it to say "X is notable 'cuz Zebbeledon Zipzod, my #1 source of info, says so!" But I cannot see how such a distortion could possibly be made in any reasonable way, and thus I do not concieve of it as being THAT subjective! It might deserve some more clarification made, but it's far from totally subjective, and especially being worthless. It's not perfect, I'll concede that, and work does need to be done, but it's not worthess, totally biased "tar" as you called it. 74.38.34.192 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already addressed, in detail, below (#Two-fold subjectivity) and elsewhere what is subjective about WP:N, so I'm not going to reiterate it here.  Please actually read the posts here.  I've never said that all of WP:N is "totally" subjective; I've even praised parts of it.  If it can't be applied objectively then it is worthless, as a guideline on how to write articles or which articles should be written, which seems to be what WP:N purports to be; I would say that in that sense it is actually worse than useless.  It may well have use as an essay or something, but it's not Guideline material at this stage.  Again, that doesn't mean I think WP:N should be labelled Rejected or otherwise burned down, I simply think it needs to be seriously re-thought, not just in its wording here or there but from the ground up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I posted some responses there (which I'm awaiting an answer on from you), and am going to concentrate my discussion there as I am getting lost in this vast maze of posts, topics, etc., especially since the objectivity seems to be the really big issue. 74.38.34.192 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  PS: As to why I don't just go edit it: a) because I think that edits to something of this level of dispute should be hashed out in Talk before they are made (the reason that I posted this "Some of the problems with WP:N" in the first place; the discussion has been getting way too personal and tooth-gnashy and unproductive), or they typically just lead to more arguments, editwarring, etc., and b) I don't believe in this Proposal in the first place, and I don't just mean its present particular wording, but its entire raison d'etre so I have no interest in twiddling with it.  If in a month or a week or a year I come look here and see that the disputes are resolved and there's actually a proposal in place that makes sense, I'd be happy to contribute to it.  Here's an analogy: I recently quit an eight-ball team, and went and joined another one, because the original team were hopelessly in-fighting and unable to get over their personal differences, ineffective as a team (for either internal or external purposes) and unwilling to learn or progress.  I'm a lot happier now.  Actually that was a direct and total allegory not just an analogy. Hint hint.  But I am putting my money where my mouth is.  My intent here is to engender reconsideration of this entire proposal, in favor of a much more collective-wisdom guideline (drawing on the previous 5+ [non-]notability proposals and the discussions of them, and just as importantly on current practice (the creation of topical notability criteria, their consensus adoption, and their importation into Policy in WP:DEL).  In my view, the appropriate function of a WP:N Guideline is to explain how notability works, from an objective (as possible) viewpoint, as a guideline on the applicability of extant Policy to various situations instead of as a conflict with at least two Policies that is trying to masquerade as a new wanna-be Policy.  I have opened this discussion more than once here (earlier only to have it shunted off onto an Archive page while the discussion was still ongoing; if that wasn't bad faith it was definitely a bad move.) So, I re-open it again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So then why not just completely rewrite this whole thing? You seem to suggest that a WP:N page should exist (see "In my view, the appropriate function of a WP:N Guideline..." which suggests that you believe such a guideline should exist), but if this is not it, why not draft a full rewrite the way you see it as working. 74.38.34.192 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Basically (to answer "why not just rewrite"), because this article is WP:OWNed and no edit I make is accepted, even when it isn't changing the core text of the article.  I shudder to imagine the edit-war that would result if I were actually to attempt to change the article in any central way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So why not then make your own proposal like others have, even if not forcing a rewrite right here, but writing it in a separate article, or in your user space, then people can discuss that? Maybe you should give that a try, eh?  You seem to have some sort of idea, so why not put it out here in full for everyone to see? 74.38.34.192 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because there've already been too many notability and notability-based proposals.  As for the later question, I *am* putting my ideas out there, here on this talk page and in its archives. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That argument cuts both ways. Detractors of notability say it's subjective because they say so. If there is unclarity about what a term means, a good response is to write a page that defines it. (Radiant) 17:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to have misread what I said.  I didn't say "pro-WP:N-objectivity viewpoints are tautological", I said that the claim that WP:N is objective because it says it is, is circular reasoning.  I.e., you are not addressing the argument I actually presented; you've missed an entire layer of the logic here.  Another way of looking at it is argument to authority, where the authority being cited as proof that WP:N isn't subjective is WP:N itself, which is by definition not authoritative on the subject since it the debated point in the first place (i.e. it's like saying "Mel Gibson harbors no anti-semitic sentiments, no matter what concerns or evidence are raised, because Mel Gibson says he doesn't, and that's proof").  As for the entirely separate issue of whether the pro-WP:N-objectivity arguments so far are tautological, they do in fact appear to be so, or at very best unsupported.  WP:N-subjectivity arguments I've presented have laid out specifics about why this proposal is subjective, and others have raised similar concerns; we're not just saying so, we're showing so.  The opposite is not true; WP:N proponents have not demonstrated objectivity, only asserted it without evidenciarily or logically defending the assertion, sometimes attempting and failing to defend it with the "objective 'cause it says so" tautology, and all without substantively addressing the subjectivity counter-argument — as usual around here).  And, no, a good way to fix vague or subjective language in a proposal is not to write a yet another proposal inventing a newly-constructed definition for the disputed term, that no one is ever likely to get on board with; a good way to fix it is to replace it with something less vague or subjective. The "additional essay" idea is just a waste of time - both would have to be approved as Guidelines simultaneously, or the explanatory proposal before the one it explains, in order for the latter to ever make sense as a Guideline.  <fzzt spark pop> Does not compute...Does not compute! <BANG>  NB: I do think it is good and important that WP:N dissuade subjective interpretations, mind you; but doing so does not make it an objective standard if the subjectivity lies in its wording or regular application.  It's not "there" yet.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So then what do you propose for a change to the wording? Remember, the application derives from the wording. Put these ideas to paper, not leave them in your head. You don't need a full essay, you just need to describe the change to the wording that you believe should be made. 74.38.34.192 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already made them all quite plain, I think, and I'm satisfied that the discussion is progressing in a more constructive manner on all sides.  I may or may not participate in crafting the exact wording of the projectpage directly.  I've leery of doing so, frankly, for reasons (internal and external) that I've already raised, but we'll see. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My conclusion: I've seen some acknowlegment of the concern I raised with this topic, and willingness to see the issue resolved.  Yay! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objective 'cause it says so 

message: 4. WP:N evidences lack of consensus even on the part of notability guidelines' authors: "One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the [topical notability] guidelines [in the list on the right]"... [emphasis added] If some of them don't use this criterion, then consensus on the issue has not (yet?) been reached. Which by the way is one example of how WP:N would supercede longer-standing and noncontroversial Guidelines, several of which have the force of Policy now because they have been imported by specific reference into WP:DEL. I.e., WP:N is over-broad, and in conflict with both Policy and other Guidelines.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not have to supercede them -- rather it is providing an addendum to those guidelines that do not have it (Are there any? I looked through all the accepted-as-guideline Notability pages and found that same PNC in all of them.), not tossing out every other criterion. Perhaps the term, "primary criterion" is somewhat misleading, though. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If WP:N adds a requirement/criterion that some WP:DEL-sanctioned notability criteria do not have - if it makes "passing" the "notability test" any harder for any articles - then, yes, it IS attempting to supercede Policy.  I've already addressed this previously, with regard to WP:N "just adding to or strengthening" WP:V.  It's an out-of-bounds endeavor.  If WP:V or WP:DEL are deficient in some way, they should be modified via WP:HCP. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What if it defines a "notability test"? It can't make that any "harder" until such a test is defined. I do not see how Policy explicitly defines something called "notability", so there's nothing to override! WP:N does not "add to" WP:V, it provides a new criterion all it's own. Notice there's more notability rules than just WP:N, by the way, so "notability" is obviously something else than "verifiability", even if it's designed to ensure it to something. 74.38.34.192 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your defining idea is kind of what I've been getting at when I've said elsewhere that WP:N should offer guidance on how to properly construct notability criteria (I remain unconvinced of the "safety net" argument others have made for WP:N as an actional deletion criterion in and of itself; while I agree that we can't write a tailored subject-specific notability criterion for every conceivable topic, at least not in our lifetimes, I think that BIG-topic subject-specific notability criteria could in fact cover everything, and as the need arises, be narrowed (e.g. the "books" notability guidelines could be adapted into a more general "publications" one, and if enough people thought they were too vague or overbroad for a particlar application, such as magazines or e-books or porno videos or whatever, they could write a narrowing one to cover that smaller topic more specifically.  This system isn't a new idea, it's a description of what's already been happening with WP:DEL and :CAT:Wikipedia notability criteria, after all, since long before WP:N was "born")  Anyway, to return to your point, yes, WP:N does add a criterion all its own, that conflicts with WP:V, WP:DEL, WP:NOT, WP:NFT, etc., etc., taken as a combined whole that we can call "operating policy" (or some other term someone else prefers).  I've been slowly convinced (more by my own observations of the players involved than by anyone's individual responses) that this can be rectified.  I remain disturbed the apparent unsuccess of some to even understand the point, however. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Guess what?  Our guidelines, like our encyclopedia, are a work in progress.  We're working on it.  It's like you're critiquing this as if it were presented as a perfect code of rules; it's not.  We're fumbling towards perfection, and little improvements are the way we do it.  If there's a notability criterion that doesn't include a version of the PNC, we talk about it.  This isn't a reason to cry havoc and let loose the dogs, it's a reason to discuss the details.  In this case, it appears to be a false alarm, because all the subject specific critera do include the PNC. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that fully. The position I entered this debate with, that WP:N should not have a Guideline tag on it (I never once suggested it should be deleted, I reiterate) was born of the view that WP:N is "too" embryonic to be an effective or reliable Guideline at this point.  (I had other points too, especially with regard to process, but that was the major one).  I actually (as of this writing, an in after expressing my changes of stance and belief that WP:N should and can be fixed instead of scrapped) still believe this; I think that the Guideline tag should be temporarily replaced with the disputed one, instead of paired with it, until WP:N is substantially improved.  I'm "okay" with the present situation, but would wax sorely pissed at at attempts to remove the Disputed tag completely. PS: I don't think I was wardogging; I was simply pointing out that some of the WP:DEL topical notability criteria don't agree with WP:N and that WP:N even says so itself (the former may or may not even be true any longer, but isn't the real point on this subtopic, which was that this guideline is effectively saying "heck, even some of the long-standing notability criteria that are now part of Policy don't agree with me, and I admit it, so, um, uh, why am I am here again? What authoritativeness do I provide? Can I be sanely relied upon? Am I in conflict with Policy? I have a headache..." — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  That's what I'm doing; discussing the details.  Recognizing that no Guideline is perfect does not, however, equate to recognizing that every Proposal should be a Guideline.  You may not believe it, but I think that the PNC is actually not bad.  If there really are no WP:DEL notability guidelines that are missing it any more, I'd say just edit WP:N (grrr, now I'm saying how to improve the thing instead of get rid of it...) to remove the "most" language, and then the WP:N proposal will be codifying consensus practice on that particular point, only, but at least that's one step closer.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, then could you post some examples here of how various sections should be improved? If you post it here they can be discussed and won't be mercilessly nuked from the article.  74.38.34.192 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The intent of this page has never been to supercede existing notability guidelines, nor does that say so on the page. (Radiant) 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My conclusion: I've seen some acknowlegment of the concerns I raised with this topic, and willingness to see the issue resolved, but remain unconvinced that it was fully understood. Good enough for now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus conflict with existing guidelines 

message: 5. WP:N is vague. It states that "Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work" but provides no actual scale with which to make such a measurement, and ergo is abusing the word "measure" as well as suffering from subjectivity.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then feel free to edit it, and gauge how the community as a whole responds. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As per the above undesire to be one of the direct authors of this thing, I decline.  More particularly, I don't think it is possible anywhere near the present tactic to make notability as conceived by WP:N objective.  Or even arbitrary, in the positive legal sense, which would actually probably satisfy me and (given the acceptance of other, topical, notability guidelines) many others.  Lest that cause any confusion:  Arbitrary in legal terms means "having a set, knowable boundary unaffected by personal, commercial or other bias", basically.  The topical notability criteria have (or tend to have; some of them are still a bit deficient) a definite line, or more often a set of lines, any one of which will do, to cross for an article topic to be considered "notable".  This is in large part is why I think a WP-wide notability criterion is nonsense, rather than a guideline on how to create notability criteria [and a definition of "notability &mdash SMcCandlish, Dec. 9, 2006]].  As a simple example, it might be determined by consensus at some point that sportspersons are not "notable" (solely as such) unless they have achieved some mark of stature in their field.  How to define that?!?  In pool (i.e. pocket billiards), I can confidently say that any professional player (not otherwise notable for some other reason) is not notable if they have not a) won first place in a national or international tournament sanctioned by a notable (defined elsewhere) organization; b) been in the top three in several such tournaments [but even "several" is probably too vague!] or c) ranked in the top 100 players in their game (eight-ball, whatever) by such an organization or a notable (defined elsewhere) publication in their field consistently for several years (again "several" is probably too vague.)  Now let's switch to the NFL, AFL, NBA, etc.  I think it is solidly arguable that every single member of these pro sports leagues is notable (even by WP:N's wonky criteria), simply by virtue of the fact that they are in them at all.  So what about golfers?  Is every single golfer who can, at least once, compete in a major golf event "notable"?  Probably not.  (What about champion spitters?  Is distance spitting itself even "notable"? It sure is to the terbacky-chawin' competitors in it...) I don't know enough about golf to suggest appropriate criteria (and the point is, you probably don't either, but the major "editorial shepherds" of the golf articlespace probably do.)  It's very "notable" that the arbitrary criteria for bands, books (that one's still a draft, but it's illustrative), fictional characters, etc., etc., are all radically different on their arbitrary criteria.  There are very good reasons for this that WP:N is ignoring and trampling upon.  There may be a plausible argument that this is a bad situation for some reason, but to date that argument has not been made successfully, and extant policy at WP:DEL assumes that argument to be false. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I probably do know how to write at least a couple of guidelines for golfspace notability, but I probably won't give it a try. I would also like an explanation of these "very good reasons" that you claim exist for it being very "notable" that all the "notability" guidelines are all "radically different from each other", etc. You know your arguments will be greatly improved if you explain reasons instead of just stating that they exist. 74.38.34.192 19:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already covered this multiple times in the last month, and the very post you are responding to self-illustrates the reason, with the differing examples of pool and the NFL and distance spitting. The short version is: What's "notable" in one field or for one reason isn't "notable" in/for others; the WP:DEL NN guidelines account for this and it seems to me that WP:N doesn't.  My views on this are flexible, and in fact bending, but I have to observe that the concern raised has not been addressed, in this thread or any other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, not everything has to be strictly defined here. For instance, "vandalism" and "featured article" are not strictly, objectively, or legalistically defined either, but the community has no problem at all working with them. (Radiant) 17:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In what way(s) would you consider them WP:VANDAL vague or subjective? (FA is subjective by definition and is not related to article/content survival and thus of no relevance, any more than a beauty pageant is of relevant to whether cold fusion is possible; both of them are matters of debate, and society — our even larger community — can handle both of them. Doesn't mean they are subjec to the same criteria.  So, can you restate your point? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My conclusion: This point is completely unaddressed.  Un-yay. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vagueness 

message: 8. WP founder Jimbo Wales has unequivocally opposed notability, almost three years ago, in terms that are still completely relevant. One WP:N supporter has labelled observing this fact (originally intended as humor on my part) the fallacy of "argumentum ad Jimbonem", which is amusing too. But WP:POLICY states very specfically and categorically that Jimbo's "declarations" are in fact a source of Policy, and even outside of the consensus process. This is reinforced elsewhere in some other Policies (I believe WP:DEL is one of them). Don't WP:N supporters see this as problematic?	 
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But only when they actually become official policy (stamped) are they. Jimbo could say tomorrow, "NPOV is hereby void, go and bias to your heart's content", but if the COMMUNITY does not accept that then NPOV is not void. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see that.  I did phrase this one as a question, after all.  It just seems likely to me that Jimbo and ergo likely other outside-of-consensus policymakers here on WP might oppose this if it went too far.  The question was an honest one, not just in the sense of "don't you fear you might get overridden", but also in the sense of "don't you feel that maybe he has a point, and he really, really, really had a good sense of how this entire operation ought to work?"  I've found myself pleasantly shocked by some of the things he's said (and turned into policy, in fact, esp. with regard to living persons) that were counter to the general flow of things, but were coming from such a "meta" point that when you shook your head and looked at it from a more outside perspective make utter sense, contrary as they were to the internal logic.  "The Lord of the Flies" is only a plausible story because of the lack of a "Jimbonian" benevolent dicatory influence on the outcome.  The more that Wikipedia is left to evolve in its own microcosm of internal regulations the more, I suspect, it will diverge from sanity.  However much I could care less about copyright this-'n'-that lawyerspeak wanking, because I just don't go uploading other people's stuff here, I'm really thankful for the frequent copyright-related warnings/notices that pop up; they remind us that this is a wild experiment in the middle of a much more settled world.  PS: I will disagree on your codicil; if Jimbo or WikiMedia Foundation as a group said that WP:NPOV was no longer valid, then I don't think the community could do anything but simply ignore it and continue to operate as if it hadn't been said.  If it came down to admin (or higher up!) enforcement of something, Jimbo/WMF's word would necessarily trounce that of consensus views.  That's just how this organization is set up.  No amount of anti-I.P. activism, for example, could get rid of the copyright related policies here, or undo the handling of potentially defamatory unsourced material about living persons. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What's Jimbo's position on notability more recently?  Wikipedia is pretty different from what it was three years ago, and Jimbo's priorities - and the community's - have evolved. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heck if I know!  I have not yet gone through all the talk archives here.  Would definitely like to know.  That said, if after all the known talk archives on the subject-in-general are plundered and nothing new comes to light, then the logical assuption is that his views on the subject haven't changed since the last testimony we can dig up.  Standard investigative procedure. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know what definition of notability he was referring to before, but recently he has repeatedly stated that any unsourced information about which there is any question at all should be removed (rather than putting on ). Note also that, with the exception of fictional topics, the high sourcing standards of WP:BLP and libel issues in general apply to all usually non-notable subjects, such as persons, bands, and companies. —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed in whole as to fact (see above; I was just talking about the same stuff but hadn't even read your post yet), but I don't see the relevance.  As people keep trying to bang into my head, WP:V is not WP:N, right? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I rescind that partial agreement; he was talking about unsourced information about living people. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is no longer relevant, as evidenced by more recent posts on the subject by Jimbo and Brad (e.g. Jimbo's endorsement of CSD A7, Brad's call-to-arms against self-promotion, etc). (Radiant) 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sources? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My conclusion: My question is answered to my satisfaction, though I'm curious about the uncited assertions at the end.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jimbo factor 

message: 9. WP:N's Rationale section, apart from being down near the bottom for some reason, is simply a reiteration of other Guidelines/Policies with the word "notable" tacked on, and doesn't actually appear to provide any rationale for WP:N. It also, incidentally, should be citing WP:OWN, one of its sources, but doesn't. And it is simply incorrect that notability prevents article monopolization; while many non-notable topics will of course by WP:OWNed by someone, possibly the only person, who cares enough about the topic to work on the articles, many more popular articles suffer from the same miswikipedianism. It's a broader problem, and to the extent that it applies to allegedly non-notable topics, it is already addressed by WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:AUTO, WP:COI and of course WP:V. Deleting, merging or clean-up of such non-articles certainly doesn't need the extra "force" WP:N could supposedly provide.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe WP:N should perhaps be reduced to more of a clarification of these policies. Why don't you go and draft a new proposal, and float it here? 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Already answered elsewhere.  I think WP:N should be reduced something like that.  It's what I've mainly been arguing for weeks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:N provides no extra "force", nor should it. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it does.  It adds that if the article doesn't have multiple independent sources that it can be deleted as NN, an addl. requirement not found in WP:V, WP:NOT, etc., etc.  Cf. #Consensus conflict with existing guidelines above; this is the crux of the argument that 74.something and Radiant and someone else seemed unable to understand at all, and kept calling it just "supporting" or "supplementing" WP:V, et al.  Cf. also the so-called "legalistic" argument where I explained this in more detail.  At this point I'm not necessarily certain I still think this extra force is "wrong", but it is clearly there and should be handled appropriately so as to prevent policy-interpretation conflicts (i.e., this is an edit suggestion to take up later).  Analogy: If Daddy says Little Johnny can go to the park after he does his homework, and then Mommy and Daddy go out and leave Big Sis to babysit, and Sis tells Little Johnny he can't go to the park when his homework is done until he eats three worms and cleans her bike and does all the dishes and gives her his favorite magic marker, then Sis has overstepped her authority and controverted parental policy, and is going to be in trouble when the parents get home. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Once more it is not problematic for a guideline to supplement policy, refer to policy, or clarify certain cases of policy. Indeed, that is one of the major reasons we even have guidelines. (Radiant) 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Already addressed elsewhere multiple times. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My conclusion: Completely unaddressed (the debate that ensued was really just a continuation of #Consensus conflict with existing guidelines above and didn't actually get to the point of this WP:N problem), but mainly a concern for editing the article text, so I'm not too concerned with it right now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale supportive of other policies, not WP:N 

message: 10. The apparently almost entirely non-controversial topical notability Guidelines imported into WP:DEL demonstrate an existing consensus that some topics or types of articles would benefit from notability criteria, that groups of experienced editors who work a lot on such topics can and should create such narrow guidelines, on a topical, flexible basis, and that after they have reached consensus there is already a fast and easy process for making them part of Policy in WP:DEL. Nothing about all of that suggests that we need a new Wikipedia-wide notability Guideline like WP:N is trying to be.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There IS a consensus that Notability, in some form should be a Wikipedia-wide criterion for inclusion and deletion as so many editors use it. The cactions of the community reflect the state of the community. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't mean that those criteria should come from here.  We have WP:DEL and it's notability criteria for a reason. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But how does WP:N claim it is a deletion criterion, and not a definition of the notability concept, as you claim it should be, below? Is it because of the "notability as a reason for deletion" section? 74.38.34.192 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, obviously. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Any response? Are you saying there is no such consensus? That's why I suggested a poll earlier, to get some hard numbers here! 74.38.34.192 01:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand what the referent of "such" is.  If you mean the consensus mentioned at "There IS a consensus...in some form" above, I've already answered that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to once more misinterpret this page as superceding other pages. One might argue that to have notability guidelines in the first place, one needs a page to define that term. (Radiant) 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   And you see to once more misinterpret me as opposing that notion. :-)  I've already said many times here that I think the legitimate purpose of WP:N should be to do precisely that (in a way that guides Wikipedians in the creation of topical/typical notability guidelines that can be applied with "local" criteria editors can actually use, and which WP:DEL relies upon.  The disagreement between us appears to principally be that you seem to believe in a one-size-fits all set of notability criteria as well as a site-wide definition, while I only support the latter concept (and am not too sure I agree with the present implementation in WP:N, but that's a different issue.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My conclusion: The concern raised remains unaddressed, but at least we've arrived at where the difference of opinion may lie. And I'm actually moderating my opinion on this issue anyway, in light of genuinely consensus-buiding discussion that's been ongoing lately. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with WP:DEL and its progeny 

message: 11. WP:N appears to be "owned" by a small cadre of singleminded shepherds who have gone out of their way to prevent substantial change to the Proposal, to undermine other, competing Proposals (a recent RfAr did not address much of this, since the topic was WP:NNOT and its promoter, but was critical inasmuch as it did so, labelling these actions "exacerbating of dispute" and "aggressive", noting that one of the partipants in the dispute is elsewhere promoting yet another "Guideline" that others maintain is simply an Essay, and reminding everyone that Guidelines are only arrived at by clear consensus; I submit that it should be looked upon as subtle warning), and to obliterate milder proposals (Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments has quotes from Wikipedia:Importance which no longer exists, having been replaced by a redirect to WP:N; these quotes show a lot more sensitivity to the concerns raised by WP:N critics; the continued existence of the original Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance talk page also demonstrates a lot more open dialog in times past; meanwhile, its article page too has been destroyed instead of retained as a failed proposal, and it too redirects to WP:N. While everyone wants to assume good faith, there seems to be fairly strong evidence of a lot of wikipoliticking going on here, and the result has been a reduction in discussion and consensus-building.	 
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not push for "politicking", rather what I do is try to find out what goes best with the Community. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You keep using that term as if doing so ends the debate, but I don't find comments like this very substantive.  What is it you are trying to convey? How are you addressing the points raised here (by any party, not just me)?  I'm not getting your point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It means I'm trying to offer input that will eventually lead to a Community Consensus, not "politicking", and to try and find a viewpoint/position that best agrees with consensus. I think that is a worthy goal, don't you? 74.38.34.192 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  Wasn't meant as an attack, just an indication that your point wasn't getting through. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: False (and also an ad hominem fallacy), you can clearly see from the page history that it has changed a lot since its conception. If you must cite ArbCom precedent, note that you are misstating the case you cite from, and that this recent case specifically endorses notability. (Radiant) 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the ad hominem?  I've not attacked anyone's character here.  I've only talked about a pattern of activities.  If one wants to debate that the pattern is only a correlation without evidence of causation, or question the existence of the pattern at all, that's one thing, but it's quite another to suggest that I'm simply character assassinating anyone.  I haven't said anyone acted in bad faith, only that assumption of good faith is harder to maintain in the face of what appears to be a pattern of actions that can be interpreted as wikipolitical rather than consensus-building.  That's not an accusation, it's a description of effects.  And what part is "false"?  Note also that I have not said that the ArbCom are anti-notability, only that what they have said in the RfAr on WP:NNOT aside from the parts that directly addressed WP:NNOT and its main proponent, can be interpreted as critical of some of WP:N's major proponents a.k.a. WP:NNOT's major detractors, or more to the point their actions, not their character (and further I did not say that they were critical of WP:N itself). I do not believe that ArbCom would have mentioned in their Findings of Fact terms like "exacerbated the dispute" and "aggressive", and remarked upon a pattern of promotion of disputed Proposals/Essays as "Guidelines", and then practically lectured everyone about how consensus is formed here, unless they were making a very clear point that was intended to be heard.  WP:NNOT and it's main author bore the brunt of the criticism, but everyone majorly involved on both sides was criticized. If it were even possible that the ArbCom were criticizing me, I think I would look very carefully at what I was doing... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that the full title of WP:OWN is "Wikipedia:Ownership of articles". This is not an article, it's a project page. And yes it's more than a semantic difference. --W.marsh 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a curious assertion.  Do you have any evidence to back it up?  I just re-read every word on WP:OWN and there is nothing anywhere in it to suggest it does not apply to Wikipedia:, Template: and other namespaces (other than User: of course).  Cf. the other Policies that relate to editor behavior: Behavioral standards, Assume good faith, Bots, Civility, Editing policy, No legal threats, No personal attacks, Sock puppetry, Three-revert rule, Vandalism, etc.; all of them are applied on a daily basis outside of the article namespace.  There are policies such as WP:V that don't rationally apply to a lot of Wikipedia: namespace materials, but WP:OWN is clearly not one of them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My conclusion: Utterly unaddressed, but hopefully moot since there are an increasing number of participants here and actual consensus-building going on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:OWNership 

message: Suppose unsourced rumor material appears on Wikipedia first, then suppose after many obscure exchanges, the media eventually used the material by referencing the alledged source of the material (some dude in whateverville).  Then we can use the media sources involved as a reference.  How about that.  A reason why things we reference may itself consist of non-notable material by wikipedians (even by a reputable source that doesn't make all their references public)... Connect with reality man!Kmarinas86 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If, as in the case you described, you have a good reason to believe that a source's information is erroneous, then the best thing would be to not use that source, and indicate on the relevant talk page how you know the source's information is in error. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my proposed guideline - Wikipedia is not a place for Wikipedians to reference a source that borrowed misinformation indirectly from Wikipedia. It's important that we make this clear, because a common sense reading of existing policy... oh, wait. Sorry. Trollderella 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedians referencing a source that borrowed misinformation indirectly from Wikipedia

message: There's been LONG-standing consensus on this page, since way back when it was just an essay/proposal, to reference other related proposals, guidelines, essays, etc., on this topic.  Today I expanded on it a little by rediscovering some "lost" proposals and such, and then organized it carefully and topically.  I not only had all of those edits reverted with practically no explanation, the reverts went even further and removed material that's been there for over half a year.  Given that the material in question provides information about the nature of the Notability debate, pretty much its full history on WP in fact, I find the reversions totally unfathomable.  If there's disagreement that such wikilinks are needed at all, disagreement on one or more of the wikilinks in particular, or disagreement about the arrangement of the section, then let's discuss any such issues and try to work out a compromise, rather than engage in borderline edit-warring right off the bat, OK?  I've restored my edits because their reversion was not justified.  I'll go first:
In the case of the bulk of the deletion, nothing was said at all about the rationale, though a question was asked: Why bother linking to old proposals at all?  The answer to that is blatantly obvious: Because this is a heavily debated and disputed topic, from what I can tell the single most so on all of WP, and has been for 3 years or more, with a lot of relevant material and viewpoints on the issue available at the links that section provides, and has provided for a very long time.  The other reversion just said that the deleted items were already mentioned in the main article content.  Well so what?  The 'See also' links to WP:DEL and the notability criteria category were put in there for a reason (self-explained by the text that went with them).  They highlight resources that are not debated.  The fact that WP:DEL is mentioned somewhere else isn't of much significance, and the usage of the sidebar template is outright misleading, because not all of those guidelines have the same weight (in fact many are not guidelines at all).  The two usages have entirely different purposes.  The sidebar is a "roadmap" to current work on notability; the 'See also' subsection that listed the cat. and DEL is saying what is Policy and authoritative on the topic as opposed to dubious or in-progress.  Admittedly the cat. link isn't much use in that regard, and I won't mind losing it; it may well be too duplicative of the sidebar.  But the link to DEL is important in that particular context, whether or not it is also linked to in the main text and in the sidebar. The subsectioning is justified by how messy and jumbled the section was; I'm not utterly wedded to the subsectioning I chose, but I've not heard any logical objections to it.  Please note the great deal of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF I'm bringing to bear here.  But if I get blatantly edit-warred with, expect that to become strained.  My patience is wearing thin enough, with the goings on in here overall, that WP:DISPUTE mediation channels are beginning to look pretty good. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying "vandalism" and "violence" isn't helpful and is certainly not the WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF you say you're bringing here. You added a section; several people edited it and removed parts; why is that a problem? Generally if a new section turns out to be disputed we discuss it on the talk page before adding it again. (Radiant) 12:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is what I initiated and which you just ignored a couple of minutes ago in another unjustified revert.  Your only rationale so far amounts to "I have a right to Be Bold", but you have to do so within some limits which I believe you are exceeding.  You have not addressed one single point I've raised on this topic.  Since you have not done so, I'm re-reverting my edit (which changes that I hope may mitigate some of the issues with the original version), and really hope you don't re-re-revert it without actually discussing the issues you have with the material.  As for my words, "violence" used in this sense is a legal term-of-art (as in "upholding the lower court's decision would do violence to Miller v California"), often used outside of the judicial context; it's colorful, but not intended as offensive.  Rather, it is descriptive of the harm to the recipient (in this case my good faith efforts to improve the article), not of the mindset of the source of the harm (in this case, inexplicable or at least unexplicated wholesale reversion.)  And I did not call you "vandal"; that's a straw man; I said "near-vandalism", and I think in the context it is entirely applicable because of the lack of logical (or any, really) justification of your reversions.  It's not a personal insult at all, it's a warning that another editor thinks you are crossing (another) Policy-dictated boundary or are hazardously close to doing so; "near-vandalism" in this context is not random ad hominem name-calling, it is a clear reference to specific WP policies with regard to editing practices.  Lastly, your characterization of your edit is inaccurate; you did not just revert my changes, nor (to use your words) are you "rewording [SMcCandlish's addition] and removing parts [I, Radiant] consider irrelevant", but lopped out all of the new material and even used the opportunity to remove extant material that has been in place for well-justified reasons for a very long time.  And I've already made it clear that I strongly dispute the notion that the bulk of my addition was in any way irrelevant (nor that the other, pre-existing parts you deleted were).  Please note again that I am not imputing any motives or agendas.  Come on, feel free to disagree, but at least discuss the points of disagreement, huh?  PS: It wasn't "several" editors, it was two, and the discernable rationales at this point for the reverts, and why one might disagree with them, are wholly different (and half of one of which I've already yielded on). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: I'm really surprised at how much you are (without explanation) resisting these efforts to consolidate NN-related information here, given how much work you've done over the last 6 months to make this page the "one-stop shop" for the issue.  Do you want to move this stuff into a more narrative ==History== instead?  My goal is to not lose the information or have it become buried in such an obscure place it is virtually lost (again!).  I don't really care whether it is a 'See also' section, or whether it has longwinded full-internal-URL wikilinks.  Totally irrelevant to me; it's the significance that counts.  I have a long day tomorrow, so I'm taking a break from this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  That's not a rationale, that's "I don't like it".  I've already argued against this reasoning above, anyway, with no substantive response from you.  To continue, WP:N is not a Policy page.  It's not even really a Guideline, it's a "disputed Guideline" (i.e. about one proverbial hair away from being demoted back to Essay or Proposal or even Rejected Guideline, though I think that would be going a bit far), and it's abundantly clear from the debate on this and every other related page that the history of the debate, and all of the pro vs. con arguments contained in it are closely bound to coming to consensus on the issue.  You are also arguing with a straw man here; I've already said I don't care that the materials be a "list", only that they not be swept under the rug.  Lastly, I'm not calling the kettle black, just defending this page from destructive reversions that are not justified and which seem almost if intended to violate WP policy — I'm trying to impress upon you that you are failing to WP:DISCUSS and seek WP:CONSENSUS and are instead trying to impose your personal will and point of view without comprehensible reasons (to the extent any have been expressed at all).  This is not your personal page.  It is a highly contentious piece of nascent Wikipolicymaking that will affect everyone here.  Again, can you suggest something other than a 'See also' list that will still preserve the material in a highly visible way, at least until the notability issue is no longer contentious?  If a year from now no one argues about this any longer, I could care less about the historical links.  But they're of serious, ahem, notability in the present. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you can't hold/discuss/push a personal point of view on the talk pages??? Or are you referring to an edit of some sort to the WP:N page itself? 74.38.34.192 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The latter, if I understand your question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: Another way of looking at it: Saying "I don't see the point..." is not a rationale, it is a question, which I've already answered, twice, and which you have not refuted (successfully or otherwise; you've simply ignored it).  Reverting again is simply edit-warring, plain and simple.  I've been actively seeking your input on a compromise.  Please respond to that, constructively.  If you think one of the essay examples is lame, say so and why.  If you hate the list format, suggest another.  If you honestly think it's possible to demonstrate that the notabilty history isn't of relevance and value, give it shot (good luck!).  But please do something other than just repeat your non-rationale again. And I haven't even gotten into questioning why you keep supporting and promoting paritcular essays and ignoring others.  That could use some explanation too, though for now I've just been tacitly supporting is, as you should note from the ordering that I put things in in the "list". I've gone way out of my way to represent your preferences rather than mine in that regard. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand correctly, you wish to write a treatise on the history and development related to the term "notability" over time on Wikipedia. The best way to go about that would be to create a page Wikipedia:History of notability and write it there. A guideline such as this one is not a treatise on history but a description of the status quo. Your words about "demotion" imply that you are unfamiliar with how policy/guidelines work, since there is no such thing as "promoting" or "demoting" pages; see WP:PPP and WP:POL for details. Your accusations of ownership don't hold water considering the extensive input we've had here and the fact that this page accurately reflects the status quo. (Radiant) 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw man. I didn't say a "treatise", I said either a "list" as you called it (it's actually a pretty routine 'See also' section, which aside from frankly rather minor changes to it by me today has been in this document for months, and in its erstwhile competing documents, several of which predate it), or alternatively a narrative reformatting of it (heck, it could actually be done in one sentence, e.g.: "The oldest extant page on the topic was followed by an early proposal, and a replacement, all originally using terms like "fame", "importance" and "significance", until the "notability" term was arrived at, eventually spawning a "rejected counter-proposal" and the present Wikipedia:Notability."  Quite simple really.  How do you feel about that draft wording?  And (second man o' straw in this one) I didn't say it (whatever form "it" takes) would be "on the history and development related to the term 'notability'"; I said I want to preserve prominent references to these pages — why? because they are the rest of the notability debate, of direct and immediate relevance here and the consensus impasse we seem to be hitting.  As for actually writing up a real "history" page and putting all of this on there, the idea's certainly occurred to me, but my experience with you today suggests that actually having it referenced prominently from this article, and staying that way while WP:N remains contentious, could be a dicey proposition.  I don't see any advantage to genuine consensus-building in allowing half of the debate and its historical backing to likely become marginalized or effectively vanish (too much of that has happened already with the long virtual disappearance of WP:INT and WP:FAME); silencing opponents != consensus, no matter why/how it happens or what motivates it (again, no accusation; I'm just observing effect regardless of cause).  As for the rest: I put "demoted" in scare quotes for a reason.  Please don't be over-literal.  I think this is the third time in a week-or-so that you've not detected when I'm being humorous or ironic; I'm not sure if that's because you just don't get my humor, or because I'm poor at conveying it adequatedly.  In case you haven't figured it out yet, I study WP policy processes.  I don't particularly use them to get something done unless really, really strongly motivated to do so (cf. my low level of participation in AfD and DR and zero in RfAr) — I'd rather talk things out than demand deletions, overturns, arbitrations, etc. — but I follow them pretty closely.  I think the WPspace pages outnumber the articlespace pages in my watch list...   Next, I have to completely dispute (and please note carefully that I provide thought-out reasons why, I don't just declare that I don't agree) the ideas 1) that WP:N reflects any status quo as to consensus on policymatters (EVERY talk page even vaguely connected to this topic is rife with debate; see also the ArbCom's recent WP:NNOT RfAr Finding of Fact with regard to the widespread nature of the disputation on this topic); 2) that the status quo of "Delete NN" me-toos, and more substantive NN's that do not reference the notability criteria in WP:DEL (both of which have actually declined since this debate was reignited) in AfD are supposedly causative of WP:N being a valid consensus guidline (rather, they are a direct causal result of WP:N being labelled a guideline in the absence of anything aproaching WP:CONSENSUS; I've already addressed this several times here, with no substantive contradiction that I can find here); and 3) that your and my involvement with each other on this talk page has resulted in any change; the best that can be said for it is that it simply highlights that the disputes and lack of consensus on this topic are lingering, but that it has not devolved into a flamewar — we both do appear to be making honest efforts at being WP:CIVIL.  Perhaps some of the fault is mine, but I can't help feeling that when I explain my rationales and concerns in detail but do not get substantive responses from you, that you need to change your understanding of and appoach to what talk pages are for and how consensus works.  Speaking of which, I note that you still have not addressed any of the concerns/issues I've recently raised (and few that I've raised, period).  Handwaving strawmen at me doesn't make me change my mind (or cause anyone else to do so). Especially when you combine that tactic with ignoring every point, sometimes dozens, but the one you've handwaved at.  I detect that technique from miles away.  It does not work on me or anyone else experienced at debate.  I'll simply refute the handwave (or concede the point if it's not a handwave and valid, or continue the debate on the point if it's not a handwave and but I still question its validity), and restate the unresolved issues, as many times as is necessary to get them addressed.  Surely you've figured that out by now? [*]  The concerns raised by people who have unresolved issues with WP:N do not go away simply because you choose to ignore them, and until they are resolved consensus has not been reached.  I can and will continue to raise the unaddressed concerns, indefinitely. I have almost unbelievable patience in this regard. [*: I am a little behind on catching up with the "#Some of the problems with WP:N" thread in this regard; I'll get there, don't worry.] — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Finished the self-revert.  Afterward I did a removal of a useless item (as per Centrx's observation that the topical notability guidelines are already covered in the sidebar), and a factual correction (two previous proposals were labelled — by me, 6 or so months ago, if I remember correctly — as "rejected" when they were actually simply surpassed and went historical; so even that part's a self-revert, just a delayed one.)  I do not think these trivial changes will be controversial even in light of the debate a subtopic above this.  Now, can we talk and work this out? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'See also' section improvement

message: Well, I couldn't sleep, so I'm back at it. I'm reverting my own edits, and putting the article back exactly as it was before this all started, including the deletions of extant material that you made while reverting my changes (but excepting edits that don't have anything to do with this particular dispute.)  Another sign of good faith, remaining calm and various other sensible guidelines, and evidentiary I hope of intent toward conflict resolution.  If it takes us weeks to discuss it out, then fine.  The last thing I want is for this to force me to feel cornered into going into WP:3RR-complaining and the like.  "Let's not go there."  The self-revert will take a little while, but it should be done shortly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished the self-revert.  Afterward I did a removal of a useless item (as per Centrx's observation that the topical notability guidelines are already covered in the sidebar), and a factual correction (two previous proposals were labelled — by me, 6 or so months ago, if I remember correctly — as "rejected" when they were actually simply surpassed and went historical; so even that part's a self-revert, just a delayed one.)  I do not think these trivial changes will be controversial even in light of the debate a subtopic above this.  Now, can we talk and work this out? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-revert in the interest of peace