Misplaced Pages

talk:Notability: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:37, 15 December 2008 editMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,157 edits →Article contents← Previous edit Revision as of 15:51, 15 December 2008 edit undoPixelface (talk | contribs)12,801 edits →A way forward?: reply to RandomranNext edit →
Line 146: Line 146:
*:''...such as the policies on Verifiability, No Original Research, and Neutral Point-of-View, and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections.'' *:''...such as the policies on Verifiability, No Original Research, and Neutral Point-of-View, and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections.''
*In this manner, we don't directly call out to UNDUE/WEIGHT, but by citing NPOV which UNDUE/WEIGHT is part of, we implicitly suggest this factor. Unless it is clear that this is being used to game the system, we should avoid making what ought to be a common sense connection between these. --] 15:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC) *In this manner, we don't directly call out to UNDUE/WEIGHT, but by citing NPOV which UNDUE/WEIGHT is part of, we implicitly suggest this factor. Unless it is clear that this is being used to game the system, we should avoid making what ought to be a common sense connection between these. --] 15:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

:Randomran, an ] something in mid-March. I cannot say that people generally liked it in spirit — looking through the archives that doesn't seem to be the case at all. I could contact everyone who's edited the NNC section since mid-March if you like.

:The question here is: Does information in an article have to be "notable" in order to remain in the article? The answer is no. Does ] have anything to do with the notability guidelines? No. Do the notability guidelines restrict article content? Only ] does, when it comes to lists of people. Should this guideline refer to the principle "An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details" by then-arbitrators Fred Bauder, Jdforrester, The Epopt, Jwrosenzweig, and Raul654 during August/September 2004 in ]? No.

:I suppose most people would agree that articles should stay ]. There ''is'' such a thing as too much detail, but that's really a matter for editors to discuss on article talk pages. Skomorokh brought up a relevance guideline, and you're free to propose one yourself — several have been tried ] — at ], ], and ], and to some extent ]. --] (]) 15:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


== Remove the Disputed Tag == == Remove the Disputed Tag ==

Revision as of 15:51, 15 December 2008

Shortcuts
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82Auto-archiving period: 7 days 

Archives

Archive 1 is related to the page now moved to Misplaced Pages:Notability/Arguments.


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Relevance

NNC again

Since the previous thread on this was archived, I'm bringing it up again. The current NNC section needs to be changed. I would prefer it look like this:

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content Notability guidelines give guidance on whether the community is likely to agree that a topic is notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people ). Information within an article is not required to meet any notability guideline (with the exception of lists of people); instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policies that information must be verifiable and presented in a neutral fashion, and the guideline advising the citation of reliable sources.

And I've just changed it to that. I don't think any text about "undue weight" belongs in WP:N. WP:N is about article topics and potential article topics, not information within an article. Misplaced Pages has several policies having to do with information within an article (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:BLP), but WP:N is not one of them. Information in an article does not have to be "notable" to remain in an article. --Pixelface (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I feel uncomfortable with the proposal in the first instance, as I am not sure what benefit it has from the perspective of writing an encyclopedic article about a particular topic, as the staying focused is an important editorial consideration.
    In reality, I think WP:N does partially restrict the content of articles, in the sense that if a topic is notable, then going "off-topic" by including content that is only remotely related to the subject matter is not in the spirit of the guideline. For instance, an article like Jedi was used as a coatrack for lots of topics that are only remotely related, such as Dark Nest, but these have since been removed.
    I don't think we should go back to allowing articles to becoming dumping grounds for "off-topic" content, and somehow I think this change needs to be reverted or ammended. However, if Pixelface can give examples of articles where he thinks this change may be of benefit, I am open to conisideration.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I do think that there are two general consensuses here which are not actually mutually exclusive. Firstly, it is extremely clear that the notability (used from henceforth to also include the sub-guidelines) guidelines apply only as standards for inclusion or exclusion of article length and depth content. On the other hand, though, you are right - there is also I feel a consensus that content within an article should be, in some measure, notable. This works hand-in-hand with WP:WEIGHT, as the more notable a viewpoint, the more coverage it should receive.
    • The problem with WP:N has always been that it applies only for articles, and clearly for content within articles a different measure of notability is needed. I personally advocate 'notability requirements by length' - how notable something should (collectively, if part of a larger subject) be for a brief mention, for a more detailed mention, for a stub level article, for a section within an article, or for an article. Each of these categories seems to me to be already established to be a rough guideline which people seem to use to make editing decisions. However, this would require major rewriting work of the Notability guidelines, and by definition would also require cross-over with MoS standards for articles (as effectively this would also work towards a concept of "minimum content" - that an article about a subject of certain notability would then hence be expected to have). LinaMishima (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and revert this change. I don't think there's a consensus for it, but you're welcome to make the argument until we do. NNC talks about the appropriate weight of factual information, which really doesn't belong in WP:NPOV. You also removed the very common sense principle that Misplaced Pages is for encyclopedic summaries, not exhaustive details. I think there may be support for rephrasing and clarifying the section, but not for rewriting it the way you have. Randomran (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah well I've just removed the stuff about undue weight, because it does not belong in a guideline about the notability of article topics. It doesn't belong in WP:NPOV? That's where all the stuff about "undue weight" came from. You know this. I've reverted the NNC section to the version from March 15 before Dorftrottel edited it. I suggest you ask Marskell if he meant information in an article needs to be notable when he changed NPOV to say "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints." The phrase "encyclopedic summaries" is useless, since so many people have so many different ideas about how long "encyclopedic summaries" should be.
I don't think the ArbCom is in the policy-making or guideline-making business. If those 5 arbitrators who supported the principle "An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details" four years ago (Fred Bauder, Jdforrester, The Epopt, Jwrosenzweig, Raul654) are still around, I think it would be better if we asked them what they meant, and if what they said had anything to do with notability. This guideline didn't even exist four years ago. I suggest you ask them yourself, since you're the one who wants this guideline to quote that four year old ArbCom principle. When they said an article is not a "complete exposition of all possible details", did they mean that information in an article needs to be notable? I don't think so. But go ahead and ask them. --Pixelface (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm really not sure what hiding them or scrubbing them is supposed to accomplish. The rules are good, represent consensus, and a common sense way of handling excessive detail. Randomran (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Leaving text in another policy is not "hiding" it it any sense of the word. And I seriously question whether there was consensus for Marksell to change NPOV like that in the first place. If you want to remove "excessive detail" from an article, go ahead. Nobody's stopping you. But don't say information has to be "notable" to be in an article. --Pixelface (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I respectfully disagree with your opinion, and you have the right to hold it. But you're repeating yourself, and I'm not sure what else to say without repeating myself either. Perhaps you might accomplish more by suggesting a compromise. Randomran (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay. How about I want to revert the NNC section to the version that existed before an indefinitely blocked user added the link to WP:UNDUE, because "undue weight" has nothing to do with notability? If information has to be "notable" to be in an article, what's to stop someone from removing anything they personally deem "non-notable" from 4X? Why should this guideline recommend such a thing? --Pixelface (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • One obvious reason is that if a topic is notable, then adding content that is "off-topic" or only remotely related to the subject matter of the article is not in the spirit of the guideline. You have not answered this point which I made earlier in this discussion, but it still needs to be addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Gavin, I'm 99% certain that the spirit of this guideline is that it recommends that a thing be "notable" before an editor creates an article about that thing. Because various inclusion guidelines were created before this guideline. Because "non-notable" was often used as a reason to delete in deletion debates. "Off-topic" content != "non-notable" content. Did you still want examples of why I think reverting NNC to the version that existed March 15 before an indefinitely blocked user changed NNC is a good idea? For one, all the stuff about undue weight was added by an indefinitely blocked user. If you want to talk about articles, take for example the article Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club. Since notability is an opinion, do you want editors removing sentences from that article because of a personal opinion that the information is not notable, and then citing NNC to back them up? And the NNC redirect doesn't even make sense now. It stands for Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. --Pixelface (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggesting the exact same thing you've been pushing for is not a compromise. Again, I've stated why there is a consensus for treating things with appropriate levels of detail, and why it's important that we do. We want to keep an article on topic and promote readability, just to name a few things. Your argument amounts to "well, I can't prove that it's a good idea to remove it, and I can't even prove there's a consensus to remove it. But it doesn't belong here." I'm open to hearing where else it belongs. But this principle against excess or disproportionate detail has very little to do with neutrality or points of view. This guideline has been at WP:N in some shape or form for the good part of a year probably because most people think it basically fits here. Randomran (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If I say information in an article does not have to be "notable" to remain in an article (which this guideline said for much longer than 8 months) and you say information in an article does have to be notable, there's nothing really to compromise on. To say that articles shouldn't have excess detail is not the same as saying information in an article has to be notable. The notability guidelines don't restrict what information can be in an article. The notability guidelines are about people, and bands, and websites, etc. "Undue weight" has nothing to do with "notability." Leave the stuff about "undue weight" where it came from, WP:UNDUE, in WP:NPOV. If other people think the stuff about "undue weight" fits here, I'd like to hear what they have to say. --Pixelface (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, you're repeating yourself. I've already responded to those comments. We're making no progress, because you're not making any effort to reach a consensus. Randomran (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus to add the link to WP:UNDUE to the NNC section of this guideline in this first place. That's exactly why the NNC section should be reverted back to the way it was before an indefinitely blocked user added the link. --Pixelface (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In answer to Pixelface, I have never seen an instance of editors removing sentences from that article because of a personal opinion that the information is not notable. However, many articles do go way off topic, and I have seen editors justify this by citing WP:NNC, and I think the inclusion of a reference to WP:UNDUE makes it clear that topics need to be focused on their subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • So editors citing the "undue weight" version of NNC means that the undue weight version of NNC should stay in this guideline? The NNC section has never been about "off topic" anything. It's there to point out that notability guidelines pertain to people, things, bands, things you would write an article about — notability guidelines don't restrict what information an article can contain (except when it comes to lists of people). WP:UNDUE isn't about focus on subject matter anyway. --Pixelface (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think your version suggests that articles can go off topic, and I don't think there is any consensus supporting this view. You state that "particular topics within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines", but I think this suggests that non-notable topics can be added articles on notable topics, in the same way that topic Dark Nest was added to the article Jedi, but has since been removed. If you can explain with an example to illustrate the intended benefit of your proposal, this would help my understanding, but so far I only see the downside as illustrated by the Dark Nest example. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If there's consensus at Talk:Jedi that the Dark Nest stuff doesn't belong there, fine. You don't need to change WP:N in order to remove that stuff. That's what the article talk page is for. Changing guidelines because of one article is often a very bad idea — because it has ramifications for over 2.6 million articles. If you're concerned about content that's off-topic, you can suggest people read WP:OFFTOPIC which redirects to WP:TOPIC in WP:BETTER. WP:BETTER has always said "Stay on topic" since it was created November 20, 2004. But the first version also said "So relax, this article contains no rules. Remember: If rules and guidance make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." Good advice. --Pixelface (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see this discussion going anywhere. I think we're repeating a lot of the same arguments, with no hope of being persuaded to Pixelface's position. That said, maybe there's a way forward, because I am truly open to a compromise. But it would involve respecting the overall principle that there's such a thing as too much detail and too much weight (which is interpreted through consensus, but still no less of a basic principle of writing an encyclopedia). Randomran (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Because of the way that the general notability guideline is worded, I'm not sure what's at stake here. Under both versions of NNC, everything in the article must satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, but a fact's verifiability via reliable sources seems to ensure that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of subject" (GNG). Everything else seems like a subject for discussion at WP:UNDUE. RJC Contribs 14:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability guideline: "Significant coverage"

I wrote here,

...notability and the qty of printed matter are related, but ... the implication goes "degree of notability high => qty of printed matter high", which does not imply "qty of printed matter high => degree of notability high".

Justifying notability on the number of articles alone may be a bit shaky, e.g. when a large number of journalists are gathered at a conference (say) and are all writing about the same thing. 118.90.94.7 (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say notability is a question of degree. It's really just a minimum standard. If you have "significant" coverage that's more than "trivial", then you have a legit shot at an article. Anything beyond that is gravy. It's a pretty easy standard to meet. Randomran (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, then that notability is some thing that is/isn't rather than more/less should be made clear. 118.90.94.7 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a news source

When was this sentence "Misplaced Pages is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." added? (Alternatively, is there a way to search diffs?) Copysan (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the stuff about news in this guideline was added June 6, 2007 by Kubigula with the edit summary "Incorporating news coverage issues per talk page", apparently a reference to this thread (now in the talk page archives). Here Kubigula says the edit incorporated some text from WP:NOT#NEWS (which was added to WP:NOT on May 28, 2007 by Jimbo Wales — although WP:NOT has mentioned news since August 9, 2002). The text about news in WP:N did change over time after it was added. --Pixelface (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Article contents

We have a dispute about this section as some seek to extend the concept of notability to article contents. Pixelface has reverted to an earlier version and I support his position that there is no consensus for such an extension. The concept of notability already causes much misery and disruption at the article level. Extending it ever more finely is not sensible and contrary to WP:CREEP. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There is only a dispute from Pixelface, who is already under discussion at AN/I and who also attempted to have WP:WAF demoted as a guideline, and you, who apparently feels the need to act as his advocate and repeat his ill-advised and completely unsupported attempt to revert to month's old version of this guideline. There is already an existing discussion above at NNC again, that is recent (and by some views, still on-going), so I see no reason for you to even start a new discussion. Continue the discussion above, which shows no consensus at all for Pixelface's continued reverting to his preferred version. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pixelface's action is obviously not unsupported because I support it. It is news to me that there has been this creepy extension of notability and I contend that it should be rolled back as it lacks consensus. Let us address the issue - does this section improve upon what was there before or is it a good example of the endless creep of these guidelines so that they now number in the hundreds and so lack coherence and simplicity. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The section being considered is not creating a new guideline page, only referring to the existing WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE, so I don't believe CREEP/BURO need to play into this. And I don't think the basic premise, that once a topic is notable notability does not directly limit article content (supporting additional material that may not meet WP's notability guidelines can be added to the coverage of a notable topic), is an issue either. The debate is over the aspect of the balance between the parts of a topic's coverage that are notable, and those that aren't. I think that by calling out UNDUE specifically here confuses the issue, and I think it is probably better in the long term to say something along the lines of "Notability does not restrict article content, but article content still must abide by other WP policies and guidelines." This implies UNDUE (part of POV) still is a concern but does not call it out, and thus removes the confusion. Notability, thus, is only helping to decide on article boundaries, and not anything internal to the article itself. The case where this is likely the most problem, fiction, has WP:NOT#PLOT that addresses the specific case of (typicallly) non-notable plot aspects balanced to notable real-world aspects; if any other field needs that, that can be written in wikiproject guidelines. --14:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • We might be able to trace back the changes in the section to copying the part of WP:UNDUE that deals with facts, rather than points of view. But then, there's no disagreement about the substance that we cover everything in a way that appropriate to its significance -- without getting overly weighty for insignificant stuff. There's only a concern that it found its way here. My main concern is that we shouldn't bury it back at WP:UNDUE, because WP:UNDUE is tied to WP:NPOV. This is about facts, not points of view. Randomran (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It takes more than a couple of editors to change a guideline. I don't think you're going to find much support for a change if your position is that WP:N causes misery. I've always said that I'd be open to a compromise, because there's always room for improvement and clarity. But the principle is basically sound and describes current practice: we try to improve encyclopedic summaries by avoiding exhaustive and trivial details, and engage in a lot of collaborative efforts to identify when an article has gone off topic. Randomran (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (fixed indents) I'm just commenting here because of the notice on the project page saying that "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion." I'm not sure if that is the correct template or not based on the discussion here, but if it is correct I'd like to say that I oppose this being made into policy. If that's not why the template was there, it should probably be changed. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This already is a guideline. The disputed is supposed to be because Pixelface and CW think it shouldn't be a guideline anymore, though it has been for a long time. 22:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the discussion to which the disputed template refers. AFAIC, the contested content is new and, now that I learn of it, I support Pixelface and others who wish to roll it back. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not accurate to call this part of the guideline "new". Pixelface wants to "roll back" to a version of this section from almost a year ago. That's after months of consensus in spirit, with minor changes to improve it. You're entitled to your opinion, but let's be accurate. Randomran (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to the talk page thread where Dorftrottel suggested adding a link to WP:UNDUE and people supported it? Or would you like me to look through the talk page archives? --Pixelface (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I've looked and commented below. --Pixelface (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I too oppose creeping notability into article content. We already have a very clear and functioning mechanism for keeping articles on topic — UNDUE, which is policy, not guideline. WP:N is our inclusion criteria for topics as articles, and to extend its domain to article content completely oversteps that. "Notability" refers fundamentally to the degree to which content about a topic can be verified in reliable sources; relevance is completely unrelated to this. The proposed entry is thus confusing and much better handled elsewhere. Skomorokh 20:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We have enough problems with this guideline as it was. all that is needed is a statement that this deals only with the criteria for having separate Misplaced Pages articles, not with what they contain. Pixelface was right, at least this time. After that we can discuss issues about the guideline in general, and its standing , and possible replacement. My own feeling is we should start over against with a different word. for now, we must roll the change back, just as he correctly did. DGG (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur in full. Skomorokh 03:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If a topic is notable, then going "off-topic" by including content that is only remotely related to the subject matter is not in the spirit of the guideline, and think this is addressed by the current version. For instance, I don't agree with thr practice whereby an article like Jedi was used as an excuse to add off-topic items, such as Dark Nest which was not sufficiently notable to have its own article. Dark Nest has since been removed, and I think the Jedi article has been improved as a result. If someone could provide an example of "creeping notability" having an adverse effect, this would help this discussion, because up to now, opponents of the currect version have only made abstract arguements. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Stopping WP:COATRACKING can already be done with little ambiguity using WP:UNDUE. Why is using "notability" a terrible idea? Because it could be used by uninformed or pov-pushing editors to excise content they do not like because the content itself does not comprise a notable topic. This is not a problem for an article like Jedi, where the subject of the article surpasses notability requirements with ease, but it is a very real problem for articles which, although they have a lot of verified content, only modestly meet notability guidelines. Take the CrimethInc. article as an example; this is a GA that is thoroughly referenced to reliable sources, does not go off-topic or contain much content that ought to be removed. However, the topic itself is only barely notable, as significant coverage has been scant. Now let's say you are an editor with strong affinities for the group, and you want to remove the critical comments in the Reception amongst anarchists section. Easy: the topic of the section - CrimethInc.'s reputation according to other anarchists - is not notable; it clearly fails WP:N and we could not have a separate article on Anarchist reception of CrimethInc.. So you remove the section and I argue that it ought to stay: I say "It's relevant, it belongs!", you say "this section fails criterion x of our Notability guideline". Who do you thing would prevail? Now let's say N did not extend to article content, and the only governing convention was WP:UNDUE. You say "this section gives undue weight to the reception of the group and ought to be removed". How is this claim addressed? Not by judging the overall notability of Anarchist reception of CrimethInc., but by assessing the relative weight sources give that topic when covering the topic CrimethInc. By that metric, the section would certainly stay, as sources referring to the group often mention its reputation (enough to justify one sixth of an article) without ever going into the significant coverage that "notability" would require. Skomorokh 18:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, I don't disagree with your basic summary of the rules. It wouldn't be appropriate to excise content based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We excise content based on the relative weight that sources give to certain topics. What I disagree with is having that covered within WP:NPOV, which is misleading. Just as you're worried about editors who will abuse the rule to excise content that is truly significant (according to research), I'm worried about editors who would deflect legitimate concerns about exhaustive or inappropriate detail by saying "this isn't a point of view issue". I think there's common ground here: I'm definitely willing to rephrase it to prevent abuse if you're willing to drop the idea of relocating it to a policy where it really doesn't fit. Randomran (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I can see your point; similar abuse is possible using NPOV. I would be happy for a separate guideline addressing relevance. I also agree with your claim that "We excise content based on the relative weight that sources give to certain topics", which is why I think Notability is a bad guideline to stick this under. Notability is a threshold for topics (there are strictly speaking no degrees of notability, only deserving of a standalone article or not) whereas what we are talking about here is relative weighting for topics. If notability was about relative weighting of importance, wikigroaning would be a sufficient reasoning for removing vast amounts of good content on less important topics. Skomorokh 18:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that. But that's actually a really good idea, seeing as most people basically agree with the substance. I'd be okay with it if we basically kept the current consensus for wording. It's just the location that's contentious. How would you propose to move forward? Randomran (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Randomran (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Slowly ;) Skomorokh 20:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is starting to perplex and worry me. I'm hearing from several people who don't disagree with the idea that articles should stay on topic, and appear to concede that articles should not go into exhaustive detail or overstate details that aren't significant. Instead, I'm hearing that we should roll back 9 months of consensus because WP:N is annoying in general, and that a few editors should be allowed demolish a rule they basically agree with. I'm not getting it. If you want to build consensus for this change, you're going to have to be clearer about your underlying goal. Randomran (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
How does that mean that information in an article needs to be "notable"? You talk about 9 months of "consensus", but how long did this guideline say 'Notalibity guidelines do not limit article content'? I can look it up if you'd like. --Pixelface (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't mean anything except articles should stay on topic, not go into exhaustive detail, or overstate details that are insignificant. There's consensus for *that* rule, not just here, but in practice. And if there wasn't before, then consensus changed. Randomran (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Randomran, you can refer people to WP:OFFTOPIC if you'd like. When you say "consensus changed", I assume you're referring to this thread in /Archive 22 where: You said "Notability guidelines DO affect article content"

  • Davidwr said "I think content should be treated in proportion to its importance, which is distinct from its notability"
  • Aylad said "I'm fine with it" regarding this edit you made on May 30.

It looks like one person disagreed with you and one person agreed. Where's the thread where Dorftrottel proposed linking to WP:UNDUE? There isn't one. You cited your addition to NNC on June 23 and again on June 30 and again on July 1.

This thread from August is also about the "undue weight" stuff in the NNC section.

  • SmokeyJoe said "WP:N should stay out of the business of article content" and "WP:UNDUE is clearly stated policy elsewhere, and there is no purpose in paraphrasing it here."
  • You said "It's not bloat"
  • Black Falcon said "only the first paragraph of the section is needed. It is not the purpose or the role of the notability guideline to explain how article content actually is limited (to do so kind of undermines the whole point of the section); it's more than sufficient to simply link to the relevant policies and guidelines."
  • You said "I think it's the second paragraph that is the most important"
  • Black Falcon said "I agree that "what content is worthy of inclusion in article" is an important question, but it's not a question that falls within the scope of the notability guidelines."
  • You said "Notability is about what's significant enough to be included: both articles and content"
  • Black Falcon said "I would argue that including guidance about article content only muddles the point that notability is not about article content."
  • Shereth said "I agree with Black Falcon - N is about the topic of the article and not the content of the article."
  • You said "So if not here, then where?"
  • Black Falcon said "In the case of due weight, I'd say at WP:UNDUE."
  • You said "I'm not comfortable deleting it here and burying it there."
  • Black Falcon said "I think it is more confusing to claim that "notability guidelines ... do not specifically regulate the content of articles", and immediately thereafter begin to describe regulations on the content of articles."
  • You said "When I would sometimes point people to WP:UNDUE, they would respond "but this content has no point of view", even though they had given undue weight to factual content. WP:N is a perfect place for it..."
  • Black Falcon said "It is confusing when we indicate that this guideline does not regulate content within articles, yet include within the guideline regulations (copied from WP:UNDUE) about content within articles."
  • You said "It doesn't make sense to bury this indirect limit on factual content in a policy concerning neutrality and bias."
  • Kevin Murray said "BF is right. We should not further confuse the issues at this page."
  • You said "the guidance on content is spread out among many pages, and the issue of giving due weight to content based on its significance to a subject is buried."
  • Kevin Murray talked about reducing "the CREEP that has occured."
  • You said "I still think it would be easier to just include the two sentences about "due weight based on significance" at WP:N."
  • SmokeyJoe referred to WP:TOPIC.

On September 17, you said "I think it's time to stop using the vague statement "notability guidelines do not directly limit article content", and phrase it in the affirmative. According to our policy, "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

  • Kanodin said "Yes, it is time to overhaul. I will make a suggestion in a new section."

In /Archive 28, I see this long thread from September, between you and Kanodin. Also in /Archive 28, in this thread...

  • Erachima replied about X in popular culture articles and said "this has nothing to do with the notability guideline, as it's an article content issue and covered under the policy against giving subjects undue weight within articles."
  • Peter Ballard said "You're right that this guideline (WP:Notability) is about articles, not sections of articles. But WP:UNDUE is not about the notability or otherwise of sections of articles either. WP:UNDUE (being a section inside WP:NPOV) only discusses the need to not give undue weight to minority POVs."

And finally there's this thread in /Archive 29 from early November, between you and Phil Sandifer, where I objected to your edits to NNC and objected after you changed the section heading for NNC on November 8.

Which brings us to the thread above, NNC again, and now this thread. So no, I don't think consensus changed.

I would like it if we could change the NNC section back to the version from 01:06, March 15, 2008, before Dorftrottel added the link to WP:UNDUE which you later included text from, and then unprotect this guideline. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pixelface. No more creeping. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A way forward?

I appreciate Pixelface's history lesson. I think WP:CONSENSUS sums it up pretty well: "Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it." Someone added something almost a year ago. People generally liked it in spirit, but a few people refined it in word. And over time, we arrived at where we're at now. I'm sure it will need to be refined further. I'm not opposed to that. But I *am* against a huge scrub-out. There's no consensus for that.

I also think we're so caught up with the question "should notability affect article content?" that we're ignoring the common sense rule that everyone basically agrees with: articles should stay on topic, articles shouldn't go into exhaustive detail, articles need to give facts their appropriate weight. An outsider walked into this discussion, and it only took him two replies to figure out the root issue and propose a compromise. It's actually a pretty good idea, if people would actually show a willingness to find some common ground. If people basically agree with the spirit of a rule, but disagree with the location, then wouldn't there be a consensus to just put it somewhere else? Randomran (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Going to the version Pixel linked, which reads:
    Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people ). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections.
  • I propose only that the last part be changed to read:
    ...such as the policies on Verifiability, No Original Research, and Neutral Point-of-View, and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections.
  • In this manner, we don't directly call out to UNDUE/WEIGHT, but by citing NPOV which UNDUE/WEIGHT is part of, we implicitly suggest this factor. Unless it is clear that this is being used to game the system, we should avoid making what ought to be a common sense connection between these. --MASEM 15:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Randomran, an indefinitely blocked user added something in mid-March. I cannot say that people generally liked it in spirit — looking through the archives that doesn't seem to be the case at all. I could contact everyone who's edited the NNC section since mid-March if you like.
The question here is: Does information in an article have to be "notable" in order to remain in the article? The answer is no. Does WP:UNDUE have anything to do with the notability guidelines? No. Do the notability guidelines restrict article content? Only BIO does, when it comes to lists of people. Should this guideline refer to the principle "An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details" agreed to by then-arbitrators Fred Bauder, Jdforrester, The Epopt, Jwrosenzweig, and Raul654 during August/September 2004 in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404? No.
I suppose most people would agree that articles should stay on topic. There is such a thing as too much detail, but that's really a matter for editors to discuss on article talk pages. Skomorokh brought up a relevance guideline, and you're free to propose one yourself — several have been tried in the past — at Misplaced Pages:Relevance, Misplaced Pages:Relevance emerges, and Misplaced Pages:Relevance of content, and to some extent Misplaced Pages:Significance. --Pixelface (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove the Disputed Tag

Is this page really disputed by more than just a few editors? I move that the dispute tag be removed. Eusebeus (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think notability as an inclusion criteria is disuputed per se. There is ongoing discussion about wording of this guideline, but that is routine. The tag should be removed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked for a suitable tag and this seemed to be it. The template page for Disputedtag says, "Use this template to dispute whether a page (or a section on a page) has properly been accorded policy or guideline status. " and we have a dispute about a section - see above. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that it should not be used where a section is vaguely controversial. I can see we have an onging discussion, but I think we are all in agreement about the basic subject of this section: that notability does not limit article content. It seems to me that this discussion is about interpretation, rather than substance. In my view, the disputed tag may not warranted, because no one wants to get rid of this guideline in total or delete section altogether. In short, I don't think this discussion is an instance where we need to "cry wolf".--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whatever the template page says, the tag itself implies that the guideline as a whole is being disputed, and is highly misleading. People are going to read the tag itself before the template page. In any case, per Gavin, we all agree on the spirit of the section, and finding the wording (or lack thereof) that everyone is happy with is basically all that's left. Support removing the tag. — sephiroth bcr 11:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion." Personally I think the tag clearly states that while it may not be in full dispute that it is under discussion and seems to be valid. shadzar-talk 12:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Virtually all Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are constantly under discussion - see any of their talk pages. No tag is needed for that. The question is whether there is any disagreement about the guideline (extending beyond just a small number of editors) that makes the status of the guideline questionable, so that we should caution editors not to assume it meets consensus. But I don't see such controversy here. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If Colonel Warden thinks it's okay, and it's just the NNC section that's disputed, I think the {{disputed}} tag at the top should be replaced with a {{disputed-section|talk=Article contents}} tag under the "Notability of article content" heading. Frankly, I think the status of this page as a guideline is questionable, but that's a-whole-nother discussion. We could even leave the disputed tag and start a new thread about it. --Pixelface (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. See Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Lists of people