Wikipedia talk:Notability/Proposed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To carry over a discussion from the main page,
- It is also unclear whether you mean that
- A/ Anything with two non trivial RSs is Notable AND that anything without them but which fits the other criteria is N, or
- B/ Anything thats fits our general feelings about N is N, and that in general such subjects with have 2 RSs which is an indication that it will likely fit our standards. or
- C/ Anything that fits our general feelings or specific standards is N, EXCEPT for those things that do not fit our feelings or standards, AND that the presence of sources is a rough guide for determining which way it should go.
- As I read the text, it says C, and I do not know if you want it to say that. It seems clear that C makes the entire section about sourcing subsidiary, whereas in the past most WPedians seem to have thought it central. Before I change it to fit whatever I might like it to mean--which might be a counter-proposal rather than an edit--I would want to know what you yourself intend it to mean, so that we have your proposal understood correctly. DGG 03:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- If I read your question correctly, I was originally aiming for A. FYI - I went ahead and moved my proposal, as modified, to Wikipedia:Notability/Proposed. Edit or counter-propose away.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] continuing:
I had thought you meant C. :) I do not think we presently do anything like A. Here are just some frequent instances where 2 sources are not considered enough (and I dont want to emphasize the details of any particular one of them.
- non-professional league athletes. Any number of stories covering the feats of a semi-pro footballer will not make him N.
- minor performers. Any number of fan stories someone who has not yet actually recorded an album will not make him N.
- relatives. Any number of gossip stories about a notable person's son or daughter does not make him N.
- local schools. Even if the local newspaper ran a full column each year about the principal of the local elementary school, it doesnt make him N unless there is some specific thing about him or his school.
I think what we say now is
-
- D/ Anything with two non trivial etc sources is N, provided that it also fits within some common-sense rules about what deserves non-trivial sources (and with exceptions for some instances where we need to be fuzzy about the 2 RS-- and I think the proposal does deal with that part.
DGG 03:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- You're probably right that the language did effectively propose C, though I hadn't analyzed it in your exact terms. Are you advocating approach D?--Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am not necessarily advocating approach D. I was saying that approach D is what current WP practice actually is, & I gave a few examples. I don't think it's logical, I don't think it's consistent, but I think that this is what actually is taking place now. It has the advantage that it's familiar, we know how to work around the limitations, and it adapts to shifting consensus and interests. However, it does require a great deal of continuing unproductive argument, and a perceived lack of fairness. Anything with human judgement involved will do that. DGG 04:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're probably right that the language did effectively propose C, though I hadn't analyzed it in your exact terms. Are you advocating approach D?--Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Subjectivity
Do we want to just straight-up say that, "notability is subjective — this guideline just describes the current general consensus; for specific articles, consensus may differ or arrive at different interpretations of this guideline"? Sancho 16:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I propose this because I think it's the truth, in theory and in practice. Sancho 16:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is not the truth. Notability is not subjective, and it is not intended that it be subjective. Statements that it is are made by editors either that simply don't understand notability correctly or that are trying to re-make notability into fame and importance (which it is not), and as long as this proposal continues to state that notability is subjective, it should be rejected. Uncle G 17:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to re-make notability into fame and importance.... so I suppose I don't understand notability correctly. I'll read your "On notability".Sancho 17:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your "On notablity" doesn't actually say what notability is. It gives a test about how to tell if something is notable, but I don't see anything that says "Notability is ... ". The definitions that I find in dictionaries come with subjective phrases in their definition like "worthy of being noticed". I do think there is a subjective element to notability. Simply claiming that there is not ignores human nature and practice. If the point is to redefine the word to mean something different in the context of Wikipedia, then I understand my confusion. If this is the goal though, we do need to explicitly redefine the word, not just give tests for checking if a topic is notable. Sancho 17:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm wondering who it is that doesn't understand notability. The essay you're quoting from is what prompted this eventual proposal, and your essay, including your idea of notability, was soundly rejected. Notability, even in your idea for the PNC, is subjective. There's no objective way to measure notability, so we should stop acting as if it's possible and come back to reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to believe that. What is the objective definition of "non-trivial" that we can apply to this guideline? PubliusFL 05:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe there's a completely objective definition we can use (a source of more than X words is non-trivial, etc.). However, it's certainly something which can be looked at objectively. I think everyone here would agree that a quick mention of a subject in a newspaper article which is really about something else it's only tangentially related to is trivial. On the other hand, an entire book being written about the subject is non-trivial. It comes down to depth of coverage. Does the source mentioned go into a good deal of depth about the subject? Then it is non-trivial. Does the source briefly "name-drop" the subject, possibly with a small amount of information for a bit of background, without going into any depth? It is trivial. There's your definition. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I totally agree with the spirit of your comment, but the determination of notability will still often come down to case-by-case discussion to decide if a source is more on the "name-drop" side of the line or more on the "entire book" side of the line. What you've given is not a definition; what you've given are just two extremes that people will certainly agree on, but the problem isn't with the extremes, the difficulty is with the borderline cases. Sancho 05:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe there's a completely objective definition we can use (a source of more than X words is non-trivial, etc.). However, it's certainly something which can be looked at objectively. I think everyone here would agree that a quick mention of a subject in a newspaper article which is really about something else it's only tangentially related to is trivial. On the other hand, an entire book being written about the subject is non-trivial. It comes down to depth of coverage. Does the source mentioned go into a good deal of depth about the subject? Then it is non-trivial. Does the source briefly "name-drop" the subject, possibly with a small amount of information for a bit of background, without going into any depth? It is trivial. There's your definition. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have to call bullshit on your phrasing. The same phrasing's been used to ill and divisive effect in discussions about IAR and DRV. If you'd like to work toward a common understanding and consensus, then you may wish to evaluate your choice of language and phrasing. Phrases like "Statements that [notability] is [subjective] are made by editors either that simply don't understand notability correctly" are exclusionary, extreme and have a long way to go before assuming good faith. I recognize that we are all tired here of having what seems like the same conversation over and over again, but please understand that we're all here because we are interested, we have a stake in this discussion, and most of us would like to share good will with you and progress toward a common understanding of the topics we're talking about. Please join us in that effort and stop using language that makes our divisions more obvious and more painful. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. the logic used in the essay's section that you linked is very interesting to me because it looks for concrete indications of someone else's subjective interpretation of whether the topic is notable, so in a way I think we're still quite solidly on the subjective side, even if it's someone else's subjectivity and not our own. Also, if you attend DRV enough you'll see lots of arguments that are very subjective about whether the source itself (i.e. the publisher of the author's subjective opinion that the subject is notable) is reliable, which is another subjective evaluation of a tightly related factor in notability determinations. Even if the actual article fulfills notability criteria, some editors will argue that the publisher isn't reliable and dismiss the notability. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Exceedingly bad idea
Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Notability. --Barberio 11:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
