Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Generally, what?

In Unscintillating's version, the headline reads "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic." The word "generally" bothers me. As a modifier to require, it implies that not all articles require such sourcing. Which specific Wikipedia articles do not require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic? Do tell. I've wanted to know this ever since the battle over this pithy summary began. --Lexein (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the word "generally" in the headline was not introduced in the recent rewrite, it was added here.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Followup: my removal of "generally" was reverted, so I've reremoved it for discussion here. It has not been demonstrated that there is any positive value in the addition of "generally", and there is demonstrable harm in it: remember that this is for newcomers and ESL folk. Why be wishywashy about our strong requirement for sources for articles? It's a rather bedrock requirement, and not really negotiable. To answer the edit summary, "award winning scientists" don't get to just claim they've won awards. Independent sources are still required. --Lexein (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
They don't need significant coverage. Just a reliable source confirming they won the notable award. Dream Focus 00:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)As I said in the edit summary "not always. See examples of secondary guidelines, such as award winning scientists, etc". We had this discussion already. You don't need to meet the GNG if you met a secondary guideline. See my previous post above. Dream Focus 00:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the answer is WP:PROF, although I'm not convinced that it should be an acceptable answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:PROF is profoundly disappointing. Viz, "7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." No stated requirement for independent reliable sourcing. That's just bullshit for something purporting to be a guideline. Screw that. I don't think this new user guide page should be the whipping boy, and softened, and weakened with weasel words, on the rack of pusillanimous, indecisive, poorly-worded "guidelines." We should state the requirements for solid sourcing as the basis of good article sourcing, and no other. To assert "this has been discussed" is inadequate, and is wholly unsatisfactory as rationale for teaching new users prevarication about sourcing. --Lexein (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You may find WP:PROF profoundly disappointing, but it's still an accepted notability guide (of many years standing), and your change makes this page wrong. :/ Teaching newcomers doesn't require confusing them with misinformation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to expand this because I don't want WP:PROF to look like "the problem" - it isn't alone; it's just an example. Wikipedia:Notability (music) includes a number of notability criteria that can be satisfied by a single source: gold record status, nationally charting album, major music award, major music competition - any single one of these is sufficient in itself to document notability. If we have one reliable source discussing a musician who meets these standards, it meets the guideline, and the article can be perfectly fine resting on that one reliable source as long as there is enough verifiable content to sustain it. Wikipedia:Notability (films) - "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"; "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive."; "The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.". Again, if we have one reliable source discussing a film that meets these standards, it meets the guideline. The breadth of sourcing is not the be-all and end-all of notability on Wikipedia; it's simply one potential factor in determining. This reflect long consensus of the community and is nothing new. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
NMUSIC still requires independent sources (or at least one, but in practice, if "The film has received a major award", then there are likely dozens to thousands of sources available on that point). AFAIK, PROF is the only one that thinks a webpage written by the person's own employer, without a single independent source, is adequate proof of notability. It really is an anomaly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Likely, true, but not necessarily. I've done a lot of work with old musicians where sourcing is scarce. These guys are notable but predate the modern "document everything" trend. :) The question is not whether an independent source is required, the question is whether "significant coverage" is required. Significant coverage is defined at WP:N as "more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". No significant coverage is required to document that a film has received a major award or that a musician has won a major music award - a single line suffices to establish notability under any of these three guidelines, and that's without looking at the others. For notability, it simply isn't so. "significant coverage" is required under WP:N, but WP:N also acknowledges that subject-specific guidelines may define notability differently, and these three have provisions that allow for notability even in the absence of this criterion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • [Category:Articles lacking sources] currently has 217,400 articles in the category.  The core content policy WP:V does not require citations, it requires verifiability.  Also, IMO, the WMF in the past has resisted requirements that would discourage the creation of unsourced articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Everyone: by leaning on the flogged dead horse of "notability", you're ignoring that articles need sources. Specifically, every claim made in an article must be verifiable. Since articles created by new editors always contain multiple claims, and we require that all claims made be verifiable, and verifiability comes from sources, it is not wrong to remove the word "generally". Notability itself is an insufficient excuse to weaken the assertion in yellow that articles need sources, by weaseling-in "generally".
For tiny, degenerate articles which ought not to exist anyways, sure, one source may establish conditional, weak, IMHO NINO (notability in name only) for the purpose of shoehorning something into the encyclopedia. But our goal and true desire for substantive articles supported by substantive sources should not be thwarted by kibitzing "we don't really always need sourcing for these things", with the word "generally". "Generally" is a lie, and a worse lie than an implied "always". --Lexein (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you agree that we have 217,400 articles marked as not having sources?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you agree that WP:V requires verifiability, not citations?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you agree that WP:N does not require sources, while WP:GNG does; and that neither requires citations in the article?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you agree that the WMF will not allow enWiki to put in software controls to enforce that new articles have citations?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Assuming that the above are rhetorical questions, your objection is that we should require citations in articles.  Even if I agree–we haven't, we don't, and we won't anytime in the near future.  And no one is suggesting that we go back to 2007 when WP:N was a content guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
      • My difficult is not with "reliable sources", my difficulty is with "significant coverage". Personally, I would have no issue with "Articles require reliable sources that are independent of the topic." This is always true. It is not always true that they require significant coverage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:MINREF states, "Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references."  FYI, there was a recent RfC at AfC regarding MINREF at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 2#RFC on the application of WP:MINREF to Articles for creation.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • All this is an obvious, thinly disguised attempt to revert Wikipedia to an unsourced, unverifiable, untrustworthy, untrusted, mocked, non-encyclopedia. It does nothing but damage, to advocate non-sourcing for articles. Make no mistake: by defending, as you do, any guideline which supports non-sourcing of claims, you are doing direct damage to Wikipedia's credibility. Rhetorically blah blah that. --Lexein (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • <blink> Did we just toss WP:AGF out the window? :) I'm sure that there are some people who want Wikipedia to be mocked and untrusted, but I highly doubt any of the people in this conversation do. Everybody here seems to have put a lot of time into Wikipedia. Unscintillating, I had not read WP:MINREF. I suppose it may be technically true - and lack of references is not in itself a speedy criterion - but while our standard is verifiability, not verification, WP:V does say "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." According to policy, verifiability must be demonstrated, and it is the burden of the contributor to demonstrate it by providing a citation. In the absence of a source, that burden is not met. A level of sense must be applied - while I have a tendency to over citation myself, we don't need an inline citation for every sentence. But an article that offers no sources at all has failed to demonstrate verifiability.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Whose good faith? My good faith that we should direct new users towards an ethic of strong sourcing? Or the mock good faith of editors insisting that such an ethic be undermined by poorly written only locally-approved narrowminded guidelines-in-name-only which advocate non-sourcing? Since when is non-sourcing "acting in good faith"? It isn't! Plain and simple! If we let the parsimonious win here, we lose the whole damned encyclopedia. Sourcing is required, and good practice, regardless of the blog-minded. We're Wikipedia -- we set the sourcing standard, and we should set it high and maintain it high. --Lexein (talk)
"Mock good faith" - yeah, that would be it. :) The part where you think that people who disagree with you are out to destroy Wikipedia. Let's drop the us-against-them rhetoric and talk this out sensibly. People who disagree with you are not trying to open wide the gates to chaos. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Rather than continue to debate the quality standards of encyclopedias written by volunteers, and the operational definition of MINREF, we could take WP:V out of the headline.  We could change "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic." to "Topics supported by the General Notability Guideline require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic."  The people counting words will note that this replaces two words with seven.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
You have not shown that any of this "generally" bullshit kickstarts new editors in the overall right direction, meaning, "fucking source shit. period." If you don't get that, then you should just butt out of this page, and this discussion. --Lexein (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Lexein, no one is going to convince you of anything obviously. Further discussion is pointless. Several people are against you removing the word "generally", and no one has stated they are in favor of that. Consensus seems to be that it should be in there. One guy arguing with everyone else doesn't change that. I'm thus putting it back in. Dream Focus 05:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No one has bothered to try to convince me of anything, your ABF notwithstanding. Your declaration that "further discussion is pointless" proves my point. Any other rhetorical tricks up your sleeve? I think not. The point of WP:42 is to get new users on the bandwagon of sourcing every disputable claim, and sourcing every article. Your intractible opposition to this speaks clearly of your major misunderstanding (or solid non-support of) the WP:Five Pillars. In other words, intention to damage Wikipedia's credibility. "Generally" is an unacceptable lie. As I said, rhetorically bullshit that. I think you can't - you're just not exhibiting a comprehensive understanding of the situation. --Lexein (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No one has "bothered to try" is not correct, given the citing of guidelines and policy above. There is discussion happening here, and there's no reason for it to devolve into fighting. "Generally" is not an unacceptable lie - I have provided citations above by citing multiple guidelines that "significant coverage" (as we ourselves define it) is not required for Wikipedia articles. Evidently, you do not respect the standing of these guidelines, but they are long-standing, reflect community consensus, and are explicitly incorporated by reference into WP:N. This does not mean that reliable sources are not required for Wikipedia articles, but only that the way this is being presented is an overstatement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm annoyed by the ongoing, multi-front slow war against verifiability and yes, significant coverage. I do see attacks on these concepts as direct attacks on Wikipedia's credibility. That some whining assholes manage to infect guidelines with weasel words and worse, gaping inconsistencies such as WP:PROF's #7 (above) is entirely unacceptable. For you to then defend that damage, yes damage, by insisting on referencing it with the word "generally", is also unacceptable. Even worse, that you seem not to see the problem, given our years of courteous and productive discourse. Oh well, I guess. --Lexein (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
How many people have to disagree with you before you realize you are wrong and stop insulting people and arguing nonstop about this? The page needs to be ACCURATE. How about we just word it as "Articles must meet either the General Notability Guidelines which state they require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, or a Subject Specific Guideline." That is clearly what WP:NOTABILITY states. To word it otherwise leads to misunderstanding, that still happens sometimes anyway, people not realizing you only need to meet the GNG or a SPG not both. Dream Focus 18:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
"some whining assholes"? O, dear. :/ I've cited three notability guidelines that have provisions that do not require "significant coverage" as Wikipedia defines it. You may disagree with that conclusion, but that represents the consensus of a broad spectrum of people established over many years. If you disagree, your best bet is to argue cogently and without incivility or personal attacks why they're wrong and get the guidelines changed. (Being called "whining assholes" will not predispose people to consider your arguments fairly.) As it is, I feel like you're not even reading what I've been writing on the subject. Two days ago you wrote that nobody had bothered to try to convince you of anything, which is obviously untrue. And you write "For you to then defend that damage, yes damage, by insisting on referencing it with the word "generally", is also unacceptable", when two days before you wrote it I had proposed a compromise that would eliminate. (Maybe you didn't like it; maybe you didn't read it - with a response like this one, I certainly can't tell.) If you believe the wording here inaccurately reflects community consensus, then we should talk about the substance. If the problem is that you think the community consensus is wrong in those multiple guidelines, then this is probably not the best forum to resolve it. That sounds like WP:RFC territory to me. For what it's worth, I would be very uncomfortable with eliminating all standards of inclusion save "significant coverage" - since I'm afraid that will increase our bias towards pop culture, western topics and modernism. That's not the same as saying we don't need reliable sources. It's the "significant coverage" threshold that risks killing those subjects that are not exciting enough to be addressed in detail. I personally would rather have a short, sourced stub on an encyclopedic topic than nothing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I would move the word "generally" from where it is to before the word "independent". This is because significant coverage in reliable sources is always necessary for WP:V. It's only when we come to WP:N that we apparently allow the rare exception. I oppose any attempt to make this page say that sourcing is not mandatory. Reyk YO! 07:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Would just confirming someone won notable awards on the official website of those awards, be considered "significant coverage"? You could find passing mention of who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry one year, and even mentions of what they found in places that cover such things, without there being any interviews with the person or significant coverage of them. Dream Focus 10:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I think if we're talking about the Nobel prizes, it would be inconceivable that someone could win a prize of that stature without being written about. In fact, I'd say that the amount of significant, independent coverage a person gets is roughly proportional to the stature of their accomplishments. This is because, if someone does something big like win the Nobel Prize, newspapers and magazines will be saying, "Who is this Prof. Derpson that won the Physics Nobel? We ought to publish some stuff about this person and their work because our readers will be interested." And suddenly there's significant, independent coverage, even if Derpson was obscure and unknown before. You're right that much of the coverage will center on their discoveries and inventions, but I don't think you can or should separate a person from their work and achievements. Reyk YO! 10:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Not every scientist throughout history has done interviews or had information about them as a person known. In modern times they are more likely to of course. If you were a hot semi-famous girl who got caught doing something shocking, you'd get ample coverage all over the place, but science nerds get far less press. What we have now is that if your work is significant enough to be in textbooks taught to people all over the world, you are notable. WP:CREATIVE says even without any coverage at all, a scientist can be notable if "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." It also says artists can be notable if "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Not every single person out there does interviews or list personal information about themselves, so you can't always find significant coverage about them. Nor do you find people reviewing every single item that is in the permanent collection of notable museums, so you can't always find reviews of their work. And some artwork doesn't have a lot you could actually say about it anyway. Other less known awards which are still considered quite notable in the scientific community won't get any "significant" coverage at all, just a passing mention somewhere at the most. Thus we have WP:ANYBIO saying "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Dream Focus 00:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately we do seem to be pretty short-sighted as a culture and focused on the lurid. I don't find anything in WP:V, User:Reyk, that says coverage should be "significant". If there's a specific passage that you think lends to that, it would be good to bring it out to examine. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
We require enough depth of sourcing to verify everything in an article, which implies significant coverage even though that is not explicitly stated. The last thing this page should be saying is anything along the lines of "we need sources, except when we don't". Reyk YO! 02:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you that it implies significant coverage - there's nothing that I can see in that policy that says sourced facts must be part of an extended piece about the subject. One can source a fact about a scientist from a single mention in a book about the field where he works, for instance, and it's still verifiable. One could put together a whole article based on such brief mentions. As long as there is enough verifiable information that no original research is required and the content is neutral, and the subject meets any of the subject-specific guidelines, policy is satisfied. That said, I would agree with you that this page should not say or even imply that we do not need sources; I just don't believe it should go beyond policy and guideline in suggesting that "significant" coverage is required. I am still wondering, as I suggested above, if a better compromise here is not to remove both "generally" and "significant" - as "generally" might indeed suggest that sources are not always required, while the unmodified "significant" is simply not supported by policies or pillars. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Reyk, WP:V doesn't require significant coverage. Without significant coverage, you couldn't write much of an article, but WP:V permits one-sentence doomed permastubs. WP:V does, however, require the existence of at least one "third-party" source (something that isn't written by the person himself/the subject's employer/the product's seller/etc.). That source need not (according to WP:V) contain "significant coverage", but it must exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
That is an interesting theory that WP:V requires one source, but it doesn't require a citation in the article or evidence of existence of that one source.  Have you ever seen an article deleted for this reason?  Without doing any research, I'm guessing that that is anachronistic language from before 2008.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "this reason" is. I've seen many articles deleted because no editor was able to find evidence that any third-party sources had ever been published. When articles are deleted after a third-party source has been identified (e.g., someone posts a link to a third-party source at the AFD page) but not added directly to the article, the deletion is usually because the source doesn't provide significant coverage (required by the GNG and arguably by NOT, but not by WP:V) or because people don't want an article on that subject anyway (e.g., see the deletion discussions of many elementary and middle schools, where the amount of independent coverage doesn't matter, because editors who frequent those discussions have decided that schools enrolling children and pre-teens are simply not worthy of inclusion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Recommend pending changes protection

At least 3 times in the last couple of months, no-autoconfirmed editors have made inappropriate (but probably good-faith/confused-new-editor-type) edits to this page. They were quickly reverted.

Since this is a widely-viewed project page, I recommend indefinite pending-changes protection or indefinite semi-protection. I prefer PC as I view PC as a "lesser" degree of protection than semi-protection. On the other hand, some editors might prefer semi-protection since there is rarely a need for non-autoconfirmed editors to edit project-information pages like this one.

Thoughts? If there is no discussion between now and the next bad edit (and assuming it's been at least a week from now but not many months from now when the next bad edit happens) I'll probably ask for indefinite pending-changes-protection at that time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with PC1. I'm a reviewer, and I keep this page on my watchlist. However, I don't think this is necessary. Like you said, the vandalism was petty and quickly reverted. It's not like people were contentiously rewriting the page without consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem with project pages is that if something is incorrect on a project page and a naive editor sees it, he is likely to take it as authoritative. Unless the bad edits are undone so fast that it's unlikely that the page is viewed, then the page should be protected. This particular project page was viewed 335 times in the last 30 days, or a bit less than once every 2 hours. If we can continue to correct things within 10-20 minutes, and if the rate of "bad edits" remains only a few a month, we may have "bad edit viewed" rate that's acceptably low and not need to protect the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's happened recently. Some kid put his name in a section header, and a marketing guy spammed the page. If you think PC1 is necessary, that's fine with me, but I personally wouldn't push for it. WP:V got 200K views in the past 30 days. This is kind of a backwater compared to that metropolis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything → Wikipedia:Introducing "notability" – An informative title, not relying on a now rather dated literary reference, and suggesting that the subject is taken seriously. Note: A previous move, to "Notability (summary)", was rejected in April 2013, but much of the opposition was because that title seemed to imply too much of an "official" status for the page itself. The new proposal is intended to avoid this concern : Noyster (talk), 18:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Meh. I'd rather move it to Wikipedia:Golden rule (currently a redirect), because that is the WP:COMMONNAME by which this page is referenced, in decline templates on AFC and elsewhere. No fewer than eight of the possible responses in Template:AFC submission/comments refer to this page as the "golden rule". It's a highly visible and easily recognized name. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a change to any name which matches the content. The proposed title works. This page is used by people who do not natively speak English, so titles based on literary references are not ideal. The literary reference was a joke in the start, but now that there are 13,000+ links to this article, it should have a more understandable name due to its broad use and prominence. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Golden rule". Reyk YO! 08:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's been moved before and moved back. The name of this page is Wikipedia local tradition and should be retained. What's it to you? You want a page called "Introducing notabilty"? Then write it. Duh! Skyerise (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, and if all we want is a different title, then we simply copy the text into a blank page, and save under whatever title we like best? Then we'll all be happy? Won't we?: Noyster (talk), 14:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Introducing notabilty or Wikipedia:Introduction to notability; no need for quotation marks. Golden rule has a meaning all native English speakers already understand and which has nothing to do with notability on Wikipedia. WP:COMMONNAME not only doesn't apply to WP-internal matters, it refers to common names of topics in external sources, so Amatulic's rationale above for WP:Golden rule is trebly questionable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The larger we grow the more we need to be careful to retain some non-harmful quirkiness, keep ties with our roots, and so as to not become the hidebound-institution-of-sober-stiffness-that-brooks-no-interesting-informality.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I wanted to oppose this but kept quiet because I couldn't articulate how I felt. Fuhghettaboutit has come pretty close to doing that for me. And if there is a generation growing up not familiar with the work of Douglas Adams, we are only doing them a favour by introducing them to it. SpinningSpark 01:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. As the pillar says, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What is most useful to our readers is important here, and I fail to see how this title helps anyone. Enforced quirkiness such as this only serves to confuse the very users who need help most. Wikipedia is in no danger of losing its quirkiness until all the WikiFauna articles are deleted. Wikipedia help pages are not the place to advocate for your favorite fandom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Snappy, amusing title > boring, descriptive title for essays like this. This isn't a formal rules page, so no need for stodginess. Additionally, the literary reference is pretty irrelevant - the title is funny as is. SnowFire (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changes 6 Jan 2015

The changes today have been reverted. No doubt the changes should have been discussed here beforehand, but I thought they improved the page. In particular: (1) just have 3 sections to correspond with the 3 highlighted phrases, (2) no need to restrict it to topics not covered by a subject-specific guideline (how's a newbie going to know about that?) if we refer to the more general notability page: Noyster (talk), 12:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to check the archives of this page for previous discussions. A lot of the current form is the result of long debates here. In particular, the page has, in the past, been heavily criticised for making it seem the GNG is the only notability guideline. The verifiability section is there because otherwise users will be given the impression that non-independent sources cannot be used at all. The one thing I would agree with in your edit is that GNG is jargon and should be replaced. I also think that the tangential stuff (from "See also" downwards) should be small-printed, but that would need discussing first also. SpinningSpark 13:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Spinningspark
  1. It wasn't my edit (and I wouldn't have advised repeating it just yet)
  2. The text about verifiability was retained
  3. The change dropped the link to WP:GNG and linked to the more general WP:N, from where you can get to both GNG and the subject-specific ones (in the prominently placed navbox): Noyster (talk), 16:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, it wasn't you. I'm not so concerned with the substance of the change, but more concerned with preventing another outbreak of edit warring on a policy page (albeit an unofficial one) and having the page plastered with dispute templates. SpinningSpark 19:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Be...anyone, I agree with the general thrust of your edit. 4 sections for 3 highlighted terms is bizarre, and it struck me as horribly wrong when I saw it here. The level-2 header for Notability simply must go. That being said, please follow WP:BRD. You're a good editor, I'm surprised you reinstated your change. At least you didn't do it a third time. I agree with striking any reference to GNG or its horridly capitalized complete spelling, General Notability Guideline — that phrase should die in a fire. You should leave the Notes and See Also as two separate sections, the way they were. That wasn't broken, don't fix it. And rather than just critiquing and being unclear while doing so, I'm going to take my life into my hands here and try to boldly implement the change I want to see. I'll probably be reverted, but that way the fix I suggest will be clearly visible for anyone who wishes to see it. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

My proposed change is, unless it has been reverted, live on the page now. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems like an improvement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, especially the removal of the bit about subject-specific guidelines. Reyk YO! 06:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The big problem with your edit is that you have taken out the statement that non-independent sources can be used for verification. This was an important part of the compromise with those wanting this page gone, or, if they can't have it gone, leave it permanently tagged as disputed. Removing it runs the risk of opening up old wounds and starting an unnecessary dispute all over again. This was the whole reason for the additional section and it needs to be put back in. However, this might do it without introducing a fourth section;
We need independent sources. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or press releases. Non-independent sources may be used to verify that Wikipedia articles are not just made up, but there must still be some independent sources.
I have here dropped the link to referencing for beginners. It is not so important that newbies correctly format their references. The essential thing we want to get across is that they must have references of the correct nature. SpinningSpark 08:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I like your suggestion, but I suggest wording similar to
We need independent sources. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or press releases. Non-independent sources may be used to verify that Wikipedia articles are not just made up, but only independent sources can show that the topic has attracted enough notice to be covered here.
I would also suggest removing the link to "Don't cite 42 at AfD", because IMO that essay is vague, unhelpful, and inaccurate. Reyk YO! 08:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess that reads better. I honestly don't care if WP:NOT42 is linked here or not. However, it would be somewhat amusing to create an essay called WP:NOTNOT42 that says not to cite NOT42 at AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we do need to make it clear that the independent sources are not only there for verification, but as an essential condition of notability. Can we crisp up Reyk's text a bit? We need independent sources. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or press releases. Coverage in independent sources shows that the topic has attracted wider attention. Non-independent sources may added as well, to help verify facts: Noyster (talk), 10:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need to beat them over the head like that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Ninja, how is that beating anyone over the head, any more than the version just above where you said "I guess that reads better"? I was merely expressing the same thing in fewer words: Noyster (talk), 11:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the page already bludgeons them with yellow highlighting and gratuitous boldface. I prefer a concise, three sentence version. Reyk's version was a bit wordy, but I think it was closer to my preference. How about this: We need independent sources. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or press releases. Non-independent sources may be used to verify facts, but only independent sources can demonstrate wider attention. It combines both his version and yours in fewer words than either. Maybe it's too concise, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
SpinningSpark 21:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the new wording conveys exactly what I wanted to say but more concisely. Reyk YO! 06:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, some people want this page deleted? Are you kidding? This essay is the number one thing I point to when I'm trying to talk about notability. The reason this essay doesn't need a section called "notability" is because the entire thing is the answer to how to determine notability, in 20 words or less. It's the number one page I point people to when discussing the topic. If this page is gonna be nuked, let me know before it happens so I can userfy it and point people to it in my userspace. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not in any real danger. The nomination ended in "snow keep". I don't think I even bothered to vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not the page that many people have wanted to "nuke" it's the title. It's an embarrassment. Like Jsharp I often want to link this page for new editors, and I want them to take one look and react "Ah, I get it now" and not "WTF?" It's meant for newbies, and why should they know or care about ancient WP traditions? I won't revive my move proposal at this stage, as it did not achieve consensus, but if anyone wants to propose a different sensible title they'll have my full support. Oh, by the way, I'm happy with the latest proposed rewording, my thanks to Reyk and Ninja: Noyster (talk), 09:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
You could use WP:42 for this page, it works only for older folks who get connection. Redirect WP:ANS to Wikipedia:Everything_you_need_to_know#Notability for others, and blank WP:Golden rule for a spare. Three shortcuts for one page buried in an extraneous #Notes section instead of {{shortcut|WP:42}} are suspicious. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@SpinningSpark: please check WP:OWN. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have something to say, please say it. Many watchers such as myself are grateful that SpinningSpark is fixing changes that do not improve this page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
One line above + edit history, three shortcuts are too much, and WP:42 not in the normal position is also wrong. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
When this was last discussed it was agreed to move the shortcuts to the notes. Regarding the silly WP:OWN accusation, although I originally made this suggestion, it was not me who changed the page. The whole purpose of this page is to give a very short message in the simplest possible language to new editors who have written an article that does not comply with our criteria for inclusion. We really don't want anything else that could be a distraction. Knowledge of shortcuts is a benefit to established editors who might want to refer to the page, they are of no use at all to the target audience of the page. Hence, it makes sense to have an exception in this case, if indeed this non-policy, non-guideline, non-essay page is actually an exception: it is more along the lines of nutshell summary of several policy/guideline pages and we don't put shortcuts inside nutshells. SpinningSpark 09:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a legitimate point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
So far four contributors tried to fix the ridiculous shortcut issue on the project page, but I certainly support to have no links to talk page archives…<shudder /> –Be..anyone (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with showing only one "official" shortcut, but let's agree on what that should be first. I'm also happy with that shortcut being WP:42, as the recent edit tried to make it, but other's have objected to that in the past so it is best to leave a choice for now until there is consensus on an acceptable single shortcut. SpinningSpark 16:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Noyster:, please re-target ANS to Everything_you_need_to_know#Notability for your non-humorous purposes. The edit history of Golden rule might be bad enough for a deletion RFD. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Golden rule listed at Redirects for discussion. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Now archived, JFTR. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Golden rule?

I don't understand. Why does WP:GoldenRule redirect to here? I thought there was a page about how to treat others (and I'm not talking about WP:Civil). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Notes

I hadn't noticed this essay previously until it was just recently cited in an AfD discussion. I like it a lot because I feel our deletion rationale is too complex and filled with favoratism for subjects our editor demographics prefer to cover. A few random comments/suggestions from giving it a first look:

  • "Articles generally require significant coverage... that are independent of the topicevent" (to be consistent with the language used in policy)
  • we need several multiple (even WP:CORP only requires two if they are in-depth) I think this would also be improved by saying that generally, the article subject should be the primary focus of multiple articles that are longer than 300-400 words (not blurbs).
  • I think the independent sources section needs to be re-written/clarified, as it focuses excessively on material published by a person or company, whereas say a press release from the government or a corporate partner is equally as poor of a source. Also, if the subject of the article is say a rare breed of dog that has not attracted any attention, but say a personal blog is used, the whole concept of sources published by the article-subject doesn't make any sense (the dog didn't publish the sources). The current description seems to be giving a very narrow definition of primary sources.

Just my few thoughts at-a-glance. Full disclosure, I do have a COI with many orgs. CorporateM (Talk) 19:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:N talks about topics, not events (except when discussing articles explicitly about events). SpinningSpark 23:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Aw - I was looking at WP:PRIMARY, which uses the term "the event". From what I can tell, WP:N is referring to the article-subject as "the topic". This does not seem sufficiently broad, because many primary sources are not affiliated with the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 16:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Strictly this discussion should be taking place at WT:N, since this would require a change to that guideline, but ... three hundred words is far too long. That is longer than many articles in (reliable) printed encyclopedias. James500 (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Essay or information page?

This page is in the categories essay AND informational (a rare feat). People are being directed here from other spaces as if this is a policy when in reality it is a summary of guideline. I am not particularly attached to either essay or information template but new users, in particular, should not be reading this as policy. We specifically template policies, guidelines, information pages and essays so that editors are not confused. This page needs template that tells the editor very clearly what exactly this page is. Lacking a template leaves the impression of deception considering virtually every other page in these spaces has one including the WP:GNG page that is being summarized. --DHeyward (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The "information page" template got moved to the bottom of the page, moved to the top of the page, replaced by an essay tag, reverted back to an information tag, reverted back to essay, and reverted back to information. The article was then tagged as "factually inaccurate", nominated for deletion, and speedily kept. The drama then migrated to WP:ANI, and the tag got lost in the ensuing edit wars after new editors discovered the drama. After that point, most of us got sick and tired of the drama, and we just revert whatever tags get put on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but it's already in categories that the template tags are supposed to govern. The template is just a hint of what it is. I don't want it to be drama but why would this piece be exempt from identification when no other article like it is exempted? I'd be happy with a notice of what it isn't (i.e. "This page is neither policy nor a guideline"). If WP:GNG can live with a template, certainly this one can. It's being cited as a policy which is obviously incorrect but a new editor would not know that (and arguably this page is only for new editors). --DHeyward (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
One of the great purposes of this page is that, like WP:5P, it allows people to test whether they understand and accept not bureaucracy and ignore all rules. Putting the correct tag on this page would not solve all Wikipedia's problems—new (and old!) editors will misunderstand and otherwise abuse any page regardless of how thoroughly it is tagged. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
And one of the great great experiences of not being a new editor is spotting fallacious argument styles are fallacious. Nothing will solve all problems. Might as well argue that a page that has such great purpose to be compared with WP:5P that it should have pretty graphics and maybe a table. Really, though, it should just say it's not policy and it's not a guideline. In plain text and in obvious position. Like all the other pages in WP space that aren't policy and aren't guidelines. --DHeyward (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This was brought up years ago, [1] it not going through the process to become a guideline, so just a personal essay. A strawpoll was done later on [2] with no consensus on what to call it. It needs the standard disclaimer all essays have at their top. Dream Focus 00:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The intention of the page is to give a clear statement of the more important points of policy and guidelines to new editor who have had their articles tagged/deleted. It is not so helpful to point such editors to a whole bunch of policy pages that will take them all day to read when in the vast majority of cases the article's problem is a straightforward one of failure to establish notability. As such, this page is not a personal essay. Anything in there that is not in policy and guidelines needs to be taken out or modified rather than slapping on an essay tag, although I doubt that there is anything very much wrong now given the number of times this has been criticised and picked over. SpinningSpark 01:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    It isn't clear. It simply repeats the general notability guideline, while ignoring the subject specific guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability does a better job explaining things, just read the top, it not that much to go through. Dream Focus 01:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    There used to be a line in the notes that said "This document is intended for new editors writing an article with a topic whose notability is supported by the General Notability Guideline. Other topics are supported by Subject specific Notability Guidelines." That makes clear that people using the page in other situations (like AFD) are abusing its purpose. It got removed in one of the many silly edit wars on this page. It should be restored. SpinningSpark 08:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    I agree. That would clarify things. Dream Focus 17:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In view of the above, I am in favour of removing the essay category. I am not particulary in favour of any templates, at least not at the head of the page where they are a distraction to the simple message, and certainly not an essay template. SpinningSpark 01:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There's the "information" template. It's certainly less distracting than the the superbold and enlarged "In a nutshell" type text. It also swallows the shortcuts so it's not more distracting than that, either. --DHeyward (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't think the shortcuts need to be there either. Get the message across first before any distractions. They don't need to be in both the notes and a header template. I could settle for an information template as a compromise, but I would prefer no template at all. If the status of the page needs clarifying, it would be better in the notes. SpinningSpark 08:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The shortcuts are already there so the template swallowed them. See this version I made [3]. The shorcut template is replaced with the information template (which includes shortcuts). I had also removed the "Notes" section that was contained in the information box. The info box can be moved below the super-large and color highlighted title/summary. Personally, I think it's much more mobile and other-platform compatible if we made the super-large and color highlighted title a "In a nutshell..." template (see WP:Notability for more verbose version "In a nutshell..."). "In a nutshell..." could go before the "Information" template. --DHeyward (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
As an occasional editor, I'm annoyed at the lack of a banner (similar to this one) at the top of this project page. If I'd seen such a banner, I would have just closed the page. Instead I read through it, getting myself slightly surprised about some of the claims and explanations, casting my mind back to what I thought I knew about the relevant Wikipedia policies, started thinking through various of the issues and forming my own opinions on them. Then I got to the penultimate section ("Notes") and found out that "this is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline". Great! Then I started wondering why there wasn't a banner. I went off and found another unofficial page and sure enough such banners are still the norm. Then I check the source of this page to see if the lack of a banner was just a mistake that I could fix, but no. Finally I find that there is some kind of impasse here on the talk page that is responsible for all this. It probably cost me at least 10 minutes of my life, excluding writing this comment. Open4D (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Open4D: Welcome to Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 17:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete this

TAKE IT TO MFD OR LET IT GO.
As has been repeatedly pointed out in the discussion, this is not how you propose deleting a page, any page. This discussion is therefore not serving a legitimate purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This essay is still not accurate and it is becoming obvious that it never will be. I see, for example, that someone has put the word "several" into the essay, when we all know it should be "multiple". It is also clear from the creation of WP:YES42 that this essay is going to continue to be used as an instrument for the sort of disruption that WP:NOT42 warns against. I have simply run out of patience. Any utility this thing might have as a brief aide memoir is completely outweighed by its utility as an instrument of deception. Delete it. Put it out of its misery. James500 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I have corrected the error that I mentioned, but I still think this page should be deleted. James500 (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The correct place to recommend deletion of this page is WP:MFD. Reyk YO! 15:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Given the previous MfD outcome was snow keep, that seems like it would be an exercise in time wasting, but I suppose it's been two years since then so it's an option. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
At the time of the previous MfD, I did not support deletion. However, after a number of years, this page has continued to be a nuisance and a time sink. I think that since this essay has continued to be a problem for that length of time, it is reasonable to infer that it will never cease to be a problem. Accordingly there has been a material change of the circumstances around this essay. If this causes me to change my mind, it might cause other people to change their mind.
One could argue that it contradicts consensus in that its summary of the notability guidelines isn't accurate and is never likely to be.
If I meant to nominate this page for deletion, I would have done so at MfD. But there is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion to the effect it should be deleted on its talk page. In view of the outcome of the last MfD, it is particularly expedient to attempt to ascertain if anyone else supports or opposes deletion before starting another MfD. Also, I might not have the time or patience to do the job myself, even if others indicate that they support deletion. I'm certainly not going to nominate until I am confident the nomination will succeed. Also, I am giving others the opportunity to attempt to fix the inaccuracies.
Another option would be to mark it as historical, which would presumably have the effect of deprecating it. James500 (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose deletion There is a need for something to convey to new users quickly and clearly what we mean by "notability". If this page can be made more accurate within the space then that should be done. If it is being used beyond its intended purpose, such as at AfD, then that should be pointed out when observed and the argument discounted if not supported by the full policy. I would still love to change its embarrassing title, but that's another story: Noyster (talk), 11:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:42 has been proven conclusively to accurately summarise WP:V and WP:N. Continuing to argue that there is anything incorrect in it is like trying to square the circle: a demonstrably impossible waste of time. Reyk YO! 11:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Reyk, not everyone in that thread agreed with your analysis, I don't agree with all of it and the text of 42 has been changed since then, making it even less accurate. James500 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
There's also people who don't believe the Earth is round and will continue not to believe it even if you take them to the top of a mountain and show them its curvature. Similarly, I can list every line of WP:42 and explicitly show the corresponding one in WP:V and WP:N and some people will still claim "it's wrong, gotta be, I don't like what it says, therefore it must be wrong, must be somehow wrong". Reyk YO! 14:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
A lot of words, but no actionable comments on what exactly is wrong with the page. The only specific objection you raised (the several/multiple issue) was instantly dealt with. If you watchlist the page you could have instantly reverted the change yourself. I don't see why this is a particular problem for this page. All policy pages continuously get messed with by drive-by editors and those who are upset at having articles deleted. You won't solve any kind of problem by deleting this page. SpinningSpark 11:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
As I pointed out at WT:YES42, where I gave an example (sometimes, albeit in a minority of cases, GNG accepts a single source), there are other errors. (I can offer a third example: articles are not generally required to satisfy GNG in the sense that most of them must satisfy it; if 90% of our articles were included because they satisfy an SNG, that would be entirely within the rubric of N. Do I need to go on?) And I think that is the point: if I we try to fix this, we will be at it forever, and if we ever finish, someone will come along later and sneak the errors back in. I don't like to advance a deletionist argument but ... getting rid of this would reduce the amount of maintenance we have to do and, unlike real policies, we don't need this page. James500 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I think what critics of this page are missing is that its purpose is not intended to be policy, or a summary of policy, or even a summary of some policy (although it is that), or an essay, or an information page, or any of the other things that people have attempted to template it with. It is more along the lines of a message. Like the sort of templated warning messages we send to people when their edits are reverted or their article is deleted. The circumstances it is used is in messages to an editor who tried to create an article that got deleted because it was promotion for an unnotable company, person or product, or was OR, or otherwise could not be found in sources. This is a particularly recurring problem with music articles. It is just not reasonable to refer a person to a whole raft of policies when they are not really interested in the minutae of Wikipedia rules, or have the time of inclination to read all of it. All they need is a quick answer to "why was my article deleted?" and "what can I do about it?". Side issues like WP:PROF is another basis that articles can be written on is just not relevant or helpful to the person being addressed. They wrote an article on the band they formed and just released a music video on Youtube, they did not write an article on an academic. We do not feel that we have to template a warning message with a "this is a warning message" banner, nor do we feel that a warning template for vandalism should be deleted if it does not also mention that copyright violation or personal attacks not allowed as well. To cover every nuance of policy, the entire policy would have to be duplicated, making the message pointless. So James, if you think it is pointless going to MSD, what were you hoping to get by starting this thread, other than getting everyone hot under the collar again? SpinningSpark 14:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeking advice on sourcing

Hello! Please I need your help and advice on where can I look for sources.Olusola D, Ayibiowu (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Replied on editor's talk page: Noyster (talk), 18:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:The_answer_to_life,_the_universe,_and_everything/Archive_3&oldid=1216750110"