 | This is an
essay on
notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: To avoid confusing new editors, experienced contributors should explain notability not with harsh phrases like "non-notable", but rather with more informative phrases like "does not meet the notability guidelines". Links to the relevant guidelines should always be provided. |
Explaining the concept of notability on Wikipedia to newcomers without biting them can be difficult.
Problem: "Notable" and "non-notable"
Logically, if a subject has notability, then he/she/it is notable. Inversely, if a subject does not have notability, then he/she/it is non-notable. But saying that someone or something is "non-notable" is harsh, because it suggests a lack of worth, which is not what is meant.
Sometimes, people will make a link, as in "non- notable", but this does not help much. Without any explanation, new contributors may not realize that Wikipedia uses a special sense of the term, and so will not be inclined to click the link.
Failed solution: Renaming notability
Beginning in late August 2014, there was a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability to rename the guideline, without changing its substance. The original goal was to alleviate the problems raised by terms such as non-notable described earlier. No previous discussion on this matter has gained consensus for a new term, and, as of early October 2014, this latest discussion has not gained consensus, either.
Aside from the lack of consensus on a new name, renaming notability would prove to be very difficult. Editors would have to learn the new name and be accustomed to it, and all project pages concerning notability (and the category itself) would have to be renamed and rewritten.
Current solution: Provide more explanation
Without any new name for this guideline, the solution is to provide more explanation upfront. This way, new contributors will understand that "notability" means something else than just "worth".
Good: These explanations include the phrase "notability guidelines", which indicates that notability on Wikipedia is based on an established meaning, rather than the subjective whims of editors.
The second explanation goes one step further and presents some important points of the general notability guideline. Even without engaging the concept of notability, it appeals to a common-sense idea of sourcing: Many will understand that a lack of independent, reliable sources is a problem in an encyclopedia, whose goal is to provide neutral and accurate information.
Good: This explanation exposes a subject-specific notability guideline. The SSNGs include alternatives to the GNG (significant coverage in independent, reliable sources) for demonstrating notability. These are varied, so including a link to the guideline is good to prevent a long-winded summary of those alternatives. Again, "notability guidelines" indicates an established meaning.
Possibly: This explanation does not use the term non-notable, and the unusual link would prompt newcomers to click the link to learn more. However, using a
shortcut without any description, as is done here, is
confusing and not recommended.
Bad: This explanation does little to expose the special meaning of notable and notability on Wikipedia. People already understand the usual meaning of the terms, so they may not click the link to learn about Wikipedia's special meaning.
See also
- Template:AFC submission/comments, standard reasons for declining an articles for creation draft (which provide good explanations)
- Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything ( WP:42, WP:VRS), a brief summary of the general notability guideline
- User:Stifle/Don't just say non-notable, an essay on a similar issue
| This is an
essay on
notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This page in a nutshell: To avoid confusing new editors, experienced contributors should explain notability not with harsh phrases like "non-notable", but rather with more informative phrases like "does not meet the notability guidelines". Links to the relevant guidelines should always be provided. |
Explaining the concept of notability on Wikipedia to newcomers without biting them can be difficult.
Problem: "Notable" and "non-notable"
Logically, if a subject has notability, then he/she/it is notable. Inversely, if a subject does not have notability, then he/she/it is non-notable. But saying that someone or something is "non-notable" is harsh, because it suggests a lack of worth, which is not what is meant.
Sometimes, people will make a link, as in "non- notable", but this does not help much. Without any explanation, new contributors may not realize that Wikipedia uses a special sense of the term, and so will not be inclined to click the link.
Failed solution: Renaming notability
Beginning in late August 2014, there was a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability to rename the guideline, without changing its substance. The original goal was to alleviate the problems raised by terms such as non-notable described earlier. No previous discussion on this matter has gained consensus for a new term, and, as of early October 2014, this latest discussion has not gained consensus, either.
Aside from the lack of consensus on a new name, renaming notability would prove to be very difficult. Editors would have to learn the new name and be accustomed to it, and all project pages concerning notability (and the category itself) would have to be renamed and rewritten.
Current solution: Provide more explanation
Without any new name for this guideline, the solution is to provide more explanation upfront. This way, new contributors will understand that "notability" means something else than just "worth".
Good: These explanations include the phrase "notability guidelines", which indicates that notability on Wikipedia is based on an established meaning, rather than the subjective whims of editors.
The second explanation goes one step further and presents some important points of the general notability guideline. Even without engaging the concept of notability, it appeals to a common-sense idea of sourcing: Many will understand that a lack of independent, reliable sources is a problem in an encyclopedia, whose goal is to provide neutral and accurate information.
Good: This explanation exposes a subject-specific notability guideline. The SSNGs include alternatives to the GNG (significant coverage in independent, reliable sources) for demonstrating notability. These are varied, so including a link to the guideline is good to prevent a long-winded summary of those alternatives. Again, "notability guidelines" indicates an established meaning.
Possibly: This explanation does not use the term non-notable, and the unusual link would prompt newcomers to click the link to learn more. However, using a
shortcut without any description, as is done here, is
confusing and not recommended.
Bad: This explanation does little to expose the special meaning of notable and notability on Wikipedia. People already understand the usual meaning of the terms, so they may not click the link to learn about Wikipedia's special meaning.
See also
- Template:AFC submission/comments, standard reasons for declining an articles for creation draft (which provide good explanations)
- Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything ( WP:42, WP:VRS), a brief summary of the general notability guideline
- User:Stifle/Don't just say non-notable, an essay on a similar issue