Template talk:Notability

Video Games[edit]

Please can a product category be added for video games, per Wikipedia:Notability (video games)? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: Why do you need a full-blown thirty-day RfC for this? Have you followed WP:RFCBEFORE? If so, where was the discussion held - I see none earlier on this page. Also, please note that |video games notability is not a valid RfC category. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I wasn't aware such a ludicrously involved process was required for such a minor change. That's beyond bonkers. Sheesh, useless bureaucracy. Sorry I brought it up. Praemonitus (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, even without WP:RFCBEFORE, RfC is a ludicrously involved process. It lasts thirty days, during which time dozens of people will be selected at random to be informed of a matter about which they probably have little interest. Some of them may well question the need for an RfC, just as I have done. Usually a plain old ordinary discussion is far more productive; and only if that fails should you consider RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
It will be easier to just make my own template for video game notability, copy the code, then let somebody else bring it up in TfD and do a merge. Praemonitus (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
What I'm saying is, forget about the RfC. Just hold a normal discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I thought I was making a request for change, so I messed up. Praemonitus (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I would support doing this. We have a separate notability guideline for games, so I don't see why we shouldn't allow for the first parameter to specify that the relevant notability guideline for a certain article is the game one.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose because the notability is an essay, whereas none of the other ones are essays but guidelines. We might provide advise to judge video game related topics under the GNG, but the GNG still is sufficient for VG notability in general and there is no need for a specific guideline. --Masem (t) 22:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. It should be processed through the appropriate project team first. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: grammar[edit]

Please change

...and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention

to

...and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention

The former is awkward at least, and possibly ungrammatical. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Donexaosflux Talk 15:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Template generating a redlinked category[edit]

I've just fallen across Tosser, Gunman, which populates Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from September 2018, but which also tries to populate the non-existent Category:Book articles with topics of unclear notability from September 2018. Either the latter category should be created automatically, or it is unnecessary and shouldn't be redlinked.

I don't know what the situation is for any parameters other than |book. Narky Blert (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like all of them - academics, biography and so on. I came here because there were suddenly 10,000 new entries on a Quarry query I do that is equivalent to Special:WantedCategories, all in red-linked dated versions of the categories for different types of notability. This needs a resolution, quickly (at least before the next run of SWC, as they will just swamp all the "real" entries).Le Deluge (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
An edit today [1] by Fayenatic london caused it. Based on Template:Ambox#cat2, cat3, all2, and all3, and Template:Ambox#cat versus Template:Ambox#all, it looks like the edit should have said all2 instead of cat2 to avoid the monthly categories. Either that, or we should create a huge number of subject-specific monthly categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
A search shows 119 monthly categories have already been created today. 118 subcategories of Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability were created by AnomieBOT, operated by Anomie. Category:Products articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2011 was created by BrownHairedGirl. I guess she saw a red category on one of the articles. That's how I came here. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: I saw a redlink in Special:WantedCategories, and filled it.
It troubled me, 'cos it didn't seem to fit, but I didn't see a change causing it, so creation seemed the least worst option.
Now that I see how this was triggered, I suggest reverting @Fayenatic london's edit pending a clearer consensus on whether subject-specific monthly categories are actually desirable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I have changed cat2 to all2 for now.[2] This will categorize in undated subject-specific categories like Category:Products articles with topics of unclear notability and the other subcategories at Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. The job queue means it takes time to automatically populate the categories. We have three options: A) No subject-specific categories at all. B) Undated subject-specific categories. C) Monthly subject-specific categories.
The situation was A) before today, C) after today's edit by Fayenatic london, and B) after my edit. I support B). PrimeHunter (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @PrimeHunter.
I suggest that we give the templates time to purge before making a final decision. I support either B or C, with the final choice depending on the size of the Undated subject-specific categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks from me too, @PrimeHunter.
I was only trying to follow up renaming of the TV category, which I found unpopulated, as I was not able to populate it using the cat= parameter which was then stated on the topic category page (I have since edited that page). I noted the section above where user:LaundryPizza03 had done some work that was apparently unopposed but still waiting to be implemented, and made it live.
The option B) sounds best to me. – Fayenatic London 19:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: FYI, the dated category didn't get created by AnomieBOT because the base category, Category:Book articles with topics of unclear notability, is not directly in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month (or Category:Wikipedia categories sorted by month). For details on properly setting up a dated maintenance category, see Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category. Anomie 21:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

removing Notability box[edit]

I have updated the page for Hyperlinked and would like to have removed this Notability page. Is that something I can do or do I need you to do this for me. Hbrindy (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Google prioritized?[edit]

The links in the bottom of the template are mostly to Google searches. Could we include some other search engines in an attempt at neutrality and to avoid systemic bias against areas of the world that can't use Google? I'd also prefer that the links show that they are Google searches (i.e. "Google Scholar" and "JSTOR", not "scholar" and "academic archive"). Actually, I'd have a search of other Wikipedia articles, too; that often helps. HLHJ (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)