Wikipedia talk:Notability

Active discussions

Guideline on geographic places: IntroductionEdit

Species notabilityEdit

Does Simple have a guideline on the notability of species, specifically that they are presumed notable? I know that English Wikipedia does, and have been creating articles based on that. Diadophis (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes we follow the same as en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't actually find a source for a guideline on enwiki that says "species are presumed notable". I looked. I don't doubt it, mind you, but it would be very helpful to be able to point to it, especially when we need to talk about things on the boundary, such as (a) unattested/​hypothesized/​weakly-attested extinct species, or (b) taxonomy levels possibly below species-level. Do either of you know where that guideline is? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The vast majority of such presumed notable practices (a good example is high schools) are unwritten and just done because its so easy to find the 3 sources needed for notability. This one I do believe has one but I am drawing a blank at the moment to think of what it is. I will see if I can find it. Don't forget in the situations you mention, it is still likely those things have been written about a couple times and if they aren't then can still be deleted. Presumed doesn't mean for sure. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
This is the first I've heard "the 3 sources needed for notability". Is that in our guidelines, or enwiki's? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Ours and theirs, you need sources from multiple sources per WP:GNG. Multiple is taken to be 3+ because two would be a couple. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Although looking at ours now I think we simplified multiple to "a number" which is probably too vague. But the general idea is you need to show multiple sources considered you worthy of note. Not just one, two is pretty borderline. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I was referencing EN:Wikipedia:SPECIESOUTCOMES. The argument is that all species must have something about them published in order to be recognized as species, and are therefore notable. Using that logic, contested species might be more notable than uncontested ones, as they would need sources both to claims of their existence and to the claims that they shouldn't exist. I don't know where that leaves weakly-attested species, though. Diadophis (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
That is right, that is what I was looking for. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is fineEdit

I disagree with the template message that says the article uses too complicated English. This page doesn't need to be simple. If people don't have a suitable understanding of English, they will not be able to adequately comprehend the sources so they should not be creating articles.Naddruf (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Naddruf: This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Sorry, but if an article exists, it has to be simple. For non-simple articles, please go to the English Wikipedia. Thanks. rollingbarrels (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@FNAFPUPPETMASTER: This isn't an article is it? It's a guide to writing and editing articles.Naddruf (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Everything written on this wiki is supposed to be in simple english, articles or guides. Technically even talk on talk pages (though that rarely happens). -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia notability as more trans-national/regionalEdit

Hi folx - I am interested to know if anyone of you think that Simple Wikipedia notability is (or should be) less American centric and more trans-national/regional in adopting on what local and regional sources are relevant (both content and context specific), rather than insisting on centristic idea of mainstream media and visibility that derives from native speakers (primarily Americans).

In my opinion Simple Wikipedia should lead the way in cross-polination of content across languages that is also not easy to whitstend EN Notability and very charged atmosphere of hard policing contributions there.

Was I clear enough? I am not a native speaker obviously and love Simple Wikipedia idea. What are your thougths on this? I am most curious to hear first of non-native speakers (others please be considerate and give some space and time this week before engaging ) with the post ;-) Zblace (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello there, I am not a native speaker either. Just out of curiosity, where do you get the idea that relible sources are limited to English-language (US?) mainstream media? - The basic idea behind a reliable source is that another person or media looks at the fact, and reports on it. The more of these sources you have, the less likely it is that the information provided is wrong. For articles I wrote, I also used sources in languages other than English. Yes, having English-media sources is certainly useful, as it is the language most people here will use; but again, any language is fine for a reliable source. The "reliable" then comes from the fact that different sources reports similar things on the event or person. --Eptalon (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I was reading Notability here and it is same as EN Wikipedia. I think it should not be. Especially as it is not so big to start with it should have slightly softer standards that would consider that not all regions have as much publishing resources and oportunities that it is accessible to all (especially not to vunerable groups). No? Zblace (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
We need to be verifiable as such having the same notability standards as all of the language Wikipedias is pretty much required. One of the biggest reasons behind notability is the ability to both find and verify information. If nothing has been written about someone (in any language) then we wouldn't have any information with which to write an article or to verify what we did write in an article leading to false information. Loosening notability requirements is pretty much a non-starter and won't ever happen. Simple Wikipedia used to actually have more strict requirements than en.wiki as we focused on only the "core" important topics, but I can't see us ever being less restrictive than en.wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Djsasso maybe I was not clear...not suggesting to have unverified information, but rather to have sources that are also not mainstream media articles or exclusively on that subject. For indy music I would expect indy bloggers and websites to write about and that could be sufficient. Zblace (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Professional websites that cover indy music for example are fine as sources. But a personal blog writing about indy music would not be. Mainstream media are not the only sources that are reliable, more niche sources are acceptable as long as they have a history of fact checking and reliable information. -Djsasso (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Though History of fact-checking sounds formal and hard to prove (with small but professional media outlet), while negative definiton might be better - so that basically media with history of not checking facts is off-limits. No? Zblace (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'd say that about covers it, yes. --Eptalon (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that is how Wikipedia generally works. If a professional source has a history of unreliable information it isn't ok to use. Nothing you have proposed is any different than how it already works. So not really anything here to do. -Djsasso (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Notability".