Template talk:Notability

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Notability is permanently protected from editing as it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This template (Template:Notability) was considered for deletion on 2013 February 26. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

New line 58: |specie<noinclude><!--trailing "s" on input is stripped, this line matches "species"--></noinclude> = [[Wikipedia:Notability (species)]]

New line 114: | specie<noinclude><!--trailing "s" on input is stripped, this line matches "species"--></noinclude> = Species articles with topics of unclear notability

I know that I can just make this edit myself, but I'm not really a template person so I would appreciate if someone could double-check my work here. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I've also gone ahead and made Category:Species articles with topics of unclear notability with the standard message. Aidan9382 _(talk) 12:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! North8000 and I have been having a conversation about this template (see my user talk page) and I'd like to hear from more people. North8000 has been adding two {{notability}} tags to some articles to note that either the GNG or or SNG criteria can apply on a noted notability issue and that neither has been met. One of the AWB general fixes is deduplicating maintenance templates, and my bot (and potentially any AWB user running general fixes) has been removing the "duplicate" tag.

Should we be adding multiple {{notability}} tags to a single article? If so, could someone please update the documentation with information on when it would be appropriate to do so? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is likely needed is to adapt the template to accept multiple arguments. I don't immediately know how we can do that. Masem (t) 21:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(That message on your tp was archived, fwiw). Should multiple notability tags be added? Absolutely not per How to use in the template doc. If a contributor, who has done a thorough BEFORE, thinks neither the general requirements nor specific requirements are reasonably likely met by a subject, they should add the one notability tag they think will most likely attract (and not discourage) competent users who will wish to fix the issue, without discouraging them by the insertion of at least one redundant/duplicate tag. Adding (a) redundant tag(s) to a page is counterproductive, and even disruptive. Please see Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Redundant_tags, an information page which clearly recommends what follows:

Avoid adding two tags to the same article, section or passage that essentially mean the same thing, in whole or in part.[...]. Doing so is WP:POINTy, and disruptive for our readers.

-Mushy Yank. 10:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking more a case where a topic might fit two different SNGs such as with a person that might meet NBIO or NPROF. The GNG should always be considered as a posdible target. Masem (t) 14:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then use GNG only. -Mushy Yank. 16:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the question was raised before (by me, fwiw). And remained unanswered so far. -Mushy Yank. 17:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One process note....IMO the immediate question is whether a bot should be (automatically) removing a notability tag when two different ones are placed. That said, during NPP, when there is a wp:notability issue (i.e. where neither the GNG or SNG criteria has been met) I tend to put both the GNG tag and the relevant SNG tag. BTW, template which gets added to automatically bundle multiple tags has "multiple issues" wording, which isn't quite right. That wording should probably be changed. It's one issue with two relevant guidelines, both of which are of primary importance. Come to think of it, the bot removing one of the tags actually converts it into an incorrect statement because it implies that not meeting the one remaining criteria is problematic whereas it isn't necessarily so because they can also meet the criteria of the removed guideline. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors who tag pages should select the most efficient way to have the most important issue(s) fixed. Notability is one issue. If no one adds two notability tags, this false problem is "solved". -Mushy Yank. 10:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In summary:

• Two tags can be simple informing of the two different ways to resolve the one problem. But the automatic template process which consolidates them into one template adds "multiple issues" wording. During NPP I sometimes put both methods on but I have no strong opinion regarding this and may stop doing it due to the wording that that the automatic "multiple issues" adds
• From my view, my discussion with GoingBatty is not about that. It's about whether their bot should be automatically removing tags from articles, and my opinion is that it should not.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied to their question. If the discussion is on a different topic, I have no opinion. -Mushy Yank. 16:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward for the Notability template to match my revision here. The text should inform users to improve articles to demonstrate the notability of the topic, but both the edit link and the "improve this article/draft" to be placed between "help" and "to" is missing. I propose that we add them to the template to match what its sandbox reads.

This is what the text on the fix currently reads:

Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable secondary sources]] that are [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent]] of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Draft|Notability should be established ''before'' publishing this draft or submitting it via the [[WP:AfC|articles for creation]] process.|If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be [[Wikipedia:Merging|merged]], [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirected]], or [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].}}

Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

Once the idea gets approved, then this is what the text on the fix parameter will read:

Please [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} help improve this {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Draft|draft|article}}] to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable secondary sources]] that are [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent]] of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Draft|Notability should be established ''before'' publishing this draft or submitting it via the [[WP:AfC|articles for creation]] process.|If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be [[Wikipedia:Merging|merged]], [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirected]], or [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].}}

Please help improve this article to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

What do you think of this idea? One-Winged Devil (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of baffled at this template, especially when I've run into it on so many stubs that have never been taken to AfD. The sole usage of this template I can see would be after a No Consensus decision at AfD. But, barring that, is this template just for lazy editors? Rather than PRODing or taking the 2 minutes to AfD an article, you just slap this on and do nothing else? It's extremely unhelpful. Silverseren^C 00:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT it means "Hi, I have some doubts about this topic being appropriate for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. I'm not sure enough to take this to AFD, but if someone else sees this and agrees with me, maybe this note will give them more confidence that their misgivings are correct, and they'll take it to AFD. And if someone else sees this and disagrees with me, maybe this note will prompt them to prove me wrong by adding some more refs and removing this tag." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Refimprove and so many other maintenance templates that are more directly useful and explanatory toward needed improvements. Again, the only avenue for questioning notability is to actually enact one of the aforementioned processes to determine said notability. It's much more actionable and in a reasonable time frame than just slapping a template on there to stay for months or years. Silverseren^C 05:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other people apparently think that this template is a practical middle ground between attempting deletion and doing nothing.

There are about 8x instances of Template:Refimprove compared to this template. I think that merging these would probably have the effect of losing them in a sea of articles whose notability is reasonably certain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]