See also: Wikipedia talk:Relevance

Primary

Moved to Wikipedia talk:No original research § Primary
 – Wrong venue.

Not sure where I should place this discussion, but I hope I'm at the right place. It is often said that interviews are "primary" sources, meaning they are not reliable per WP:PRIMARY. However, most of the times we get personal information (birth dates, birth place and backstory) and upcoming release dates for movies and music from interviews (late-night shows and so on) and they always turn out to be accurate. I think if the interview was published by a reliable source then it's most definitely reliable, because if another publication quotes that interview, no one would say it's not reliable. Not sure if I make much sense, but any objections? dxneo (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You posted this in the talk page for Wikipedia:Notability. I agree that sources can be reliable while not being independent or secondary. However, our general notability guideline requires that sources be reliable, in-depth, independent, and secondary. For a biographical article, most information in interviews of the subject is generally not independent: it comes directly from the subject. Therefore, while it may be reliable, and may be acceptable as a reference for claims in an article, this type of sourcing does not contribute to notability, the topic of relevance for this discussion page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suitable place to discuss this is the talk page of the article that contains the passage you're referring to. WP:PRIMARY is part of Wikipedia:No original research, so you should inquire about this at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Largoplazo (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it. dxneo (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So… as it relates to Notability, let’s say that a film director is being interviewed and mentions that he has a new film coming out in September. This interview is not enough to establish that the film is notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nor the director. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNG and secondary sources

The GNG text says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Why doesn't this include tertiary sources? I'd think that significant coverage in a tertiary source is also "objective evidence of notability." Also, "secondary sources" links to WP:PSTS, which says "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability...," so there's an inconsistency. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary sources can be used carefully. With notability we are looking for more than just simple facts but some type of transformation if information about a topic as to why it is considered worthy of note. Reference works (tertiary) often include everything under the sun when they act more as a primary work (like sports almanacs) , which may it may not include that type of transformative thoughts. So using a tertiary source as a source for notability should be used with a high degree of caution to make sure that it is providing the type of significant coverage we want to see. — Masem (t) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What Masem said. Just adding a bit, "caution" includes consideration of the nature of the source and content including the transformative content. IMO for 98% of tertiary sources it falls short for GNG use and for the most of the other 2% (i.e. they have an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica) there are probably plenty of secondary GNG sources without needing to look at tertiary ones. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that tertiary sources are evidence of notability. In worst cases, they can be short and unreliable. Even in better cases, you don't get much more than a dictionary definition, which isn't enough for a separate article on our Encyclopedia. Tertiary sources might verify a fact or two, but without more, it probably belongs on a larger article. (In exceptional cases, anything with substantial coverage in a quality tertiary source will have similar coverage in secondary sources anyway.) Shooterwalker (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the tertiary source. The keys to sourcing notability are depth of coverage and independence from the subject/topic. If a tertiary source has these two keys, I don’t see what the problem is. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm wondering if the GNG text should be altered a bit, saying something like "Sources should generally be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability, but a tertiary source may be used if it includes transformative content and meets the other requirements of this section." The section already notes that all sources establishing notability must provide significant coverage, and be independent and reliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of "if it includes transformative content". We might worry about that for a primary source, but why would that be a worry for tertiary sources? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to incorporate Masem's and North8000's concerns. I'm not wedded to any particular wording. What would you suggest? FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we stick with secondary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why?
The main concerns you voiced earlier would already lead the tertiary source to be excluded (e..g, "they can be short and unreliable" doesn't meet the RS standard, "you don't get much more than a dictionary definition" doesn't meet the significant coverage standard). As for your other case, "anything with substantial coverage in a quality tertiary source will have similar coverage in secondary sources anyway," so what? If an editor uses two secondary sources and a tertiary source that all meet the requirements, and the editor has access to the tertiary source and not to a third secondary source, why would you insist that they chase down a third secondary source? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about Tertiary sources may also be used if they provide significant coverage? XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a distinct section addressing the need for significant coverage. As I think about this more, given that any source has to meet the other requirements of the GNG section (e.g., reliability, independence, significant coverage), I might say "Sources should generally be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability, though a tertiary source may be used" or perhaps just switch to the language at PSTS: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a work like a Who's Who compilation (ignoring the fact these usually are pay-to-include) which likely would be considered tertiary as a reference work. Most will include biographical details about a person, but they will all be surface-level details, reiterating the basics about the person's life, but likely will not get into reasons why that person is more worthy-of-note of any other person. All that type of information is non-transformative and while it could be taken as significant coverage, it remains a far weaker sources to rest notability compared to a secondary source that, via transformation of the basic facts, of why that person would be worthy-of-note.
Basically, there are a lot of topics that have detailed information that can be found in tertiary sources, but the type of information is straight facts and would be considered a primary source if published by itself. The transformation aspect of secondary sources, which some tertiary sources have, is what helps us ascertain notability. Masem (t) 13:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't see the point of making this point, here. You could equally well argue against secondary sources, claiming correctly that many secondary sources just name-drop the subject of a BLP as the source of a quote about whatever else they're really talking about. It would be true. It would not be valid or relevant as an argument about why we should use tertiary sources instead. So why do you think it was important to make a point that some tertiary sources are not in-depth, as part of a discussion focused on how some people think we should avoid all tertiary sources in favor of secondary sources? How is it any more valid or relevant than the point that some secondary sources are not in-depth? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding overly blunt, all of this seems entirely beside the point. Superficiality would be a reason to exclude a secondary source from counting towards notability, too. (So would being pay-to-include.) In other words, you're comparing a hypothetical bad tertiary source against a hypothetical good secondary source. That's not a reason to dismiss all tertiary sources. If my print copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica that I've had since I was a child has an article about something, then the default expectation should be that Wikipedia has an article about it too. Indeed, I'd consider "Britannica has an article on this" as an all-but knockdown keep argument at AfD. (I say "all-but" because for organizational reasons we might go for a merge instead. Writing is complicated.)
Really, this whole debate seems to be a symptom of taking a distinction that we basically made up — or at the very least, one that we use in an idiosyncratic way, while pretending it is much more clear-cut than it really is — and treating it so seriously that we give ourselves a headache.
OK, time for me to check out of the bikeshed. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the material provided by a source is short, unreliable, merely a dictionary definition, only verifying a fact or two, etc., then it's not going to count much towards notability, even if it's "secondary" instead of "tertiary". In other words, a good tertiary source has to meet the same qualifications as a good secondary source. XOR'easter (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No inconsistency. Tertiary sources are a subset of secondary sources, with any differences being within the noise that exists for case by case decisions on any particular source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not true. Tertiary sources are built from a mix of primary and secondary sources, and could be entirely based on primary sources, like a dictionary. Masem (t) 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awards in lawyer BLP and similar -- promo or evidence

Are awards such as being elected a fellow of a major society or similar frowned upon in lawyer BLP as promo? For academics these are considered to be an important vote of notability by peers, so have their own sections as WP:NPROF#C2 and WP:NPROF#C3. I am OK if they are not viewed as appropriate to mention for lawyers, but would be surprised.

I would think that in many other areas a major awards would be a strong indicator of notability. (Ignore what exactly major award means please as a seperate issue.) Ldm1954 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My usual question is whether independent sources had anything to say about them winning the award. If they treat it as significant, then it probably bears mention in the article based upon what those sources had to say. If not, then if no one else cared, we probably shouldn't either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best list not covered as a group or set

WP:NLIST has the criterion "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists." But this leaves open the possibility that there may be valid list articles about sets that are not themselves covered by reliable sources.

This has led me to wonder - what is the best example of a list that's a good idea for an article, but whose topic is not treated as a notable group by any reliable sources. The place I'm looking is in the list of popular lists. If found, it may be worth mentioning as a counter-example. Wizmut (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N

@Isaacl@Largoplazo and others : I just changed the topic to a topic of the article. Isaacl at first reverted my edits and added edit summary mentioning almost the same thing as mine (at first I wrote a topic related to the subject). I am requesting for a discussion regarding the policy here. The policy was not changed, but was more clearly mentioned. XYZ 250706 (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"A topic of the article" clearly has a different meaning from "the topic [of the article]". I don't understand why you made this change but the implication appears to be that an article can have multiple topics and only one of them needs to be notable, which sounds like a bad idea. – Joe (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not actually want to mean that. Should each source/citation on a particular topic have significant coverage (much depth information) on that particular topic? Or multiple sources/citations can together have significant and in-depth coverage on that topic? XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources that provide partial significant coverage can be used to build up the significant coverage for a topic to be notable. But this means there's more than just routine coverage or name-dropping of the topic in each of these other sources. Significant coverage is typically going to originate from secondary sources that are doing analysis and opinion about a topic, not primary sources like news reports or press releases. Masem (t) 13:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem I wanted to clarify your first line only (although I may have messed the thing). Many editors say that each citation should have significant coverage on the subject. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can use multiple sources that have some parts of coverage, but key is that the amount of coverage overall from all sources must be significant. Other sources which do not have significant coverage but provide some facts can then be used for sourcing beyond that, but you first have to demonstrate significant coverage across other sources, otherwise we don't consider a topic notable. Masem (t) 04:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If by your statement, you are referring to the editors involved in the ongoing AfD of the articles you authored, then no, they do not say that. It seems you are misinterpreting their rationales.
IMO, there is a difference in evaluating the notability of an obscure subject and a media coverage prone politician under WP:BASIC. The bar for the latter is significantly higher. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor is one of those discussions clearly wrote : "significant coverage OF the subject is needed" (instead of the topics of the subject). XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct and that's what the policy states. If a topic related to the subject has more coverage, it can have an article instead of the subject, provided it meets the GNG.
Example: P. Shanmugam (CPIM) and Vachathi case - If Shanmugam is only known for the Vachathi case, then it's better to write about the case instead of Shanmugam. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is the consensus at all; the vast majority of AfDs and related discussions have supported the interpretation that a source needs to be all of significant, independent, secondary, and reliable to count towards GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline starts with A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The following sentences explain this guidance further. The suitability of a given topic is evaluated outside the context of an article (that is, whether or not an article exists, and if it does, regardless of the contents of the article), so the explanation doesn't need to refer to articles. isaacl (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know what you mean by "a topic of the article". An article is about a topic. We judge the "notability" (in the idiosyncratic way that word is used by Wikipedia) of that topic overwhelmingly on the extent of coverage of that topic in suitable sources. The policy expresses that. Largoplazo (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, for several reasons, there needs to be significant coverage in each source that is being used for GNG compliance. One is that such coverage is what's needed to have real article content vs. just piecing together a bunch of factoids. Second, while it is not explicitly acknowledged in guidelines, in practice the fact that a source has seen fit to spend the resources to do in-depth coverage is a reflection on notability, with further calibration by the nature of the source. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this. Also, the examples under "significant coverage" are so far apart from each other to be helpful in most situations. - Enos733 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there needs to be significant coverage about the topic of the article. If the chosen wording for the topic is a reasonably good choice (vs. a neologism that somebody is trying to promote) IMO it's OK for coverage to be about the same overall topic even if it does not mention the exact wording of the topic. But the GNG-sources have to be specifically about the topic, not something that "falls under the topic". For example, if I have a personal theory about interactions between Mercury and Jupiter, GNG sources would need to be about that interaction, I can't just use published info about Mercury and Jupiter individually and say "it is about the topic" for GNG compliance. (of course there are also other wp:OR / WP:Synth rules about this at the content level) North8000 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bi-State Police

The input of editors familiar with the notability of stand-alone lists (WP:NLIST) is welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bi-State Police. --Magnolia677 (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory statements

WP:NTEMP states that once an article has been deemed notable, "it does not need to have ongoing coverage." WP:NSUSTAINED states that "once established, notability is not temporary" and "brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Ironically, it links to WP:NTEMP when stating this, which says the opposite. I think these are perhaps reconcilable, but it is certainly confusing, and therefore not a good guideline to help new users understand notability. I have no stance on how it should be, but I will say even if you think these guidelines make sense, do you think a new Wikipedia editor, looking here to determine if a topic is notable, would easily be able to make that decision based on these two sections in their current state? Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anything should be rewritten I think it's WP:NSUSTAINED, which reads like a bunch of unconnected sentences written by a committee who do not agree with each other. Having said this it does not link to WP:NTEMP for anything other than the sentence, "once established, notability is not temporary." I am not volunteering to rewrite anything because I think our approach to news sources is completely wrong, but that is very much a minority opinion here. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The “contradiction” often stems from what I will call “premature determination”… ie situations where we initially reach a consensus that when an article subject gets a flurry of news coverage, it must be “notable” … only to (later) realize that we may have rushed to judgment, and that the subject may not be notable after all. This is a function of WP:Consensus can change, applied to notability.
It’s not that a notable subject has somehow lost that notability … it’s that our consensus on whether the subject should have be deemed notable in the first place has changed. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This right here. And we really have a major problem with trying to go back to deal with tons and tons of news event articles created due to a couple days of coverage and nothing after that, in terms of trying to achieve AFD results, because editors insist NTEMP applies but do not include NSUSTAINED in that discussion. Masem (t) 13:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Putting them together, I come up with "Don't write an article until coverage has gone on long enough and sufficiently in-depth to justify confidence that, ten years from now, no one will be asking, 'Who in the world ever thought that this was a notable event?'" Largoplazo (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i think that makes a lot of sense. And I agree you can get that from the guidelines. My point is that it's not intuitive right now. So it should be rewritten to say the same message it does now, but much more intuitively so new users actually understand it Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NSUSTAINED is basically saying that a burst of coverage (as most news items get) is not sufficient to make a topic notable. If you can show a topic has more than a burst of coverage, then you have meet SUSTAINED, and you should not be required to continue to show further coverage well beyond that per NTEMP. They aren't contradictory but they set bounds in evaluation of the temporal aspect of sources for a topic to consider notability. You need more than a topic covered for only one day, but you don't need to show a topic's been covered for years. Exactly the timeframes use do depend on the topic itself, so we can't say much more. Masem (t) 13:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it seems what happens is an arse about face where NTEMP is used to justify articles that really fail NSUSTAINED, as they are too recent to really have established sustained coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's time to create a "temporary notability" status? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We technically have that due to the presumption of notability approach. We "tolerate" current event articles because in the few days if an event it is hard to tell if NSUSTAINED is met, but well after an effect we should be able to then judge if sustained coverage has occurred and delete to merge the event appropriately. The problem is that some only read NTEMP and not NSUSTAINED to claim a mass over coverage over a few days with zero coverage since is a sign of notability. — Masem (t) 17:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting we make it official - put a template at the top explaining that the article is in some sort of probationary status. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So could it be reworded from "Once established, notability is not temporary. Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability" to something like "Once established, notability is not temporary, however brief bursts of news coverage may not be enough to establish notability"?This would be much clearer imo, and help make the topics go together better. Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this would be clearer. JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Ezra's language seems to be a good starting place. - Enos733 (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that if we both followed WP:NOTNEWS and used non-idiosyncratic definitions of primary and secondary sources we would not have a problem. But it seems to be impossible to implement what seem to me to be very simple things. Most Wikipedia editors seem to think that primary and secondary sources are things that have been defined by Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I intend soon to open a wider discussion on how WP is losing its grip on NOTNEWS (more that we have tons of shoddy, overly detailed articles that are not written in an encyclopedic manner that likely show little long term coverage, and the processes to deal with those are stymed by editors claiming NTEMP or tht mass news coverage is secondary). We need to claw this back because it's actually hurting us in several areas (like NPOV, NOR, and the like) — Masem (t) 22:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just replace the "ongoing" in WP:NTEMP with "further". The point of NTEMP is that assuming an article was notable to begin with, an argument along the lines of "there hasn't been any coverage since the last AFD" isn't a valid argument in terms of asserting that something has changed. (Of course, you can argue "this should have been deleted back then and wasn't notable at the time", but that's somewhat different.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i think that would be a great change Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's any problem with WP:NTEMP. It's just a problem with whether a topic with a burst of news coverage was notable in the first place. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's always an invalid argument. If the last AfD happened two days after the article's creation, which itself happened the day of the event, "There hasn't been any coverage since the last AfD" a year later is a pretty valid argument that it was a flash in the pan news event that didn't get sustained coverage. If on the other hand the event happened a decade ago, there was coverage about it for years afterward, but that's since trailed off since the last AfD two years ago, "No coverage since the last AfD" isn't very convincing at all. It's something that would have to be evaluated case by case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source - independent source

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

Use"are not considered independent" instead of "are unlikely to be strong"

GNG is defined as the subject must fulfill specific criteria to demonstrate significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. These sources should provide in-depth discussions about the subject rather than merely offering passing mentions. This requirement is essential for verification, which is a core policy of Wikipedia. If a source is affiliated/associated/connected with the subject—such as the subject's marketing team, company, social media platforms, information in interviews of the subject or any self-published information—this indicates a lack of independence. Consequently, such sources cannot be utilized to satisfy the notability guidelines. While some primary sources may be included in an article sparingly, they are only permissible if the information pertains solely to the subject in a trivial context and does not impact other individuals, or if it is a direct quote. However, it is important to note that these types of sources cannot contribute to the requirements for notability. This distinction is crucial. Cassiopeia talk 00:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on a live policy page is something every wikipedian should know not to do. They should also not allow themselves to be baited by a newbie. I have no interest in any specific outcome of this dispute, but Cassiopeia, you gave an uninvolved admin reason to fully protect the page, because you chose to accept the bait. BusterD (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD Good day. I didnt aware the editor is a newbie but mainly to keep the GNG definition intact. That was the reason I started a discussion here, and stopped at my 3rd edit on the page. Sorry that I cause the page to be protected which was not my intention. Thank you for letting me know. Regards. Cassiopeia talk 00:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for illustrating your explanation, makes sense! Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the reason I made the original change is because it makes zero sense to state we require independent sources to meet GNG in the main guideline text (and elsewhere, including policy), but then in the footnotes eviscerate this to non-independent sources only maybe not being strong evidence of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wasn't trying to bait them, should I not have made the second revert? If so I apologize. Edit: I think I messed with the formatting or something, now the replies don't look like they line up right? IDK what I didEzra Fox🦊 • (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The standard practice is WP:Bold, revert, discuss, not "did not/did too". Arguing back and forth is a less effective way of resolving disagreements. Smart people disagree. This is a good thing! I chided User:Cassiopeia because I trust them, not because I think they were right or wrong (that's for this discussion to clarify). They've been here and they've seen things. I am chiding you now: act like an adult here and you'll do fine. With due respect, User:Ezra Fox, newbies often focus on how fancy their sig looks. But we're not really that kind of board. BusterD (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Threading is simple. I've intentionally misthreaded just now to demonstrate I was responding to your response. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when I initially reverted the edit I asked for a longer explanation on the talk page as part of the discuss phase, or another slight change using the alternative "Bold, revert, bold again". Then Cassiopeia reverted my revert without that discussion. They hadn't been the one to make the original edit tho, so I left it alone. Then another person reverted 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 revert, asking to discuss in the talk page, and they reverted it back. So then I stepped in to revert again, asking again for them to discuss in the talk page. They then did, along with reverting my revert, which was fine because I said they could if they posted an explanation in the talk page. I was trying to go to the discuss part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, but perhaps I could have made that clearer. In regards to my signature, I understand it may not be to everyone's taste. I enjoy it tho, as they say please don't yuck my yums Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not - " only maybe not being strong evidence of notability, but it can NOT be used to meet GNG requirements which means not independent source has no place or not in the equation of how GNG is defined. We are talking about what it is and not only/maybe/not being strong guidelines here. So It the wording should not changed to water down version of -maybe not being strong evidence of notability, since GNG is one of the most important guidelines in Wikipedia besides V. Cassiopeia talk 00:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the original purpose of the footnote was ever meant to be, until 2015 it linked to WP:Conflict of interest rather than WP:Questionable sources. It certainly didn't make sense, as it's wording appeared to directly contradict the statement it was attached to. I definitely support the current wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:N
No tags for this post.