Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

Template:pnc

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —freak(talk) 04:31, Apr. 23, 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pnc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For those who are not familiar with the situation surrounding this template, this was a template created to hold the essential text of Wikipedia:Notability, with the idea that the template be transcluded onto all the notability subguidelines in order to create some kind of consistency between guidelines. However well-intentioned this effort is, the template has not been accepted on most guidelines, but has in fact led to edit warring. See the histories of WP:MUSIC, WP:PORNBIO, WP:PROF, et cetera, where wars have come up over the use of the template. See also the history of the template itself, where it is clear that the wording has not been settled and is continuously in flux. However, even if that were all settled up, this template is a bad idea. Making the various guidelines more consistent cannot be done by forcing a paragraph of canned text into them: the idea of having this be a template instead of a paragraph of text that people are dealing with is flawed. The template should be substed wherever it is used, and then deleted. Editors of the guidelines should always have the ability to edit the text of those guidelines to make each guideline readable. The template has met with resistance at basically every guideline, and even editors who believe the "primary notability criterion" can be integrated with individual guidelines want to write the text carefully themselves. Mangojuicetalk 18:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going with my gut and saying delete. The worst idea is that a wording consistently in flux at the template will have the ill effect of putting multiple consensually-reached guidelines in flux at the same time, which will create horrors for consistency and stability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep There has been a great deal of controversy over the inclusion of the template at the various notability sub-guideline pages. It has been accepted at some and rejected at others, although the consensus in either direction is arguable and there are disappointingly few participants. This template project has become the catalyst to ignite a smoldering battle over notability on several levels. While the recent discussion have been contentious, generating more heat than light, the beneficial byproduct is the development of greater dialog. I see several points of view which have emerged:
    • WP:N has superseded the sub-guidelines and these should be discarded.
    • WP:N is the primary rule and the sub-guidelines should clarify and support it
    • WP:N is the primary rule but the sub-guidelines offer special exceptions (stricter or looser)
    • WP:N and the sub-guidelines coexist without a hierarchy.
    • WP:N is invalid and only the sub-guidelines are legitimate
    • The entire concept of notability is flawed and should be repaired.
    • The entire concept of notability is irreparable and should be discarded.

--Kevin Murray 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, weakly leaning toward deleting Delete per Mangojuice and Jeff. The template brings together too many issues/disagreements on individual sub-guidelines at once. If, eventually, a consensus is formed about notability, the template can be reintroduced. -- Black Falcon 18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might be right, but resolving this issue and leaving the underlying issues unresolved is just a band-aid over a festering wound. The notability scheme should be addressed as a whole, and what better time than now? --Kevin Murray 19:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I don't disagree with you. Maybe better than deleting the template would be just not to use it anywhere for now. I'm a believer of "WP:N is the primary rule and the sub-guidelines should clarify and support it" and also "offer special exceptions" (in certain cases). However, in order for that to occur, we must first attain consensus at WP:N. I don't have a problem with the template's existence as long as it's not used anywhere until consensus is reached. -- Black Falcon 19:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In a perfect world I would agree, but until it was in their faces, the opponents were either unaware of the project or ambivalent. If it goes dormant then the momentum toward resolution is lost. My experience in volunteer organizations is that band-aids will persevere. --Kevin Murray 19:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given my comment above, I no longer feel entirely comfortable recommending deletion. I agree with Dugwiki below that the template may exist as an optional choice, but one that shouldn't be imposed wherever there is opposition to it. Then again, I do not see much point to this option while the text of the PNC is still in flux. I believe that if we are able to reach consensus for a particular wording at WP:N, standardisation of the sub-guidelines would follow (we can always recreate the template). The template had the positive effect of drawing into a centralised discussion editors who'd previously confined their activiites to one or more subguidelines; however, it may have been premature given the lack of consensus at WT:N. -- Black Falcon 15:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Using a template to transclude any amount of (disputable, in this case) prose is usually not a good idea. In this case, it does not seem to be a good idea anywhere. --- RockMFR 19:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That argument seems overbroad to me. If (and I acknowledge that this is a big if) there is a consensus that the same notability guidelines apply across the board to a dozen sub-topic guidelines, then there is enormous value to having a single template that permits a dozen notability guidelines to be modified simultaneously without fuss. The creation without that consensus is arguably premature, but the bold step did catalyze a useful conversation. There's no point to deleting the template just to recreate it if that consensus is created; on the other hand, if Kevin fails to persuade in the medium-run, there won't be any dispute about whether to delete it. //THF 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that Kevin was neither the originator of the template idea, nor the author of the text. I was the obnoxious proponent that may have prematurely pushed the issue. Call me the Mad Prophet of Continuity (Vile Lord would be plagiarism). --Kevin Murray 00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending discussion until consensus is reached on proper role for WP:N. As Kevin notes, there are seven distinct points of view as to the appropriate role for WP:N. When a consensus is reached on that role, then the template will either be an important way of ensuring consistency, or completely pointless, and the decision can be made then whether to keep or delete it. But deleting it now as a way to short-circuit that needed discussion of WP:N seems premature. //THF 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why make the template before discussing its use? You've got things completely backwards. You certainly don't need the template to exist in order to discuss the role of WP:N. --- RockMFR 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending discussion per THF and Kevin Murray. We somehow need to generate some kind of Wikipedia-wide consensus about notability. Drastically different standards shouldn't exist for different genres of articles. The "primary notability criteria" may need work, but something has to be done to bring people together to build consensus across the groups, instead of letting each interest group retreat into its own little subject-specific guideline. PubliusFL 20:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to THF and Publius: Isn't that somewhat orthogonal? It's not a discussion about this template, or about the concept of enforcement by template, that you're talking about - it won't even resolve this issue. Plus, couldn't any decision that is reached be implemented without a template? Mangojuicetalk 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having a template that's common to all notability guidelines reminds people that there's a place to talk about issues common to all notability guidelines. Otherwise it's too easy for people to focus on their own little special-interest community to the detriment of forming a more general consensus about notability. PubliusFL 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the idea that the template is supposed to bring people together when its implementation has been amongst the more divisive guideline actions in recent memory. Forcing something first and asking for discussion later certainly won't solve any problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it's divisive because the people in a lot of the subject-specific guidelines don't want to work towards a Wikipedia-wide consensus on notability. But I think forming such a consensus would be best for Wikipedia as a whole, despite the discomfort involved in getting there. PubliusFL 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A want isn't the same as what's best, though. If I thought it was workable or best, I'd be for it, but it's clear that the subject-specific guidelines exist for a very useful and necessary reason. One size fits all doesn't work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Keep It's in far too much flux right now to be useful on any page, and the edit warring has spilled onto several pages, but it's potentially useful if some consensus is even reachable. The biggest problem I see is the relatively limited scale of the debate, featuring a dozen or so editors with strong and seemingly incongruous opinions. My instinct is that a wider discussion needs to happen on the relative hierarchy of notability guidelines (as Kevin outlined above)...maybe a smaller version of the WP:A discussion? In any case, deleting this template won't solve any problems, but, for better or worse, shoehorning it into some guidelines is probably not going to happen. I'd say keep it, but I'm too pragmatic to fight for it... — Scientizzle 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, Kevin's right that this template has forced many to address the issue at hand. As such, it is serving a useful function and there's a reasonable possibility that it could form an integral part of the notability pages. Therefore, I think the template should be kept to allow the current discussion at WP:N to play out. I think, after that's complete, we'll all have clearer picture of the utility of this template. — Scientizzle 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Difficulty defining precisely what the wording should be is not an excuse for giving up and using completely different criteria for multiple differnet subject areas, which is what we were doing. If a subject is not the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage, it is hard to see how we can have an article, however much e might like to fool ourselves otherwise. "A foo is notable if it has been subject of multiple LOLZ on Teh Internets" is not going to result in a keep at AfD if there are no sources. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Applying a "one-size-fits-all" guideline to all subject-specific guidelines completely defeats the purpose of those guidelines as they are unique unto themselves and that's why there has been consensus to create, manage and utilize them in the first place. Also, adding yet another element that's constantly in flux means its a logistical nightmare to adjust the guidelines to be consistent with the template, which frequently contradicts the guidelines anyway. Confused? You will be more so with the continued existence of this template. --Oakshade 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a one-size fits all guideline: it's a sensible effort to make sure that the language that generally accepted guidelines share is aligned, and kept aligned. Nothing is served by writing the same thing in ten different ways. The existence of this template, and its name and exact wording, are quite distinct. My opinion does not represent an endorsement of either the name or the content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Kevin made some great points - but frankly I think the template could use some working on. And most importantly the fact that this template has the potential to become a great template means that it should stay on per criterea for template deletion (that's not one of the critera, but it relates - and this template happens to pass all the criterea anyway).danielfolsom© 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (now Neutral, or perhaps very weak keep pending consensus on WP:N) Most of the guidelines already mention the GNC (not PNC) in some form or another anyways. However this might still be useful if and when some sort of consensus is reached on WP:N. I'm not quite sure how strongly I would push for a delete. So, weak. Addendum: I've decided to change my mind and go for neutral or perhaps a weak, weak keep, pending consensus on WP:N. Consensus should be achieved first. mike4ty4 23:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as self-contradictory The template says both
"A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." and
"In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible."
Whatever the rule should be in this respect should be, but the proposed template offers no guidance whatsoever. According to the first half a topic with one source is NN; accord to the next it is N, subject to some conditions. This is perhaps a reflection of the almost total disagreement throughout all the discussions of those who would accept a single good source, and those who would not. None of these discussions has been resolved, and neither position has a consensus or seems likely to get one.
To some extent this is caused by a different overall view of WP, but for some this is closely connected to the easier or more difficult inclusion of specific topics where this factor would be relevant. (My own views vary depending on the topic).
Whether we want a basic template or not depends upon how it is applied, and what the final wording should be. Mangojuice and Kevin have summarized very well the possibilities for this . But under whichever way we want to go, a proposal so radically flawed as the present one is not the way to start. Even if we think there is great confusion in the present situation, at least we are used to how it is applied in the different subjects and different processes and know how to work
The community rejected combining the basic rules for a similar reason--it was totally undetermined how they were to be combined, and we did not want to commit to a defined future without knowing what it would be. I do not know how to solve the present complexity and uncertainty, and it would be tempting to say nothing could be worse. But this proposed template shows that to be wrong. it would be even worse than the present. DGG 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an old saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee; nobody gets exactly what they want and the result is an odd creature. I think that the intent of offering compromise leaves a contradiction. How about:
  • "A notable topic should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. However in the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible." --Kevin Murray 00:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, I think I like your wording, but the archives of this discussion show that it will probably prove tohave some problems when examined from multiple viewpoints. "Should" could be seen as an invitation to quibbling. DGG 07:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete, though, if one can change the wording so it's not self-contradictory? It's hasty to vote "STRONG DELETE!!!" over a problem with the specific formulation of a concept, not the concept itself. mike4ty4 23:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is useful for keeping the language in sync across multiple pages. It can say whatever we want it to say, and can be used or not wherever we want. Tom Harrison Talk 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The important thing is to keep this template away from the discussion regarding notability until consensus is reached. Whether it is deleted or made dormant does not matter. --Bduke 01:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the point in trying to summarize the notability criterion in a template above each notability subpage. Let the criteria for roads, malls, school, athletes, musicians etc. speak for themselves. YechielMan 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Getting rid of the ironclad PNC is a crucial step in bringing the reality of what we accept and what we do not (decided on a case by case and area by area basis) in line with the official guidelines. At best, PNC is a rule of thumb for what subjects could probably have an adequately attributable article. Such a rough and contingent thing should not be the basis for other guidelines. Rather, subject-specific guidelines should be built directly from WP:ATT (or WP:V and WP:NOR, or whatever).--ragesoss 03:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was asked to comment, although I'm not quite sure why since I haven't taken part of WP:N debates for quite some time and had never heard of that template before today. Nevertheless, and if such an uninformed opinion has any value, I think that if a template is so divisive it may make sense to delete it for now and have discussions about deeper issues. Pascal.Tesson 03:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My inclination is to keep due to the fact that reliable sources should be the basis of notability and more importanly of verifiability. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Ugh. I can see what the template intends to do - have some unifying language across the various notability articles - which is a laudable goal. However, while the objective is good, I'm not sure that using a template is the best way to achieve it. If we do have such a template, then I think it should be subst'd when applied. Tabercil 03:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this useful template for keeping language consistent across multiple related guidelines. I'd rather merge all the notability guidelines to WP:N for ease of maintenance, but barring that this is a great idea. --Dragonfiend 04:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and Delete. The template begins "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject", yet fails to mention that not all topics subject to multiple non-trivial and independent works are notable. A classic example would be reality TV show losers - they get a few columns in the gossip section of a tabloid and once they're gone, nobody cares. To use this template to build notability criteria, which appears to be it's main purpose, is silly as it's too broad and general. MER-C 04:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not saying this due to my dislike of the primary notability criterion, but because I cannot see any reason it should be templetified. The specialized notability criteria should not be tied up by a general guideline (not policy) which is at best a first iteration in need of a great deal of subsequent hammering. If the media interest does make a subject notable for a certain type of subject, then it should be spelled out and customised to fit that guideline. Using a template to do this is trying to fix a square peg into a round hole. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and certainly the whole idea that 'Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.' That's bs. If something isn't verifiable, then it doesn't get included at all - if it is verifiable, then decisions as whether to merge or split are to do with style and th best organisation of material and NOT 'notability' (whatever the hell that means). We organise material based on readability and common-sense - getting something merged isn't a consolation prise when you narrowly avoid deletion.--Docg 07:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was a good idea but it didn't help, instead spreading a dispute from WP:N to several other notability guidelines as well. >Radiant< 08:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Radiant - has caused more difficulties. For what's it worth, I would prefer a rewrite along the lines of WP:INCLUSION with a guideline minimum article length. Addhoc 09:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there are unique aspects to each notability guideline, the basic principle is the same, and there should be a common element to all of them. The biggest problem with these guidelines is that when there is discussion to change the main part of the guideline, the discussion generally ends up taking place in many different pages. This template is a great solution to that redundancy - if the main notability criteria needs to be changed, discuss it in one place and change it in one place. Deleting this just takes us back to the previous fragmentation and redunancy. --Minderbinder 10:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consistency across the notability pages is a good idea. I'm sure the edit warring over the wording will eventually settle down and a compromise met. Epbr123 14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but use this moment to initiate a larger discussion about whether Notability in general is a useful guideline. I used to be a believer in the notability guidelines, but have seen them more and more applied to delete well-written, sourced, attributable short articles and seems to have the overall effect of chasing more people off editing Wikipedia than inviting participation. Many encyclopedias have short articles on subjects for which there is only a small amount of verifiable, important information; I don't see why Wikipedia should be different. The principal arguments for WP:N I've seen--we'll soon need so many disambiguation pages; who will keep track of so many pages when they get vandalized?--no longer move me. A disambiguation page does not need to be the first article returned for a title; lower traffic pages are less often vandalized than higher traffic. --Myke Cuthbert 14:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as optional template I'm in favor of keeping the template as something that subject-specific guideline authors can optionally use to help them keep their language a bit more consistent with similar guidelines. The key word here is "optional". No guideline can be required to use this template, so whether or not to use it is a matter of editorial preference. If the authors of a particular guideline choose not to use the template and instead craft their own wording by hand, that's ok too. But I think that offering editors the option to use the same boiler plate language in similar documents gives them the opportunity to more efficiently manage those documents and to make the language a little more consistent across the board. You don't have to use it, but you might want to. Dugwiki 15:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The text of this template is an essential distillation of wikipedia policy. Hopefully, consensus can be gained to broaden its use through transclusion. However, regardless of the eventuality it is important. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the text of this isn't policy at all. That's absurd.--Docg 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, until there is a much broader consensus that there is this sort of common standard, then consider whether a tempalte is a good way to keep things in synd. DES (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a rather ill-conceived template. If the wording is substantially accepted, it can be added individually, but a non-navigational template that in addition to being worthless is wrong (you can't have notability without multiple {more then two for those in Bakersfield} non-trivial sources) is plain rediculous. We had this debate at WT:N already. -Mask? 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As we've been discussing in WP:PROF, I just don't believe that quantity of sources is the appropriate way to measure notability of individuals, nor that it's the way editors have been using in practice when deciding biographic AfDs. Multiple reliable sources are necessary but not sufficient. By blurring this distinction, as this template does, we encourage subjective definitions of what is a reliable source (e.g. claims that major national newspapers are somehow more reliable than local ones, not because they actually are more reliable but because inclusion in a national newspaper is a greater sign of notability). —David Eppstein 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Isn't that more of an argument to refine the primary notability criteria than an argument to allow forking in all the subject-specific guidelines? Your point applies to Wikipedia as a whole, not to a specific category of articles. PubliusFL 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can you call the subject-specific guidelines "forks" when they have been much longer accepted and used than the general guideline that hasn't even been settled on? David's point is that the template makes it difficult to word individual guidelines. Mangojuicetalk 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I call them content forks because they are "several separate articles all treating the same subject," as defined at WP:Content forking. There's no requirement that forking start with a single article that splits off into multiple contradictory articles. The key is that all these articles talk about what makes something notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, but they do it inconsistently. It's time to build Wikipedia-wide consensus. PubliusFL 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kevin and Guy. There are 2 ways to go: one is to put a PNC template on each notability subpage to force consistency. The other is to merge the central tenets of all the subguides, which presently repeat the general jargon of WP:N with varying degrees of being old versions before dealing with their specific subjects, into WP:N. Kevin's chart of a hierarchical and organized set of guidelines has merit. Edison 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The perpetuation of this piece of semantic incomprehension has harmed the project enough already. The pnc is not a "criterion". We can't write articles that start with the claim "XYZ is notable for having multiple articles written on it". Notability expresses the reason why a subject has been the topic of multiple credible accounts. The fact that a subject has been the topic of multiple credible accounts explains exactly nothing. ~ trialsanderrors 04:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this attempt to "shoe-horn" criteria into guidelines. --NE2 08:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of arguers for deletion here seem to be against WP:N in general, not just this template. The template just cites the primary criteria of WP:N. It's not a good idea to have a set of sub-guidelines which contradict WP:N. The sub-guidelines should adhere to whatever consensus is reached on the WP:N talk page regarding the primary criteria. WP:N represents the views of wider group of wikipedia users than each of the sub-guidelines. Epbr123 09:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/userfy/mark as rejected/protect blank/etc.. "Primary notability criterion" is an oxymoron. Content is either verifiable or it isn't.
  1. Lack of content (such that an article cannot be expanded) is a legitimate reason to merge.
  2. Lack of sources (such that the content cannot be verified) is a legitimate reason to delete.
Please do not confuse or conflate these two concepts ever again. — CharlotteWebb 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument against the notability sub-guidelines, not this template and WP:N. It's the sub-guidelines that are coming up with the secondary criteria. A purpose of the template is to remind the readers of the sub-guidelines that articles need to be verifiable as well as needing to pass the sub-guidelines' secondary criteria. Epbr123 13:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A template that is intended to be used on multiple sub guidelines that creates this much controversy in it's first few days of life obviously does not have consensus and so is not appropriate as it creates problems as outlined above by many others. Might I suggest that you first attempt to get consensus for a {{Nutshell}} on the Notability guideline then talk about moving that statement out to the child pages. Jeepday 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The nutshell idea is a good one. The problem is that without something like the template to stir things up, it doesn't seem like people from the sub guidelines were participating in the discussion at the Notability guideline. So you could create a nutshell that everyone at WP:N likes, but when you start "moving that statement out to the child pages" it'll get rejected again. PubliusFL 15:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Saying that the template stirred up debate is irrelevant to deciding whether to keep it or not. There are plenty of ways to stir up debate, mainly by, I dunno, engaging in discussion with people. If debate needs more encouragement, it's easily doable, we don't need this template to do it for us. Mangojuicetalk 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like the nutshell as an alternative approach if it can be used to create consistency among the notability sub-pages. In fact it is probably more visible. However, it seems that a nutshell should summarize a page, thus each would have to be different, unless the nut shell included a template text plus specifics pertinent to the page. I will have to agree with Publius that the objections are not to the form of the continuity, but rather to the continuity itself. --Kevin Murray 10:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A substantial amount of the discussion is about the content of the template, rather than the concept of attaining continuity among the various guidelines. Other participants have alluded to an "ownership" of particular guidelines by the developers. I think that we are on a dangerous course as we continue to develop more and more conflicting guidelines and each becomes the domain of a special interest group which is powerful enough to control policy in that corner of WP. --Kevin Murray 15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you care to back that up more strongly than pointing to WP:CREEP? I've heard a lot of talk about how bad it is to have different rules for different subjects, most of it based on calling them confusing. But I haven't seen a lot of (or really, any) significant confusion in real debates. And while we're at it, where do the guidelines conflict? Mangojuicetalk 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, any increase in a rule-set is inherently confusing, especially to the average person who is not familiar with an infrastructure and who is initially confronted with a wall of rules. The conflicts range from direct to subtle, and clear examples are abundant along the continuum from the Pillars to WP:N to BIO to PORN, specifically in contradictory restatements of the PNC, among other inconsistencies. And if unchecked there will likely be further well intentioned extensions until we are discussing the validity of WP:JAPANESE-SOFT-PORN as a “necessary guideline.” While I don’t strongly oppose any of the sub-guidelines on an individual basis, I am concerned that each addition is a precedent for the next and collectively it becomes a morass necessitating an infrastructure of interpreters, advocates, and arbiters, analogous to the legal profession in the real world. --Kevin Murray 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, your objection is basically restricted to it being WP:CREEP. Not that that isn't valid, it's just the way you talk, I get the impression you think that there is real confusion, as opposed to potentital for confusion. Mangojuicetalk 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that is first and foremost. I also think that there is redundancy if not conflict in purpose between Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes and many of the examples given at the sub-guidelines. In fact one of the arguments frequently given for the justification of a separate page is the examples section, which in my mind should be at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes. This was my first experience with the guidelines and there was much confusion between the older version of CORP and the Precedents page which evolved into the Common Outcomes page. Not to mention the utter confusion exhibited by the AfD nominator and several participants (that's a whole other topic). As an alternate solution to consistency, I would be happy with sub-pages that list very specific exceptions to or clarifications of WP:N, BIO, or ORG, without volumes of preamble, justification, and exhaustive examples of proper and improper applications. Just the facts! --Kevin Murray 20:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jeepday. SmokeyJoe 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template attempts to standardize and enforce as primary, a guideline (WP:N) that has not yet been accepted as primary. In some cases, other guidelines have been around for longer periods of time, have offered solutions to specific problems, and were not created to be secondary. It is a problem that we have not had a community-wide discussion regarding how various criteria are to relate to one another. This template does not offer a solution to that problem although it may have helped to start the conversation. -MrFizyx 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can we keep the conversation going? And, should there be a centralized determination regarding the existence and content of the various criteria? --Kevin Murray 15:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I admire your commitment but, I don't have any easy answers for you. Perhaps an invitation to editors of all the various guidelines to an open discussion as to how various existing criteria should relate might help to build consensus. Can one guideline be considered "primary"? If so, what does that mean for the others? Simply because a group of editors decides to call their favorite guideline primary does not make it so. Then agian, this might just result in more bickering and nobody getting anywhere. If you were to try this, I'd suggest setting up a fresh venue for this (not WT:N) and make it clear that you would like any consensus reached to apply to all of the guidelines. -MrFizyx 19:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The idea behind this template is a good one, but it goes against standard practice to use a template for a key component of a policy. This method of inclusion makes it difficult/confusing for one to edit that part of the policy. Perhaps some hidden text asking a editing user to also edit corresponding pages would be sufficient? --24fan24 (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural question/statement In an effort to stimulate this debate I invited a broad range of editors who have been involved in discussions tangential to this topic to join in. This includes: all people who made material contributions to the talk pages for WP:N and the other guideline pages where the template was inserted and debated. Whether they agreed with me or not. The criterion was to go back to the beginning of March but I did not invite people who had not been involved in discussions but had left procedural questions at the pages. Probably more of these people have voted against the template than for the template. This was not an effort to bias the discussion, but an effort to broaden the participation, both in this debate and the broader discussion. I am making this statement because my methods have been criticized and I want my methodology to be transparent to the group. A standard message was cut and pasted to the invitees’ talk page. I also did not send invitations to people who had already commented.
Furthermore, I have discussed this TfD with editors on their talk pages inviting them to reconsider their positions. Again I don’t see this as a violation of procedures, but my actions have been criticized. --Kevin Murray 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. A template like this could save us a lot of headache and wasted effort, and reduce the load on AfD. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kevin, I think your sending around information was good, because of the confused nature of the discussion of this subject. It may have been an unusual step, but I think in the circumstances it was reasonable and justified. My opinion on the template,however, is that--regardless of wording--it would establish a premature consensus on a subject where there is no consensus at all. as or the specific wording, there is clearly no consensus over it either. I agree to some extent with Samsara, that it would simplify discussions if the matter were decided in some arbitrary way--but I nonetheless don't think that's a good way to work. In a sense, it's the age-old conflict between anarchy and absolute rule, & Hobbes would have approved your approach. DGG 22:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boy are you hitting the nails squarely on their heads, especially with the last comment. I'm inclined to follow the many suggestions here that we start over trying to build consensus from the top and the bottom, and that the many hard hours of work will be worth the reward. --Kevin Murray 23:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(DGG already !voted above.) Mangojuicetalk 15:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There should be a basic cornerstone concept of notability, perhaps narrower than what is currently in the template, that cuts across the various guidelines. This template is the best method I have seen yet for trying to determine what that cornerstone concept is. Perhaps the process was backwards, but we are here now and I think we need to keep struggling with it until we get something that works.--Kubigula (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Template:pnc&oldid=1084289862"