Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Notability/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Forgotten Realms

I still owe you a summary of feedback for the per-project listings; but there's one particular situation with which I would like to bother you right away.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms is currently inactive. Most of its 61 articles are flagged for notability, and would be clear deletion candidates in my point of view. After some discussion with User:Fw190a8 [1], I am searching for a consistent solution for that project. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms/Closure for details, and please leave your comment there. This topic seems controversial in many respects, so wide input is requested.

I'm not sure whether this is a special situation or happens more often; let's handle it as a special case for the moment. --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes to notability template/better categorisation of articles

Discussion at Template_talk:Notability#More specific categorisation?. Paulbrock (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on per-project listings

In the meantime, the next data update for the per-project listings has been uploaded (snapshot of May 24), and on that occasion I would like to give you a summary on the reactions so far.

I received a number of replies on my talk page, most of them positive. Several projects have in fact invested a lot of effort and cleaned up a good part of their backlog, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine, just to name some. In other places, there has been less improvement, in particular (understandably) with the largest part of the list, the biographies. Interestingly, some projects have begun to tag a lot of articles for notability, in particular Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland. (However I presume they will be sorting out those in the near future.)

I have received a special request by Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth: They are currently in the process of merging a lot of articles, and ask us not to nominate them for deletion in the meantime. Since these articles are mostly on the October 2007 backlog, I think that won't be a problem at this time.

Since these listings were in a way quite successful, I have begun to offer per-project listings also for other maintenance categories; see User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings.

Of course, there still remains the problem that about half of the articles are not assigned to any project. But still, at least for the more remote parts of the backlog, adding a project banner can be an option if an article cannot be sorted immediately. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library

Please consider publicizing on the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability the categories at Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability tags on articles that survive AfD

Should {{notability}} tags be removed from articles that survive AfD (we can assume that the topic has been found to be notable) even if the article is not improved to the extent that notability is actually proven in the article? If sources are found and listed in the AfD, one can just incorporate the sources into the article and then remove the notability tag. However, if no sources are offered in the AfD, or if the sources are in a language other than English, what is the best course of action?

The article that prompted my question is Hiroko Mita (AFD); the person seems to be notable, but most or all sources seem to be in Japanese. Anyone with knowledge of the language could improve the article by adding sources, but the question is whether the notability tag should remain on the article until that actually happens. Perhaps the tag should be replaced with {{refimprove}}? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, remove the tags, where an article survived AFD with a resounding keep. But Hiroko Mita was closed with no consensus, which is just a kind of "keep for now and lets see how this pans out in the future" kind of decision. Although no consensus defaults to keep, I would not say that that establishes notability so there's no problem with the tags remaining in the interim. DWaterson (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In these "no consensus" cases, where the article is not deleted but notability isn't properly established either, I usually reset the date counter of the notability tag. The article can then be re-evaluated later. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So, keep the tag and reset the date if it's a "no consensus" outcome. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this podcast notable enough to be written up?

I've gone through one guideline after another and I'm hardly any closer to determining if SpaceVidcast is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about it. It has had guests like John D. Carmack, Ken Davidian (Program Manager, NASA Centennial Challenges), William Pomerantz (Director, X-Prize Space Projects), Blair Allen (NASA Edge co-host), teams competing for both the Google Lunar X-Prize or the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge X-Prize take part in the web-cast as guests. A local TV program called Twin Cities Live did a segment about SpaceVidcast where it interviewed the hosts. The Star Tribune did an article about SpaceVidcast as well. The hosts were also guests on Flak Radio. I will be grateful for any help you can offer. Thank you.U5K0 (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability progress

If anyone is interested, the {{Template:Notability progress}} could use someone to take charge and make regular monthly updates. Thanks! --Stormbay (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to, and ran into strange problems - the graphics was displayed only partially or not at all. It seems that this is a known bug [2]. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! --Stormbay (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's updated now. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability of residential colleges

A RFC has been submitted on the best way to deal with the existence of many Wikipedia articles on residence halls and dormitories at colleges and universities that may not be notable. The input and feedback of members of this project would be appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Two things I didn't know

1. There is a WikiProject that focuses on notability issues.
2. There is a noticeboard for notability issues.

There seems to be significant overlap in scope between this project talk page and the still-born WP:Notability/Noticeboard. I think two issues need addressing:

• Can this project be made more active / better known?
• Given the current level of activity, should WP:Notability/Noticeboard really exist?

--Hans Adler (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Review of Save Indian Family

In case anyone is interested I made a post here requesting a review of the article Save Indian Family in regard to WP:N and WP:ORG--Cailil ^talk 17:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Notability progress

It is now possible for Template:Notability progress to be constantly up-to-date, subject to various purely technical limitations, by transcluding {{progress box}} directly in the template. Based on discussion here, I would like to ask which option is preferred by those who use the template the most:

1. This format, which uses {{progress box}}, is self-updating, and requires no additional time from editors; or
2. This format, which must be updated manually and requires about 3–4 minutes for every update. It used to be quite a bit more (about 6–10 minutes) due to the need to open and check the count of pages in each monthly category, but the existence of {{progress box}} now removes that need.

Thank you, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The former, of course, unless there are any pressing concerns from techies about this implementation. ThemFromSpace 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth (and I forgot to mention this initially), now that the update time has been cut drastically due to the existence of {{progress box}}, I would be willing to manually update the template on a fairly regular basis (let's say twice a week...). Of course, since I don't use the progress template as much as I used to, I would naturally defer to the opinions of those who do. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability question

I have a question for you notability experts. Would lists for the show Jeopardy! be considered notable? Specifically, List of Jeopardy! champions with over $50,000 in prizes (unsure on name, [3]), List of largest single-day Jeopardy! winnings ([4]), and lists for the Tournament of Champions and Teen/College championships? The show is quite notable and while few contestants are notable besides Ken Jennings it provides pretty significant EV on the show (even if most contestants are unlinked). Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note, the Championship lists already exist, they're just large, unsplit, bulky tables in the sub-articles. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Importance

The redirect "importance" which redirects to {{notability}} will be re-purposed soon. {{nn}} is the quick shortcut of course. Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Where Have All The People Gone

Not surprised to see that this project is inactive. Each day there are more notability tags added to articles than removed. Would love to see this project get back up and running. Currently going through the backlogs or unclear notability and either cleaning them up or sending them to AfD. Anyone still active here? If so, please let me know and we can revive what is here. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I joined a few days ago. Doesn't seem to be anyone else around though, and there's a steady flow of articles coming through. Wikipedia probably should try to alert editors (especially newbies) about the notability policies more so these articles we're having to process aren't even created. Jackc143 (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Notability at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

We need to revive this!

Because the founder is inactive and many other members are I propose that I become the chairman or project coordinator of this project. I would also like to form a task force to get rid of articles that have been tagged for over 5 years, focusing on the oldest articles. First we need to recruit new members because I would like to reduce the huge backlog we have and I believe that is a huge hinder on the Wikipedia community. If you have any suggestions or comments please feel free to message me or reply on here. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, User:JayJay, it puts editors off working on this because it seems like it's insurmountable. Thanks for volunteering and I'm happy to help in any way. There were a few ideas put forward before about what to do with those articles which have been tagged for more than 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, all entries at Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2008 are at AfD but not attracting responses. I think part of this is that those with the oldest tags are often those where it is hardest to work out their notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that too, using PROD could be another way. I frequently use PROD and most of the time they get deleted with no problem. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Progress August 2014

I'd welcome any comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Environmental Directory (2nd nomination). I took it to AfD earlier in the year, but it was closed because it attracted only one comment in two weeks. We also have only two articles left in Feb 2008 of CAT:NN, both at AfD, which it would be great if people commented on. I have worked through Feb, March and April 2008 and am not working on May 2008. There are lots from those months that have now been prodded or taken to AfD, and lots where their notability is clear and I have removed the tags. It would be great if we could get the backlog to less than six years - this would take a lot of work because the backlog at the moment is 6 years and 6 months. User:Why should I have a User Name?, you might be interested in joining the project if you haven't already. Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Only one now left of CAT:NN Feb 2008: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veriflora. Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choral Arts Ensemble of Portland‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artemis (contemporary artist) haven't attracted any comments (has been open for a week) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Becker will shortly be closed due to no comments (open nearly a month). Boleyn (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment

The goals of this wikiproject ought to include the creation of articles on notable topics. Either that, or the name of this wikiproject should be changed to reflect its actual purpose. James500 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Asteroids

There appear to be dozens of articles in CAT:NN Jan 2012 for asteroids, such as 15500 Anantpatel. To me, an asteroid seems notable, and I think most of them would met WP:GNG, although it might take someone with a lot of resources to prove it. What do others think of the notability of the article 15500 Anantpatel and asteroids in general? Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to ask someone from WP:AST on their opinion of the notability of these asteroids. Clarifying this would get rid of over 4,000 articles in that month alone. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Asteroids are covered by WP:NASTRO. This guideline mandates that non-notable asteroids be redirected to the list of minor planets. Accordingly, nominating asteroids for deletion is a complete waste of time. James500 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @JayJay:, I've contacted WP:Wikiproject Astronomy and WP:Wikiproject Astronomical objects. Thanks, @James500:, that is useful. I've not nominated any asteroid articles for deletion and have no plan to; 4000 articles in CAT:NN on the same issue is a huge amount. Hopefully, we can prove many of them to be notable and redirect as last resort. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Individual Engagement Grant Proposal - Automated Notability Detection

Hi, Everyone, I've posted an IEG proposal for a project to build a tool that will automatically determine whether or not an article is notable. The tool would produce a score that would be incorporated into some of the NPP/reviewing tools to help patrollers and reviewers make more informed, easier decisions. If this is something you're interested in, please come over and show your support, and let us know what you'd like to see in such a tool. Applications close September 30. Thanks, Bluma.Gelley (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Mark Banjavich

Hello, if anyone has a chance, can they look over this and comment either way? It looks like it may be closed as no consensus due to poor participation more than anything. Merry Christmas, Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC) And WP:Articles for deletion/Carlos Valdes (actor). Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Donal O'Mathuna

I'm trying to work through the articles which have been tagged for notability for seven years. I'm not sure about the one above, if anyone is able to join the discussion I'm initiating on the article's talk page. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

I think that's now all the pages that have been sitting there for seven years (Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2008 and Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from March 2008) de-tagged or at AfD/merge proposals, if anyone has the time to look at them. It means we're just under a 7 year-backlog - if only by a couple of days! Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Greek museums

There is a long list of articles, mainly of Greek museums, at User:Boleyn/List of museum articles tagged for notability. These have been tagged for notability for 7 years. I'd be grateful if anyone could help look them over. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking for Volunteers to help Notability Detection project

We're building a tool to help reviewers make better decisions, and we need your help! We're looking for volunteers to decide if article topics are notable or not. We'll use these decisions to train an automated classifier that will score new articles based on how notable it thinks they're likely to be.

If you're interested, please sign up here. We'll let you know as soon as we're ready for you to start. Comments and suggestions are very welcome! Bluma.Gelley (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Category move

Note the parent category is now Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability per WP:CfD. Rich Farmbrough, 10:38 24 September 2007 (GMT).

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Princess Leia, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Still active?

I am wondering if the project is still active. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As a dynamic project, it isn't particularly active, but there are still many people involved who would repond to the odd question here. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Beauty pageant winners

I am not sure if this is the best place to go, but it is the only place I could see to get a generalized outreach to those who might care about the general nature of notability guidelines. That seems to be the thrust of the discussion I am linking to. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RFC_on_creation_of_consensus_standard John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources for new page patrollers

There is a discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources intended to help new page patrollers evaluate an article subject's notability. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Centralizing information about sources. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Backlog at CAT:NN

Does anyone have any good ideas for getting the backlog down? There are now articles sat at CAT:NN for over 11 years. It's such an important aspect of Wikipedia. Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yikes. Hmmm, perhaps we could use categories or text search to compile lists of articles that are in CAT:NN and about some given topic, post at WikiProjects that relate to those topics, and try to enlist their help in assessing notability. The potential downside is that sometimes topical WikiProjects are accused of being more lenient on the notability of their pet topic then the community as a whole. That may just be the price to pay in order to get more helping hands... Alternatively, we can just declare it a good-old-fashioned backlog drive and try to enlist interested folks watching this page to help out. Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, user:Ajpolino, I've contacted the relevant Wikiprojects and we'll see if it makes a difference, it's well worth trying! Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried posting a slightly more detailed request at WP:MED. If that is met with any kind of success, I'll try a similar one at MILHIST. I'd guess those are the two most active topical WikiProjects? I'll try to think of other particularly active areas where we might be able to multiply our efforts by reaching out. Thanks for taking the lead on this! Ajpolino (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, user:Ajpolino. Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to co-ordinate a backlog drive, sending out invites etc.? I'm not sure we have enough people following this page (72 followers, 5 people who clicked on it in their watchlist and saw my comment above) and the issue should have a broad appeal. Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

New Research: Characterizing Existing Practices for Identifying and Mitigating Knowledge Gaps

Hi All,

My name is Jim Maddock, and I’m with a researcher at Northwestern University working on identifying missing content on Wikipedia. As a first step, we want to talk to members of Wikipedia’s editor community to better understand how editors currently identify and add missing content. Participants must be Wikipedia editors who speak English and will be compensated for their time.

For more details about our project, please refer to our project meta page. If you are interested in participating, please fill out this screener and consent form. Additionally, feel free to reach out to me at maddock@u.northwestern.edu if you have any thoughts and suggestions. Thanks!

Study Information

Study Title: Characterizing Existing Practices for Identifying and Mitigating Knowledge Gaps

PI: Darren Gergle

IRB Study #: STU00212033

Cheers, Jmads-nu (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on Notability essay on awards and medals

Essay: Wikipedia:Notability (awards and medals)

There were three recent AfDs ([5], [6], [7]) which were closed as no consensus and contained some controversial claims about "state awards are always notable". In addition one of these AfDs was cited by BD2412 as an example of a difficult close at a general AfD discussion.

I would like comments on this essay and improving it in order to help discussions at AfDs. Thank you.   // Timothy :: talk  01:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Laatekwei Hammond

Are there any editors experienced with GNG willing to take a look at this afd for a boxer? The article doesn't have a large number of lengthy references to examine so it wouldn't be very time consuming. – ².O.^Boxing 18:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The backlog is (very slowly) reducing!

Today CAT:NN has dipped below 65,000. The articles in the backlogs for Dec 2008, Jan and Feb 2009 are mainly at AfD, or have recently been to AfD (no consensus) and so need a bit of time before they can be re-assessed at AfD, but may benefit from an expert or very committed editor. It might be best for people to concentrate on March, April and May 2009 (I've worked halfway through March, so maybe someone else could adopt another month?) Comments at the AfDs much appreciated too, whether in favour or against deletion. Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Another 300 down! Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

In just over 3 weeks, we are 2000 down, an average of reducing by 83 a day. If this could be kept up at this rate, the backlog would be resolved within 2 years. There are also lots in the category that are now at AfD, so remain in the statistics but are hopefully being resolved :) Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been doing some on the oldest end of the cue. I never knew this existed. It was your note at wp:notability that let me know about it. North8000 (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

i, user:North8000, thanks for your work on this. It isn't well-publicised, I'm not sure if there are better/more far-reaching ways to publicise it? Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, you need folks that are fluent on wp:notability enough to decide what to do at the article and to feel comfortable deciding that. The notability page is a good place for that, maybe put a short notice in every few months. The perfect background for that is New Page Patrol because 90% of what that is about is wp:notability decisions. They might be a bit sensitive to recruiting there because they also have a a big backlog. But maybe there could be some synergy. At NPP about 50 people are doing all of the work, while I think 700 have the tool. Possibly a joint effort to coax the other into a higher level of activity.

On one other note, everyone is different. But for me the idea of working to reduce the 65,000 number just sounds frustrating, it's too big to see the results of my work. But trying to knock off the oldest months is fun and I can really see that I'm moving forward on something when there only a couple dozen in each month. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, user:North8000, I agree, doing New Page Patrol myself has really helped with my assessments here. I also agree about many people preferring months. In the 10 weeks since I first posted above, we've gone down by 5000 articles overall but also by 7 months - we were back to Dec 2008 and now it is June 2009 :) That's a significant change within 10 weeks. If there is anyone who knows how to add graphs for this info, that would certainly be motivating to me. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability lists by WikiProject

The listings by Wikiproject appear to be grossly out of date: a brief check of the WikiProject Cats section showed that none of the articles listed as having notability issues are still questionable, nor, for the most part, still included under that WikiProject. Given the number of redlinks I noticed in other sections, I suspect the entire thing is just as out-of-date. I suggest that this be rectified, because the listing could be very useful if it were accurate. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Currently we have just under 58,000 in the backlog, and going back 12 years 0 months. Almost all from Aug, Sept and Oct 2009's backlog are currently at AfD or prodded - if anyone has time, please see if you agree and join the AfD discussions. If anyone is interested in 'adopting' a month in the backlog and going through it, that could work. I am currently working through November 2009. Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I have now finished November 2009, and am starting on December 2009. Is anyone able to take on January 2010? Comments on the AfDs at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_topics_of_unclear_notability_from_September_2009 would help, as several are relisted due to lack of votes - comments either way. Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

We are down to a backlog of 11 years 11 months! If anyone has time to look at the last of the 2009 ones, vote in the AfDs or make decisions on the few not at AfD, that would be wonderful. I have finished going through up to the end of 2009, so there are a few I took no action on, and a lot where comments at AfDs will help avoid relisting. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello – I just got a pocket of time and have done A-C of January 2010. Hope that helps. – DarkGlow • 19:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I have also just done D–E. – DarkGlow • 14:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to see. It's now at a backlog of 57,300 and of 11 years and 9 months, so it is going down. Unfortunately, I am a bit despondant at the moment - editing much in this category results inevitably as being seen as a crazed deletionist, mainly because if I remove a tag, that isn't seen, but AfDs are. I'd forgotten how aggressive people can be on here so will step away for at least a while. I do think these articles, more than half of which ARE notable, really deserve not to have a 12 year wait for assessment and I hope the project develops so it can get down to a reasonable time. I've just never figured out a way to attract the number of editors needed, I think because the oldest ones are so tricky and no one wants the criticism that comes with taking articles to AfD regularly. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Boleyn: I hear you, and I hope you're ok. I've been so busy with work lately so I haven't had time to continue with the category sorting, but I'll have a look at some soon. Many editors can be so rude in AfDs. The best one is when they accuse you of being a poor editor with poor judgement just for putting an article they like up for AfD. They need to get a damn grip. – DarkGlow • 22:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Graph

I notice that Boleyn already brought this up back in September, but I'll start a new section in case that attracts a little more attention.

Could we have a graph showing the number of articles in Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability over time? One that looks like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart. That would be both informative and motivating. Does anyone know how to make it? Lennart97 (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Good timing! MusikAnimal recently filed a BRFA for a bot to do the same for Category:All articles lacking sources, and it seems he's interested in making it adaptable to other categories. Pinging him here so he knows there's interest. Also @Premeditated Chaos: in case she's interested in the same for Category:All orphaned articles. The bot is on a 3-week trial now. Ajpolino (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh yesss that would be super rad. There's a manual tracker on the category right now but I don't think it's been updated since (shamefully) last year. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Good timing indeed! We could create new bot tasks for each category, and go through a separate BRFA each time, but that seems silly. It's time we make a general purpose bot :) This will need some careful thought, and broader input. Let me brainstorm some ideas and I'll start a discussion somewhere, maybe at Wikipedia talk:Categorization or WP:VPT. I'll be sure to ping you all. Best, — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

BRFA filed. For the trial, we can start populating data for Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability and Category:All orphaned articles as requested here. @Lennart97 and Premeditated Chaos: are you okay with a weekly granularity (meaning, the bot will update the chart once a week)? Your other options are "daily" and "monthly".

By the way, I just discovered Template:CatTrack which works very similarly (example). I'm assuming the desire is still for charts to be visible on-wiki, so the new bot task is still valid. It looks like CatTrack populates data twice monthly, so you'll probably want weekly granularity to be on-par with what it has. What's nice is we can migrate over all the historical data to the new system, too. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Awesome, thanks for keeping us updated! I think weekly should do fine. Lennart97 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Weekly works for me, but if monthly is easier or requires less maintenance that's also fine! (Daily would be too granular, I think) Thanks again for doing this :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, has a graph been started, is it still a possiblity? We have dipped below 58,000 but are about to go over 12 years for the backlog. I am keen to help with anything to get this down. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Boleyn: The graph is here: {{Articles with topics of unclear notability chart}}, and can also be found at Category talk:All articles with topics of unclear notability. I guess it's good to see that despite the seeming futility of the task, that line is continuously going down. Lennart97 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed refactoring of geographic feature notability

We are discussing a proposal to refactor the guidelines for geographic feature notability. Please feel free to join in the discussion of this proposal. — hike395 (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Cat:NN" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cat:NN has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24 § Cat:NN until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Cat:NN" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cat:NN has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17 § Cat:NN until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Cat:nn also being discussed too. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)