Template talk:List criteria

Bad interpretation of "notable"

The template says: The incident is notable (has a stand-alone article), and then links to Wikipedia:Stand-alone list and Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, as well as the discussion, but none of the list criteria say that establishing notability is just only about having a Wikipedia article. In fact, WP:CSC says notable red links are allowed. See Template:List entries are all notable for a good example. Establishing a list based on "Wikipedia articles only" violates WP:SELFREF, WP:CIRCULAR, MOS:OVERLINK, and is not encyclopedic since it doesn't allow other notable entries such as redlinks, redirects, or other plain black text notable mentions. We need to redefine that "the incident is notable" doesn't mean "has an article". Otherwise, the template is out of line with guidance. Huggums537 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read it again. In your first sentence you state a mistaken factoid, i.e., that the template says "The incident is notable (has a stand-alone article)." Read it again please. Yeah, those words are present, but but....... BUT....... those words are preceded by "example". If eds decide to use existing Wikipedia articles as a measure of notability, great! That consensus can be documented via this template. On the other hand, eds could instead agree to use the notion of meriting their own Wikipedia article, as opposed to actually having one. All that said, the bottom line is that you are criticizing an example as though it were a overall dictate for every situation, which is not the case. Thus I see no problem needing fixing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, NAEG thanks for responding. I believe you have the mistaken factoid since the usage of the wording "example" only exists on the template documentation for purposes of illustration, but actual usage of the template reads as: To be included on this stand-alone list, each entry should meet the following list criteria (see discussion): (1) The incident is notable (has a stand-alone article), and (2) the consensus of WP:RSes describe the incident as "terrorism". [That usage only appears on terrorist related pages.] That means the actual requirement isn't read as just an example on the roughly 290 items that use the template. Huggums537 (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I think I see your point. It isn't the template I should be concerned with, it is only on the list criteria for List of terrorist incidents. All the other items [subjects] use proper criteria. Thanks for sorting this out for me. I'll transfer my complaint to that talk page. Huggums537 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I see the problem is on all pages related to terrorist incidents. It will be unreasonable to post a message on all those talk pages. Perhaps I should seek a wider venue? Huggums537 (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, I still have a complaint with the template. This is a terrible example that promotes what I see as not within guidance, and also not representative of what the majority of subjects use the template for, so I suggest a better example to be used. Huggums537 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to suggest better wording? I don't find it as problematic as you do, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved, and if you can reword it in a way that solves the problems you see and is at least equally good, I don't see why we couldn't change it. Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Great. I have the perfect example in mind. There is a current discussion for a great example under way at Talk:List of 2022 albums#List criteria - Consensus, and I plan to use that discussion and example as the new one for this template after discussion is complete. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Updated new example. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)