Template talk:Notability

I've come up with an idea

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

This is what the text on the fix currently reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the point of this template?

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

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

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

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

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

Template-protected edit request on 18 January 2026: semantic markup

Don't use <strong>, use bold instead '''. Effectively, undo revision 1022858349 by Bsherr. This renders the same (in bold), but changes the semantic HTML.

This is partly for consistency with other cleanup templates like {{More citations needed}} (which has an order of magnitude more usages and uses bold not strong), and partly for semantics: strong is for emphasis (think emphasizing each word if you speak it out loud), while bold is for skimmability (visually), at least IMHO.

— W.andrea (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

partly for semantics: strong is for emphasis (think emphasizing each word if you speak it out loud), while bold is for skimmability (visually), at least IMHO., I feel like that is a argument for retaining strong? Sohom (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess it could be, but emphasizing 7 words seems like a lot. I normally see strong used on only a word or two — more is only if it's vitally important that the reader understand. — W.andrea (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

If it isn't for emphasizing or importance, then what is the bold usage here for? We don't bold random words on en.wiki, so if it shouldn't be in bold, it should be removed. Your argument for semantic HTML is the exact opposite to your request. Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

then what is the bold usage here for?

I already addressed this: "bold is for skimmability (visually), at least IMHO."

We don't bold random words

That's absolutely not what I'm saying.

Your argument for semantic HTML is the exact opposite to your request.

No, we have different interpretations of the semantics.

I'm sensing some hostility here. Please try to engage with what people are saying before replying, please and thanks. — W.andrea (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before creating an edit request. Please refer to the HTML5 documentation for an explanation of when the strong tag should be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 Why do I need consensus for a simple formatting change? Isn't the point about consistency enough? I'm aware of how the strong tag should be used. — W.andrea (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

For reference, the lighter version of the above link: Text-level semantics — W.andrea (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You need consensus because people on this talk page disagree with your opinion. Edit requests are for uncontroversial changes. I have seen multiple similar templates changed from bold markup to strong markup to comply with the HTML spec. I am not convinced that doing the opposite here makes sense. Asking a general question at a MOS talk page about the use of strong versus bold in maintenance templates might be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

What, Sohom? I didn't take that as disagreeing, more like asking for clarification, but I can see what you mean.

I have seen multiple similar templates changed

Could you give an example? Thanks. — W.andrea (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

"Template:Un-encyclopedic" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Un-encyclopedic 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/2026 June 22 § Template:Not encyclopaedic until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)