Template talk:Notability

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)

Requested change to text for Academic

The current text displayed for academics does not represent the contents of WP:ACADEMIC accurately, with too much emphasis on general criteria and not on the specifics for this subclass. Based upon a discussion at WT:NPROF#The academic notability tag is very poor there is a concensus in favor of a change to:

The person described in this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. Please help to demonstrate their notability by citing reliable sources that demonstrate that they qualify via one or more of the eight criteria for academic notability. Major awards must be confirmed, and claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

Courtesy ping of @David Eppstein, Asilvering, Tryptofish, and Russ Woodroofe: Ldm1954 (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support, with the clarification that this text would only be invoked when the 1= parameter is set to academics or prof (assuming that's feasible). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Support given the unique nature of NPROF compared yo other SNGs. Masem (t) 22:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree this would be a good idea if feasible. (Also, I've added an "and" in there.) In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I am fine with the "and". Ldm1954 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

As described above, change the template for academic notability (i.e. when the 1= parameter is set to academics or prof) to read:

The person described in this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. Please help to demonstrate their notability by citing reliable sources that demonstrate that they qualify via one or more of the eight criteria for academic notability. Major awards must be confirmed, and claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I just looked at the template code and this is not a simple adjustment - entirely doable but assuming this is agreed by consensus, whoever does it, please start with a sandbox version and let's make sure that works (or even now, while this poll is going on, work on the sandbox to make sure it works) Masem (t) 00:00, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

N.B., there was an earlier poll as well at WT:NPROF#The academic notability tag is very poor. This version is from the concensus there (except for an "and" wordsmith). Ldm1954 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first. See WP:TESTCASES. Not really clear what change you want made. The sandbox and template are currently identical. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08, I cannot edit the sandbox, I do not know how to edit a template, I do not have the programming skills for that.

The change is that with notability/academic it should show the text given. This is a concensus improvement. This needs an experienced template editor, perhaps @Masem? Ldm1954 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @David Eppstein, Asilvering, Tryptofish, and Russ Woodroofe: in case one of them is a template coder. For completeness, the (fortran) pseudo-code would be something like

If (var1.eq.'academic'.or.var1.eq.'prof')then

write(output,1)

1 format("The person described in this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. Please help to demonstrate their...")

else(...) Ldm1954 (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Right now, the template code is set up like a mad lib - depending on which SNG is named as a parameter, it fills in two separate blanks with the proper phrasing and links but the same fundamental message (which in the template, is what populates the "|fix" line). To change the message wholesale, the "|fix" line would need to be set up to switch to the alternative language for PROF if called that way, but that's complicated by additional switch callouts (eg to give different language for draft and mainspace articles, for example) which I do not immediately see how can be easily done Masem (t) 11:14, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I am reluctant to ask Claude (AI) to create a draft, but that would be the best that I could do. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be better to ask for assistance at Village Pump Technical. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I posted there a request that someone edits the template sandbox Ldm1954 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Ldm1954, I have prototyped this with the least invasive/messy changes that I could think of. It loses a couple words that you wanted ("the person described in this article" is still "the topic of this article"), but has the rest. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I like it. A grammarian might be uncomfortable about the use of "topic" for a human, but since that (I assume) avoids having to add another switch it is OK with me. I will reinstate the request. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I've slightly reworded it to avoid a duplicated word in the same sentence ("demonstrate") and make the sentence clearer. Also, grammarians will be less annoyed because the notice no longer refers to "the topic" as "they" after my edit. FaviFake (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I am OK with the edit, with the exception of the "or more". As I have experience with reverse-coding if I see what people are doing, I boldly added that back in. It is deliberately being a bit more vague/general, as there are cases where academics have passed at AfD when they don't really meet one of the eight criteria alone, but 80+% pass two or more. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

N.B., I will add below the current and new versions so visitors can see. (What is shown will of course change if/when the revision comes into effect.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks! FaviFake (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me, so I support this. One point that I'm too ignorant about coding to be able to figure out for myself: it's important that this version be invoked when the "1=" parameter is set to either 1=academics or 1=prof. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

It is, I just checked (test {{Notability/sandbox|1=prof}} in your sandbox) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. these three are all aliases:

• prof
• notability (academics)
• academic

FaviFake (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit request

Replace the current version of the template with the sandbox version per consensus in the section above. FaviFake (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:09, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 September 2026

Sync one tiny simplification from the sandbox (diff): having |TV and |tv in the switch statements is unnecessary because the argument is passed through {{lc: beforehand. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Pppery: It seems to be causing Multiline table in list lint errors. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. This was mostly due to pages that used this template when they meant to mention it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:41, 18 September 2026 (UTC)