Ian Woollard wrote:
On 24/11/2007, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
But notability and verifiability are, sadly, not synonymous in
their usage on Wikipedia. I think they should be
but therein lies the
great conflict of our time.
No, I absolutely don't think so. Just because something is verifiably true,
doesn't mean it should go in the wikipedia. Plenty of things are
unencyclopedic.
But you're not me, and therefore can have different opinions. Hence the
conflict.
Even accepting that "notability" is going to
be with us for the
forseeable future, though, I think it's a bad
idea to be applying it
widely on a sub-article level. We want our biography articles to contain
peoples' dates of birth, for example, but in very few cases is that date
of birth a "notable" fact. Simply a verifiable one.
On the contrary, I find that it's a notable fact if somebody significant
noted it, and that usually happens with a birthdate if the biography is that
of a significant person.
I see extremely few citations for birthdates in Wikipedia. They usually
only show up when some pedant is using WP:V as a blunt instrument for
other reasons, or in a few rare cases when there actually is some sort
of significance to the person's birth date.