Phil Sandifer wrote:
It's tough to say, mostly because I have trouble conceiving of notability as a linear thing.
Yeah. That's probably because it isn't. :-)
But I'd say -2/2 is a good bet, and we can peak out around -4/4. I'll also note, that gap has been expanding, and if you go all the way out to where notability tagging is happening you get solidly out to the -4/4, -5/5 range. ([[Timothy Noah]] and [[Oni Press]] being two recent egregious examples of bad notability tagging.) Obviously notability tagging is a less destructive practice than deletion, but it does still fall into the larger problem of making our criteria look byzantine and impenetrable
- in fact, possibly even moreso, as a notability tag stays visible
for longer than five days.
Yep. That's a hard one. The tagger in question looks curious to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/REtwW
That tag was his third edit, made an entire eight minutes after joining. That's pretty unusual for an actual newbie, but I don't see anything that makes me think malice is involved.
Setting aside the painful topic of notability, is this a sign that we could use a different division between what restaurants call "front of house" and "back of house"? I'm looking at the various maintenance templates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_templates
Some are important warnings that really belong at the top of pages, either because they are about unreliable content or because it's only fair to let people know that an article might be axed.
Putting them all at the top of an article made sense early on, when the ratio of editors to readers was higher. But at some point, wouldn't we want to hide more of the plumbing where the average reader never sees it unless the go looking?
William