Wikipedia talk:It should be noted

It should be noted that clicking the link for the search on the project page for "it should be noted" returns the results "Results 1 - 20 of 6,845 for 'It should be noted'." Wow. Incidentally, I originally saw this essay on a funny user subpage years ago, but I don't recall where; I wonder if it could be located. Шизомби (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

All together unhelpful comment

I think this might be my favourite Wikipedia essay. That is all. Steve Smith (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

@Steve Smith: It should be noted that I second this unhelpful comment from nearly a half decade ago. Lizard (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: It should be pointed out that your seconding of that comment has been duly noted (as it should). ~Amatulić (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Lizard the Wizard, I second this unhelpful reply from nearly a half decade ago to an unhelpful comment from nearly two half decades ago. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 17:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, the joke is self-referential. It should be noted that my addition to this thread in no way suggests "it should be noted" should be noted, even when it's notable. Just a suggestion. × SOTO (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Far too broad reaching

The essay seems to me to be based on the assumption that all instances of these terms fit a single pattern without any thought as to whether there are times when they are justified. I'll admit that these terms are overused, but mere overuse does not equate to the need for a general guideline against them.

"It should be noted..." and friends are useful writer's constructs to emphasise points that may have only received implicit coverage at best and at the same time separate it from the earlier material.

Consider the following entirely made-up example:

The bridge is free to cross for pedestrians. Tolls are levied at the rate of £1 for motorcycles, £2.50 for cars, and £8 for other vehicles.

On the surface of it that seems clear, but how much are pedal cyclists charged? If this is to be believed they would be charged the full £8 as an other vehicle. That intuitively does not sound correct. If there is a specific charge for cyclists (or they are free) that should be included in list and no problem arises. The problem arises when what is implicitly stated is correct, in which case purely for the sake of clarity it is best stated explicitly:

The bridge is free to cross for pedestrians. Tolls are levied at the rate of £1 for motorcycles, £2.50 for cars, and £8 for other vehicles. Pedal cycles are not specifically covered in the table of charges and therefore attract the full other vehicle rate.

This is clear but there is now a subtle new implication made: the list of charges is basically a verbatim listing of what the bridge operator says, and combining this material with more advisory content implies this is a very deliberate decision on the part of the operator. It may have simply been an oversight. Using "it should be noted..." creates an additional kind of grammatical fence separating the two and avoids that implication:

The bridge is free to cross for pedestrians. Tolls are levied at the rate of £1 for motorcycles, £2.50 for cars, and £8 for other vehicles. It should be noted that pedal cycles are not specifically covered in the table of charges and therefore attract the full other vehicle rate.

Crispmuncher (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no such implication in the second version without "it should be noted." You have successfully used language to delineate what portion of the paragraph suggests a deliberate decison ("tolls are levied") and what is oversight ("not specifically covered"). The problem you suggest would only arise if the paragraph had been constructed poorly, e.g:

The bridge is free to cross for pedestrians. Tolls are levied at the rate of £1 for motorcycles, £2.50 for cars, and £8 for other vehicles, including pedal cycles.

In this case, the writer has merged verbatim and advisory language, conflating the two. Separating out the noteworthy information by noting it directly successfully distinguishes between the two.--64.81.57.93 (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia is subject to the occasional exception. However, it should be noted that this essay is quite sound. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Article, There are known knowns,(famous press statement of 2002) , raises somes thoughts.Need to be mindful of target audience? SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd Like to Thank the Academy

Award recipients routinely as an English (American English) idiom thank the bestower of the award by saying "I'd like to thank...."

I thought that should be noted in the context of the above.

Airline flight attendants use this phrase all the time and it's become a pet peeve. "We'd like to thank you for flying...." Come on, just say "Thank you for flying...". I thought this "should be noted" too . ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"I really want to apologize for ...." "Well?" "Well, what?" "You said you wanted to apologize. I'm waiting for your apology." 205.251.79.68 (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

§ Data

The counts of occurrences of each deprecated phrase are misleading because they are not normalized to the size of Wikipedia at those two points in time. I would attmept to fix, but I'm not sure how to rec-count those phrases or where to locate the appropriate historical data. —Theodore Kloba (☎) 13:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Contrast with "It has been noted".

An editor has asserted that based on this policy it is improper to say "It has been noted" followed by a quote from a reliable source wherein the assertion at issue has indeed been noted. I pointed out that this policy is not at all addressed to such statements of fact, rather than opinion, but I would propose to add a line to the page to make it clear that it is permissible to say that something "has been noted" where it has, in fact, been noted in a cited reliable source. BD2412 T 06:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Dissent regarding "it should be noted"

I decided to check published encyclopedias on Google Books, as well as do searches in britannica.com, plato.stanford.edu, encyclopedia.com, and eol.org.

The word "you", and phrases in the imperative such as "note that", really are basically absent from these sources. (The SEP was an outlier regarding "note that", since it featured it many times, but mostly in endnotes.)

But the phrase "it should be noted" is found multiple times throughout many encyclopedias. Therefore, it is encyclopedic tone. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)