Wikipedia talk:Relevance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Father Goose (talk | contribs) at 08:22, 23 July 2007 (→‎Short review of "the minimal" by Father Goose: going to revert for now, but I will think about how to lace our ideas together). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Further information: Help:Modifying and Creating policy, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep

Rationale for this proposed guideline

Recently, several thousand articles were tagged with Template:Trivia. Disputes broke out at both Template talk:Trivia and Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles over language to the effect of "remove trivia when it's irrelevant" because Wikipedia has no existing guidance on the subject of "relevance".

The page that existed here until now ([1]) was a placeholder, directing people to either WP:Notability or WP:Trivia. WP:NOT restricts certain limited classes of material; WP:Notability covers subjects or articles as a whole; and WP:Trivia says to remove irrelevant items. That's all Wikipedia has had to say on the subject of relevance until now.

Without a standard for "relevance", this battle is going to rage on indefinitely. So I've done my best to establish such a standard. I ask everyone to look it over, and I'm sure you'll be happy to tell me if it's wrong, wrong, wrong. --Father Goose 04:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think such clarification is long overdue. The trivia tagging and a long chain of events that led up to the previous discussions show the need for clarification of this subjective, yet important term. I don't see any problems with what you have written (although maybe I'm not looking hard enough ;p), but I think the specifics in what you wrote need to be fleshed out a bit more. --Android Mouse 05:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, instruction creep must have its day. I'm betting on a final length of about 20 pages. ;) --Father Goose 05:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...with the talk page reaching over 100 :p --Android Mouse 05:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been too much criticism against this article, even if much of it has been valid. I would just point out that I am very happy with the attempt of this kind of guideline. It is much more needed than the fuzzy trivia guidelines. However, I also see that much more work is needed before it is good. Specifically, I am not too happy with all the examples. Examples are good, but they take space and attention from the important bits. I do not know if it would be a good idea to add an "examples" section or perhaps a separate page, where this page could point? Mlewan 17:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this meet a need?

Some of these points are stated more clearly (comprehensibly and less ambiguously) and concisely (people might even finish reading it) on Wikipedia:Handling Trivia, particularly:

As currently written, this guideline seems vague and not practically helpful. The standards described should be named more clearly, and organized in a way that people could easily scan. Otherwise, this will tend to go unread.

Also, if I didn't know where the writer was coming from, I wouldn't understand much of this article. Parts seem to suggest very aggressive deletion; I don't think that's intentional, but I think the writer has specific ideas that aren't coming across. / edgarde 06:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia policies, guidelines and many other unrelated policies all rely on a specific definition of 'relevance'. Either those policies need to have added clarification or a central policy clarifying the term is needed. In the long run having a seperate policy for such a clarification I think will prove most useful, since the trivia policies/guidelines aren't the only ones that rely heavily on this term. --Android Mouse 06:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a degree of overlap between this proposal and what's at WP:HTRIVIA. HTRIVIA is more than twice as long, though, and in my view, not as concise. Its summary is quite concise, however. I probably should move my "three questions" at the top, though, and possibly provide a longer summary of them in that section. I would like a definition of the word "subject" early on, since the guideline relates content to subject, but I'll figure out a better place for it.
My problem with HTRIVIA is that its definitions of relevance are fairly circular, along the lines of "trivia is irrelevant is unimportant". The examples given there, and the "types of trivia" are comparable to what I used. But I'm not going for quickness, I'm going for precision. I wanted something that had at least a chance of being objectively applied, which is why I took the "three questions" approach. If you can't manage to fit trivia to one of the three questions, it's not relevant to the subject. (Then again, there may be relevant facts which the current "three questions" fail to catch, although I've evaluated hundreds of "test facts" and been reasonably satisfied.)
The definitions offered at HTRIVIA may read more plainly, but they also rely more on implicit interpretations, which dilutes their usefulness. Some stuff could probably be brought over from HTRIVIA, and there's no doubt what I've written could be further improved. But I really want to avoid talking about "trivia" on this page: ultimately it's just a label, very subjectively applied. I want this page to stick to "standards of relevance", and let WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA offer more detailed how-tos.
I too was surprised by how strongly this proposal seems to come out in favor of deletion. However, my earlier postings on WP:TRIVIA were mostly in opposition to excessive deletion (as I interpet it): I don't want the baby to go out with the bathwater. Since the language at WP:TRIVIA was open-ended, I felt it erred in the direction of excessive deletion, further compounded by how much easier it is to delete stuff than to integrate it. But I am a defender of babies, not of bathwater. It's my feeling this proposal manages to segregate them correctly.--Father Goose 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

(A) This is an essay not an actionable guideline. (B) It is not relevant to notability thus not appropriately included in the inclusion template. Otherwise it seems to be a reasonable assertion. --Kevin Murray 08:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(A) Good point. I made a small change which makes it actionable. This is not simply a "cheat" to slip under the bar; you should note how little action is specified by many Wikipedia guidelines and policies, such as WP:Notability itself. The rest of those guidelines are taken up with definitions and rationales, much like this one. However, if you continue to feel it fails to be actionable, I'll change it further to satisfy your concerns. It's quite critical that it be a guideline and not an essay, as without the (provisional) "stamp of community approval", it would be without use, much as Notability would be useless as an "essay".
(B) It's not about article inclusion, but it is about content inclusion. Nonetheless I accept your judgement in not pairing it with the Notability set.--Father Goose 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put my glasses on and read this projectpage through again, and gained valuable insight. Interesting dichotomies and rationales are set up, as an essay. WP:write an article (not self-referential) -- (WP:BOLD). These ideas are topical – unfortunately there seem to be plenty and more of guidelines to try to interpret already. That's my present thoughts, I will read the material again, thanks for providing. – User:Newbyguesses - Talk 16:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my comment, after further reading, work on this material is valuable. However, the more succinct archived version of the page seems adequate, and this material goes into detail which unfortunately bogs down: talking about toomuchtrivia is as involved and involving (not) as reading toomuchtrivia and bad typo's. (not a criticism of anyone) –Newbyguesses - Talk

Quoting here-

Indeed, instruction creep must have its day. I'm betting on a final length of about 20 pages. ;) --Father Goose 05:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...with the talk page reaching over 100 :p --Android Mouse 05:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End quotes---

Page one of this discussion, and counting! All this said here is meant in generous spirit, thanks for the work. &mdash: Newbyguesses - Talk 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misses the point.

I hope you don't mind some criticism, Father Goose. You've made a good try at defining what things should or should not be included in articles. However, I think you've missed the real point: that the purpose of articles is to serve the needs of the readers. That's all that needs to be said -- a simple statement that things should be included if they're likely to be more useful than not to the average reader, and excluded if they're likely to be a net time-waster to the average reader.

Trying to write a bunch of more specific rules doesn't work. You can't cover everything. There are so many different types of articles, different situations.

Let's take iron for example. There's a section, "applications", listing the uses of the metal iron. This is very appropriate information to include in this article (and incidentally, giving it as a list rather than in paragraph form is also very appropriate in this case).

But the uses of iron by human beings is not fundamental to iron. It has no significant impact on iron (considering the universe as a whole). It's not a defining trait of iron. It's just what humans happen to use iron for, and since it's humans reading this encyclopedia then that tends to be very interesting information to the readers.

So, your list of criteria won't work for that type of article.

I notice most of your examples are talking about articles about people. You would need a range of different types of examples.

I would prefer to just not have this as either a policy or a guideline. I don't think it's needed. The editors at each page decide by discussion among themselves what is or is not worth having at each article. For each topic, there's a different set of criteria. --Coppertwig 22:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two other things that need to be considered: article length, and volume of material written about a fact in the sources. Re article length: about some topics there isn't much you can say, so you say everything that's appropriate and then stop. But other topics are very broad, e.g. history of Africa. There's a tremendous amount that's relevant to the topic. Whole books can be written. So, you don't say everything that's relevant. You write a balanced article, with roughly equal-sized sections about roughly equally important aspects of the topic, and you include only the most relevant information in each section, pruning it so that it fits within a reasonable article length.
Re volume of material in the sources: if a fact is discussed a lot in the sources, then, well, it's notable. Individual facts don't have to be notable to be included, but if they are notable -- that's an indication that likely they should be included (if they fit within article length and other criteria). In that case, the sources are using their own criteria for deciding what to write about.
Besides, words like "fundamental" in the current policy don't really clarify anything much. One editor could say "this is fundamental" and another could say "no, it isn't" and you wouldn't get anywhere. I think people would be better off arguing about what to include without referring to this proposed guideline. --Coppertwig 12:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

examples (summary)

This is a (summary) of the examples provided currently on the projectpage, which ought to be preserved, (imho) here on the talkpage as well. They have served already as valuable stalking horses in the trivia hunt and could easily do so again, as discussion points.

Internet

Jet

Tom Cruise/Bugatti Veyron

John Bull

left-handedness

Belguim

Margaret Thatcher/crystallographer

Tommy Lee Jones/Harvard

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Bohemian Rhapsody/Queen

L.H.O.O.Q/Mona Lisa

Examples on the projectpage are exposed to the danger of becoming irrelevant over time through losing topicality; examples that are studied and considerered and merits discussed can, as I say, serve as valuable stalking-horses, and these have been very thoughtfully selected. — Newbyguesses - Talk 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell & opening section

[Inspired by Coppertwig "Misses the point." section, above] —WikiLen 20:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Proposed first paragraph] —WikiLen 20:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Notability

for guidelines regarding the relevance of articles or subjects as a whole.

Relevance is the last major policy to be formed in Wikipedia. This is not an accident. Relevance is integral to the task of editing a Wikipedia article and as such it transcends any attempt to codify it — as it should. There are some constraints, however, that editors must work within:

Relevance is the last major policy to be formed in Wikipedia. This is not an accident. The sensitive ear editors put to the task of relevancy transcends any attempt to codify it — as it should. Wikipedia is successful because of talented and dedicated editors! Only these constraints must be met:

  • Content must be about the topic of the article.
  • Article length must be reasonable.
  • The extent of an article's reach into minor details must be driven by what serves the readers.

These constraints leave most of the work on determining relevancy to the innate instincts of the editors and the give-and-take process of collaborative editing (with associated talk page discussions). At its heart, a fact is relevant for an article because one or more editors can convince other editors of its relevance — if asked to do so. Fortunately, relevancy is usually obvious. There are, however, pitfalls that editors fall into where the obviousness test fails due to the weight of one's passions. These are to be avoided:

  1. Do not put off-topic content into an article because its compelling nature argues it is relevant.
  2. Do not put content into an article on the reasoning that if it is not stored in Wikipedia it will be lost to the world.
  3. Do not put content into an article because it is so important that readers need to know about it even if there is no reliable source to be cited.

[End of proposed first paragraph.] —WikiLen 20:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying you were inspired by my comment! I like "serves the needs of readers". I wonder if there's a better wording for "centred on the topic of the article," because to me, an article should cover several subtopics each of which is not "centred" on the topic but overlap or surround it like the petals of a flower. Saying "centred" could justify deleting every section of an article except the introduction. I'm not sure if I can think of a better wording. "is closely tied to" "is relevant to" "is of importance to" "is closely connected with" "provides information about" "is the sort of thing readers searching for this topic would want to see" maybe someone can think of something better. --Coppertwig 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel the draft by WikiLen promises to be an effective approach. So far it can be condensed to "don't add irrelevant stuff to articles" and doesn't offer any kind of definition of relevance. If relevancy were obvious, then nothing would need to be said about it. It's obvious to me, and it's obvious to you, but if we compared notes, we'd probably find ourselves in disagreement about the relevancy of a lot of things. This is why I feel the approach I've been taking -- while still needing work -- is much better.
Father Goose, the work you and others have done is significant and valuable. The issues have obviously been well considered and I found it informative. thanks for the work. —WikiLen 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to the discussion, my draft does not condense to "don't add irrelevant stuff to articles". In claiming this you overlook or consider unimportant these points expressed in my draft: (1) Focus needs to be on serving the readers (2) Relevancy is rightly determined by the editors, not policy. (3) One's ability to discern relevance has affect components needing Policy attention. —WikiLen 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability lists several objective criteria against which to measure an article. These criteria represent a common ground (more or less) amongst Wikipedians. A similar approach should be adopted regarding relevance -- we should attempt to identify and specify that common ground using objective criteria, to the degree that that is possible. I won't pretend that pure objectivity is possible, but having agreed-upon criteria explicitly spelled out will allow editors to discuss specific points, instead of leaving things mired in the million arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
All right, I'm gonna keep whacking at this thing.--Father Goose 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Father Goose's comment, "If relevancy were obvious": 'The vast majority of relevancy seems to be obvious. Perhaps only 10% of content has a relevancy concern. Clearly value is to be had in making that 10% less contentious, however, the trick is how to do it without messing up the 90% that is working fine. It is for the sake of that 90%, that I believe relevancy is best left undefined. —WikiLen 08:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, my antidotal evidence suggests, the real challenge is on how to deal with editors whose passions have overridden their judgment. Arguments don't seem to deter these. Only the weight of other editors keeps them in line. A policy focused on defining relevancy will have little impact on these. The only thing with potential to help is a policy that gently, yet boldly, identifies the role passion has in blinding one to relevancy. —WikiLen 08:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If arguments don't deter passion, why would a guideline saying "don't let passion override your judgement" change the situation? Separately, I don't agree that perception of relevance is always a matter of misplaced passion: there are plenty of cases where it's nothing more than a difference of opinion. I've seen stuff deleted from articles that to my eyes had at least moderate relevance. I wasn't passionately attached to the deleted material (I didn't write it) and I don't believe the person deleting it had any particular hatred of it -- their threshold for "relevance" was set in a different place from mine, is all. That isn't a question of passion. It's a question of differing standards. I want to try to identify a common ground. I think I've made a good start of that. Nobody's actually said that the criteria I came up with were "dead wrong" just yet -- although CopperTwig correctly pointed out an important omission.
Do you disagree with the criteria I suggested? Are they wrong? If so, how?--Father Goose 21:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've had a little time to cool off. I admit, I am bothered by what seems to be a plan to replace my proposal wholesale. I would like something more than to be told "the work you have done is significant and valuable" then watch it get swept aside for someone else's preferred approach. If this is not actually what is happening, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.
Now, I do not insist that my approach will prove to be the right one. But I would like it to be given the courtesy of an in situ evaluation on its merits (or lack thereof). I did put a lot of work and thought into it and plan to continue working hard on it. I am receptive to others' views on it, even negative ones. If it's really the wrong approach, it won't gain consensus and it'll die on the vine. I'll mourn it, but I won't oppose other approaches if my approach fails. But for now, if you have problems with my proposal, I ask that you express them. Give me a chance to address them. Please don't undercut my work -- critique it, demolish it, edit it (it may be my brainchild but it is not my possession), but please don't push it aside.--Father Goose 00:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the draft (above)

The input of a number of authors' ideas has resulted in an elegant draft being produced by User:WikiLen (fix that typo, --argues that it is relevant--[fixed —WikiLen]). This material, so far, is looking to be an improvement upon the archived page (link is above) - the one edited by 209.189.245.115 at 01:03, 23 February 2007. — (imho, I didnt write it). Other editors comments would need to be provided here on the talkpage so that consensus, under review of interested parties, is achieved. And resulting positive actions taken. My purpose is to read through again, and assess if this preference for the above draft is preserved in light of such comments as considered persons may care to make. – Newbyguesses - Talk 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing work

I've been reading the crticisms from the last several days, and I actually agree with most of them. I've been working on a revised draft to address them, although I've been busy this weekend, so it'll take a few more days. I'll summarize the criticisms I've seen so far which I agree with:

  • Needs to be more concise
  • Examples are too topical/anthropocentric and should possibly be separated from statements of principle
  • Relevance in comparison to length ("balance") should be addressed
  • At least one major criterion for relevance has been overlooked

--Father Goose 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: so far what's emerging is more coverage of "general principles", which was not mentioned in any critque yet, but it was admittedly lacking.--Father Goose 09:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

It may be a good idea to merge the ideas here with the already existent guidelines about trivia (WP:AVTRIV in particular). Trivia is by definition those bits that aren't "relevant", so the two are substantially overlapping. >Radiant< 12:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea. AVTRIVIA is a style guideline about trivia sections, and at this time says one thing — Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic — and explains how to handle such when it occurs. It's not a good place to begin defining either trivia or relevance. Perhaps the redirect from WP:TRIVIA (which probably led to the creation of this article) should be pointed to a future version of this article. / edgarde 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, we'll have to see what ends up on this page. Its content and even purpose is in flux, but as it matures it'll become clearer if it has any redundancy with WP:AVTRIV.--Father Goose 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the merge proposal tag. I don't necessarily oppose a merger in the future, but for now, a conversation completely specific to the "relevance" issue is worth having, without crowding the discussion with a guideline that has a different specific mission, albeit with some related issues.--Father Goose 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll find that it's far easier to amend an existing guideline than to start a new one. At any rate the talk page is big enough to discuss several things at once. >Radiant< 08:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll leave the tag in place, but here's the ideal place to talk about relevance, and I'd like to see what kind of consensus (if any) emerges on the subject before trying to shunt it onto a different page.--Father Goose 08:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the premise is flawed, there is no need, and the support is weak, no amount of time will justify acceptance. Proposals sometime linger and then confuse people. --Kevin Murray 13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like you're pronouncing it dead already. The work's only begun.--Father Goose 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, if you do feel the premise is flawed, I'd like to hear why.--Father Goose 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following the complete rewrite of the proposal, I've removed the merge tag. If you still feel it should be merged with WP:ATS, I'd like to hear some details as to how that merge would be accomplished.--Father Goose 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On policy verses guidance

I submit:

  • The proposal on the theme, "relevancy transcends attempts to codify" fits as a policy article.
  • The proposal on the theme, "useful questions to ask when evaluating relevance" fits as a guidance article.

Both can reinforce each other. —WikiLen 14:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how hard we try to get relevancy on paper (or ASCII), relevancy remains in the eye of the editor. Attempts to help the editor run the risk of creating nuances whose relevance we then struggle over — increasing the over-all editing load instead of reducing it. I propose we assist editors—on relevancy—in this form: (WikiLen)

  • At the policy article, promote that an editor's innate sensitivity is what is most important.
  • At the policy article, only have policy on:
    1. mechanical aspects (article size)
    2. pitfalls of misguided passion
    3. Boundary at macro level (must be about topic of article)
    4. Boundary at micro level (reach into details must be driven by what serves the reader)
  • At the guidelines article, teach editors how to discern relevance.
  • At the guidelines article, promote that there is no heavy hand of regulation — no one-size-fits-all.

The proposals mentioned above fit these criteria. —WikiLen 14:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with many of these points, although I don't anticipate we will end up getting a policy on relevance instead of (or in addition to) a guideline. It's my impression that policies need to demonstrate that they're necessary, not just sensible, in order to gain adoption. WP:Notability itself is a guideline, not a policy, for instance.
Good point. Perhaps I only dream, but I intend to make the case that both are necessary; an "official policy" that experienced editors can cite or quote in support reverting a bad edit and guidelines to educate editors — especially new editors — on the nuances of discerning relevance. —WikiLen 03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, I agree with the two-pronged approach you mention. The second draft, in progress, covers much more general ground, and I hope the two prongs can share one guideline comfortably. You'll have a lot more to sink your teeth into shortly, and maybe we can start jointly editing it at that point.--Father Goose 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to it — your second draft and the possibility of joint work... —WikiLen 03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

This current projectpage serves up some excellent examples of how information might be analysed as to whether it is relevant to a particular article or not. Therefore it would be at least a good guideline on the topic of relevance of information to articles on wikipedia. It could be called WP:guideline:REL or something, while it is worked out, or finally formulated. Instead of merging, the curent page WP:AVTRIV could be renamed WP:REL, since it begins, quite relevantly, with "Avoid making lists of unconnected items," and is quite relevant to RELavance, as a policy, which it already is. ---

Quoting a bit of the top post to this page -

The page that existed here until now ([1]) was a placeholder, directing people to either WP:Notability or WP:Trivia. WP:NOT restricts certain limited classes of material; WP:Notability covers subjects or articles as a whole; and WP:Trivia says to remove irrelevant items. That's all Wikipedia has had to say on the subject of relevance until now. Without a standard for "relevance", this battle is going to rage on indefinitely. So I've done my best to establish such a standard. I ask everyone to look it over, and I'm sure you'll be happy to tell me if it's wrong, wrong, wrong. --Father Goose 04:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ENDQUOTe

WP:NOT, WP:TRIV, - "That's all wikipedia has had to say " - Well, as policy, maybe that's quite enough. So, get this guideline up and functioning, and

Propose - rename the current policypage WP:ATSIA to policypage WP:REL ,Newbyguesses - Talk 03:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like there's some confusion over what a policy is versus a guideline. According to WP:POL they're both basically the same, but policies are "more official". AVTRIV is itself a guideline, and the primary advice it offers is "turn lists into prose", which isn't a relevance issue at all. Relevance is an issue to AVTRIV, but not the issue. Relevance is an issue that extends beyond the issue of trivia and especially beyond the issue of trivia sections. It's also an issue lacking any formally-stated consensus position on Wikipedia, which is why I've been working on this proposal.
At any rate, the revised draft's about halfway done, so we'll see how compatible the two guidelines seem as the work progresses.--Father Goose 04:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou user:Father Goose, for clearing that up, and it seems to me you expressed it right about policy, and guideline and "more official". Sorry if I had that wrong there. As to the QUote directly above, that statement too seems well put, and that's why it was quoted, Newbyguesses - Talk 05:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance 2.0

I apologize that the rewrite has been taking so long. Rounding out the proposal has, not surprisingly, taken a fair amount of work. I have made good progress this week, though, and I'd like to offer a preview of the work at User:Father Goose/Relevance. Keep in mind that that this draft is still incomplete and that the text may yet change substantially, but feel free to leave comments.--Father Goose 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2.0 draft is complete and has been moved to this page. Some discussion of the working draft took place at User talk:Father Goose/Relevance.--Father Goose 18:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of cultural references

Is there already a guideline for what can go in with the pretext that it is a cultural reference? I am thinking about things like "...appears in computer game this or that..." If there is no such guideline, I would like to propose something like this:


In any article, there may be a Cultural References section which mentions other stories (literature, film, theatre or other kinds) which make allusions to the subject of the current article.

This kind of references is only allowed if the other story is noteworthy and likely to remain noteworthy.
This kind of references is only allowed if the article subject is important for the other story.

Examples for a Cultural References section in the article about roses:

  • One can mention Robert Burn's poem "A red, red rose".
  • One cannot mention a computer game or a new television show, where roses appear, as they are unlikely to be around in a few years time.
  • One cannot mention Hamlet, as the roses that appear in Hamlet are minor to the story.

If more than five references appear in an article, consider creating a completely new article dedicated to Cultural References.


I think this will make certain that only references that have a real impact are mentioned, provided people follow the guideline of course. Mlewan 15:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My stipulation of "must impact the subject" was an attempt to address this issue (and similar ones). It's problematic to use criteria of a more categorical sort, such as your suggestion of "no new TV or video games" -- there can be old irrelevant references and new relevant ones.
Looking at the rose article, I see that the references you mention are all in a "Quotes" section, which ordinarily would be moved over to Wikiquote. First of all, how many of those references are really significant to rose -- the flower -- anyway? Even their literary pedigree doesn't necessarily make them important to rose, the subject of the article. Even if they were to be retained in the article, they'd work better woven into a unifying narrative explaining their significance to the subject, instead of a bulleted list. This is more or less what WP:TRIVIA recommends for lists of this variety.
The easy solution for this particular case would be to convert the "Quotes" section into "In literature", which would pare off all but the first five (literary) references. The list could be turned into prose, speaking of the meaning that "rose" had to these writers (relating it back to the "symbols of love and beauty" found in the first sentence of the Culture section), and explaining a bit more about Stein's criticism and parody of the use of the word "rose" in English poetry.
The remaining entries could conceivably be regrouped under "In popular culture" -- but some basis for those entries' significance to the subject would have to be added, and if a basis couldn't be provided, that would mean it didn't belong in the article. Even when it's something more weighty, like the literary references, it's important to provide context which demonstrates its importance to the subject of the article -- which is exactly what my proposal advises. Perhaps I should embed this very example in my proposal; it's a good test case.--Father Goose 04:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's codify what good editors do

I see two agendas in contention for a relevancy policy:

  1. Improve quality of articles.
  2. Improve efficiency — speed up resolution of edit conflicts.

I think the primary agenda should be (2) — improve efficiency and thereby indirectly improve article quality. I propose designing a policy by:

  1. Weighing what impact elements of policy will have on edit-conflict efficiency.
  2. Codifying only what good editors are already doing (empowering their voice-of-reason during edit conflicts).

What good editors do will evolve and the policy can then change to reflect the shift. In short, what good editors do should drive the relevancy policy (resulting policy teaches other editors). A policy that drives all editors is just not going to work. That is, any attempt to legislate from on-high what does & doesn't go into an article is an academic exercise that editors cannot unify around. The relevancy policy-by-example, that good editors have already engendered, approaches the limit of what good editors can unify around — lets codify it. —WikiLen 08:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of these points. In particular, I agree that it's much more sensible to codify practice than to try to legislate behavior. As I understand it, it is the "three questions" that you feel are not right, in some capacity.
Correct. —WikiLen 13:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put to you that the "questions three" is codification of practice. It is my feeling that they match what a majority of editors instinctively apply when they say, "this is relevant" or "this is irrelevant". It is my impression that you are somewhat more "inclusionist" than the average editor, and that you employ a different personal standard for relevancy. If not, I apologize for my incorrect impression. But I would like to hear from additional editors that "they're wrong", or at least, in need of adjustment. ("They're right" would be quite welcome too. ;-)
I am a pragmatist, at least in this situation. I am heavily influenced by the fact that no Relevancy Policy has occurred to date—for 6 years—although it has been attempted in the past. I assume past attempts strove to codify more than what the editors were doing in practice. I think you have used up all the capitol you have on asking us to wait while you get feedback from other editors or work on revisions. It was some three weeks ago that you asked "everyone to look it over". We've done that. I think it is time to go to the next phase... —WikiLen 13:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to double-check something: did you leave this comment before or after you read the 2.0 version? I'm not sure what your overall view of the 2.0 version is, and whether it has addressed any of your earlier reservations. At this point I'm waiting for feedback on the new version -- which includes the changes to it that you are in the process of making.--Father Goose 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the primary issue here is quality versus efficiency (is that what you're saying?). All the guideline should try to do is answer: "What is the consensus view of 'what is relevant?'" I've tried to offer a comprehensive yet specific (and therefore actionable) definition. Did I get it wrong?--Father Goose 09:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but... you have been offering an engineered view not a consensus view. I do recognize that your intuition is guiding you to hopefully find what "editors instinctively apply". You may have achieved that, but you are standing out in front trying to lead the editors to what you think the consensus view will become. It is not there yet. I call it the "quality approach" because your focus is on what makes a quality article, regards relevancy. I call my approach the "efficiency approach" because I am focusing on what makes efficient resolution of edit conflicts, regards relevancy. The quality-approach, if it works, will improve the quality of articles faster than the efficiency-approach. The efficiency-approach, if it works, will free up more time for writing new content and other stuff. —WikiLen 13:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, WP:NOT legislates what can and can't go into articles, and it has consensus support. There is a difference between disagreeing with the criteria I have specified and disagreeing that any criteria could work.--Father Goose 09:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT states what is not relevant and by extension what is left might be the stuff that is relevant. It is basically a method by marking boundaries. Anything inside the boundaries is relevant. That approach, in my estimation, should guide us here. That is, we should just work at defining the boundaries of relevance, with the position that anything inside those boundaries is knowable as relevant but not easily parsed as so. —WikiLen 13:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that is what I tried to do here: the "three questions" are an attempt to identify those boundaries. I don't want the guideline to advocate deleting anything that is potentially relevant, so if you can point out some examples of where it misses the mark, by all means, do.--Father Goose 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance in subtopics

Aren't subtopics always supposed to have content that is about the subject of the article? I have changed the section "Relevance in subtopics" to reflect this. —WikiLen 12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this changes it away from its intended purpose. Perhaps I picked a bad example in Earth, or maybe I shouldn't have used a specific example at all. Let me give you some better examples:
"Suppressed by the militias of the landlords (mostly British), they were given measly compensation, leaving them mired in extreme poverty. The villages were kept extremely dirty and unhygienic; and alcoholism, untouchability and purdah were rampant. Now in the throes of a devastating famine, the British levied an oppressive tax which they insisted on increasing. The situation was desperate. In Kheda in Gujarat, the problem was the same."
None of this material is about Gandhi, but it is about Champaran and Kheda, and that subtopic is definitely relevant to Gandhi's struggle to liberate India -- his most notable deed.
Lots of issues: —WikiLen 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No cititation — minor
  • Is a word for word duplicate of what is at the main article for Champaran and Kheda Satyagraha
  • Could be edited to down and still make the point being made about Ghandi and one could just read the article on Champaran and Kheda Satyagraha to get the colorful details.
Almost the entire article is about disciplines that Hippocrates influenced, with very little biographical coverage of Hippocrates himself. (This is explained in the lead: "The achievements of the writers of the Corpus, the practitioners of Hippocratic medicine, and the actions of Hippocrates himself are often commingled; thus very little is known about what Hippocrates actually thought, wrote and did.")
Seems like a valid exception to the rule of only having directly related material — this material has indirect relationship. Incidently, the Relevancy policy will need something on directly verses indirectly relationship to the subject of an article. With Hippocrates, the significance of the indirect material raises its relevance. —WikiLen 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This entire subtopic is a biography of Kehoe; while Kehoe caused the disaster, this section contains nothing about the disaster itself.
The subtopic was virtually an exact copy of what was at the article for Andrew Kehoe. I have edited the subtopic to make it a summary of the main article on Kehoe and to only contain material that is about the bombing — to make it just be material that sheds light on Kehoe's character as it relates to the bombing. This will be a good test case as this is a featured article. —WikiLen 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read the section I edited yesterday, Bath School disaster#Andrew Kehoe. It hits me as much more compelling and cogent than what was previously there and no reverts yet... —WikiLen 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't sufficient to equate "about the subject of the article" with relevance to the article; subtopics need their own internal relevance. Perhaps something might need be said about "subtopics should be relevant to the main topic", although I think what's already stated about relevance in general covers this adequately. What you've changed this section into duplicates what's written elsewhere: "Content should be about the subject of the article" -- but as I've pointed out, subtopics need their own internal relevance.
This creates an opening to drive a Mack truck through. Some points:
  • You are citing examples that should at-best be called exceptions to the rule. To codify exceptions into policy is ... well you know.
  • Exception that might apply: off-topic details to establish context — call it an exception.
  • Another exception that might apply: indirectly related material that resizes rises in relevance because of the significance/importance of the subject of the article — also call it an exception.
But to sanction subtopics as a free-zone for off-topic material? —WikiLen 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, I should have used the wording "When such subtopics are within the scope of an article, many facts may be relevant to those subtopics, even if not necessarily directly relevant to the main subject of the article."
Yes, except why qualify it to only subtopics? The above, if appropriate, should apply to any section of the article. I just don't see subtopics as being places for mini-articles — what I think this would lead to. —WikiLen 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the link you added to "Splitting an article" was a good idea. I don't mind if you think this section needs some changes, but its original purpose should be retained.--Father Goose 08:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. We have got to figure out how to resolve our conflict on "original purpose". Perhaps asking for a Third Opinion would be a good way to go. —WikiLen 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, you've convinced me well enough, on this issue anyway. We might need a third opinion when we reach the "competing drafts" stage of things -- although we might also be able to forge a mid-point between our approaches that is acceptable to us both.
I did notice that the Gandhi and Bath examples were both essentially mini-articles. Given that "main" articles on those subjects already exist, I will concede that as examples, all they represent is unnecessary redundance. By contrast, the Lady in the Lake trial is an example where the other articles don't exist, and might never. Still, the lead of that article defines it as being about a group of related subjects: Gordon Park, Carol Park, the murder, and the trial -- so each subtopic is on-topic by virtue of being part of that related group of subjects.
The Hippocrates example also explains in its lead that the article is more about his legacy than his life. So each of the examples I gave (all FAs, btw) are probably covered adequately by what I wrote in "The subject of an article". There might be other examples where my original point holds some validity, but I'll wait until I see them. I think I would still like to touch upon how subtopics can cover material of progressively less direct relevance to the main topic, although maybe that's already covered by "Articles on more specific subjects can go into far greater detail."
I'd actually remove the "Relevance in subtopics" section by now and move the article-splitting advice into "The subject of an article".
Incidentally, can I urge you to not interleave your comments with mine? When we're embedding quotes or bullet points in our respective comments, things can get disjointed pretty quickly (and even more so if someone else were to jump in). I see that you sign each paragraph that you write to reduce this problem, but still, given the way comments are formatted on Wikipedia, inline replies get messy quick.--Father Goose
OK on all above and I will not interleave my comments. —WikiLen 19:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it about the topic of the article?

This section originated at User talk:Father Goose/Relevance. I've moved it to this page to consolidate ongoing discussion of the Relevance proposal.--Father Goose 23:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why is the three-test form more efficient — for resolving disputes — than the simple form: "Is it about the topic of the article?"—WikiLen 05:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither of our approaches has undergone any kind of rigorous trial. But it's my feeling your simple form is, well, too simple. Some facts may be "about the topic of the article", but still really unimportant. I'll give you two examples I came across recently:

Unimportant would be a separate criteria. See this below at, Wikipedia talk:Relevance#On policy verses guidance
4. Boundary at micro level (reach into details must be driven by what serves the reader) —WikiLen 06:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example 1: "The 1998 film The Siege, starring Denzel Washington, features the WTC in the background."

This is from World Trade Center in popular culture, and there are dozens of equally incidental examples on that page. They were even more irrelevant when they were in the World Trade Center article. The line Incidental connections between subjects (i.e., with no demonstrable impact on either) do not need to be documented anywhere on Wikipedia. is specifically targeted at this kind of irrelevancy.

I like—find it belongs—the list of incidental connections that the Trade Towers have to culture, as listed at World Trade Center in popular culture. It has almanac character that serves the readers interest considering the iconic character the Trade Towers have. It is not often mentioned, but Wikipedia serves as both an encyclopedia and almanac, as mentioned in one of Wikipedia's tutorials: "Wikipedia is an editable encyclopedia (along with some topics that would typically be found in an almanac)". I would argue "The Siege" belongs in the list because the importance of the topic elevates the relevance of what would otherwise be details too trivial to include. Furthermore, I would argue the line in question is more about the World Trade Center in popular culture than it is about the film, The Siege and so belongs in the Trade Towers article if anywhere. —WikiLen 06:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example 2: A majority of the permanent flavors offered by the company include chocolate in one form or another, though there are vanilla-based blends as well.

From Häagen-Dazs. Sure, it's "about" Haagen-Dazs, but it's a pretty unremarkable statement. Even if it were actually true (by my count 21/49 include chocolate), it could be shot down with "not a distinguishing trait" because lots of ice cream flavors tend to involve chocolate. It would, however, be relevant to a "Flavors" section -- as part a fundamental description of that subtopic.--Father Goose 05:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to argue the relevancy point I would say: Is relevant, as it is about the topic of the article, Häagen-Dazs — i.e.: Häagen-Dazs makes lots of ice cream with chocolate in it. I might also argue that, although relevant, it is too trivial a point to include in the article. —WikiLen 06:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTC in popular culture

I used the WTC example because although the Trade Towers are very culturally significant (especially post-9/11) -- within New York, they were visually almost as significant as the sky. An outrageous number of movies set in NYC from 1971 to 2001 included at least one shot of the Towers. So if every shot of the Towers qualifies, the article would verge on being "List of films and TV shows with at least one scene set in New York City", and without at least some selectivity, the article could easily run afoul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and get deleted.

But if readers want the list the list serves the interest of readers, it belongs in Wikipedia—as an exception of What Wikipedia is not—and as a long list it should probably be split off into a separate article such as, "List of films and TV shows showing the Trade Towers". —WikiLen 02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a larger principle at stake here: should every mention or other appearance of something, somewhere, be documented on Wikipedia? Clearly not every connection between two things is significant. But how do we discriminate between incidental connections and more significant ones? That question is central to the "in popular culture" debate. I've made a very careful attempt to answer it, via the "Impact" section and "Connections between subjects" section. It's still up to individual editors to make the case for how much impact one subject has had on other, but I think "no discernable impact" is a sensible cutoff to apply.--Father Goose 23:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTING ABOVE: should every mention or other appearance of something, somewhere, be documented on Wikipedia?

No, isn't this is already addressed by, What Wikipedia is not? —WikiLen 02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subtopic: Connections between subjects

I am having difficulty with the "Connections between subjects" subtopic in the guideline. I have copied the whole section, as it exist now, to here: (WikiLen)

In many cases, a fact that connects two subjects may be important to one of the subjects, but not the other. This is commonly the case with creative works that are based on, or otherwise incorporate, other subjects: while the original subject often has importance to the referring work, only very famous references will register an impact on the original subject. Books, movies, and other works (such as documentaries or biographies) that are specifically about a subject are often relevant to that subject, especially if the work has influenced public perception of the subject in some way.
Not every connection between two subjects needs to be mentioned in both, or even either of their articles. Incidental connections between subjects (i.e., with no demonstrable impact on either) do not need to be documented anywhere on Wikipedia.
Sometimes, when an article contains a large section listing connections between its subject and others, an editor may choose to split that section off into a new article. The acceptance of such articles on Wikipedia is uncertain; see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles.

I don't understand it. Some questions: (WikiLen)

  • Is there a simplier way to re-frame this?
  • Is this really the "Trivia" issue that is causing so many problems?
  • Is this stating the case for when material of indirect relevance may be considered relevant enough?
  • How about a simple example of "a fact that connects two subjects"?
  • Also, is there an And example of an edit dispute where this is a problem?
  • Any essays worthy of being linked to regarding this?
  • Any guidelines worthy of being linked to regarding this?

thanks —WikiLen 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed aimed at the "trivia" issue (and "in popular culture"). It's not an exception to any of the other statements made in the guideline, just an application of them to a major class of cases which would require the application of this guideline.
The nearest existing guidance on this issue is at Wikipedia:Handling Trivia, which refers to it as "connective trivia". However, HTRIV is an essay (which covers a lot of other subjects). If REL does single out this subject to provide specific guidance, it will have to nail down the "consensus position" on the issue, whatever that proves to be.
I am indeed attempting to stake out a consensus position for the relevance of this variety of trivia -- by subjecting them to the "impact" test. I guess I need to emphasize that better. I don't know what your general position on "relevance of connections" might be, but I'll state mine, by way of an example: Howard Hughes#Portrayals in popular culture. Almost nothing outside of the "Movies" section there seems relevant to that article to me. All those "lyrics mentioning Hughes" and "characters patterned after Hughes" entries have just about no impact on Hughes that I can see. But, they may be relevant to the works that make the portrayals -- for instance, from $pringfield:
Back at Burns' casino, Mr. Burns has mentally degenerated into Howard Hughes' later years, wearing Kleenex boxes on his feet and designing a plane called the "Spruce Moose" (a pun on Hughes' "Spruce Goose" aircraft).
As for edit disputes, most often what I've seen is material of this sort tends to get added over time by many different editors, then heavily pruned or deleted by one editor, then stuff gets added again over time -- unless the "pruner" watchlists the page and zaps all attempts to add to/recreate the section again. Actual edit wars over such acts of deletion are surprisingly uncommon (though they do exist) -- anyone who wasn't watching the article at the time of deletion won't realize it happened.--Father Goose 07:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This all has the flavor of not-ready-for-primetime. Sounds like policy work that is evolving at other places. Not sure what we could add to that except for 'see-also' purposes. My general position on "relevance of connections" is that long in-popular-culture lists need to be spun off into separate list-articles of almanac character. The subsection in the main article would then hit the highlights of the list article (or summarize the list article). —WikiLen 15:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) —WikiLen 15:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rel 2.0

This draft was a pleasure to read. REL 2.0 is an admirable effort, worthy of its chance to be considered for promotion to guideline/policy status, though of course its a dream, a longshot, but better, much than a snowball in the hot sun.

The brief duologue on this talkpage between WikiLen and Father Goose 19/20 June (On policy versus guidelines) was eerily prescient; much that was anticipated in that discussion has eventuated.

Working together, a two-pronged effort, is a supple approach, giving latitude not for Forking, but balancing (of style that is: all points implicating actual policy need to be unambiguous, and consistent across the board – it seems REL 2.0 actually achieves that!).

The rename of ATSIA to ATS also in a way maybe clears the way for WP:REL to address just those issues that it currently does, comprehensively and comprehendably, giving guidance in a general way, which is yet anchored to occasional specifics, and without bogging down in detail. So, at long last, (ahem) this interested editor feels called upon to offer congratulations to Father Goose for exemplary persistence, and fine work, a fine draft, and also WikiLen for many valuable contributions. There is much still to do: for now though, both editors, well done! Newbyguesses - Talk 23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Father Goose 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subtopic: Relevance of biographical details

I don't understand this, from the "Relevance of biographical details" section:

Biographical articles are often not about people, but about what brought those people to the public's attention. In this regard, there may be information that is pertinent to individuals, but not to what makes them of interest.

Especially the phrase, "there may be information that is pertinent to individuals, but not to what makes them of interest." —WikiLen 17:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I had in mind there was basically any personal information that has not been widely reported or otherwise written about (such as biographies) -- i.e., where the individuals in question were not public figures. I'd rather express it in the form of a principle than via the criteron of "not widely reported" or bring in legal definitions (public figure). Every rephrase I've tried of that sentence has drifted into incorrect specifics, however, so I'd recommend just removing it.--Father Goose 19:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your version, which I didn't quite get, inspired the draft below (WikiLen)

Biographical articles
Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Biographical articles are often both about the person and the impact they have on society, including spin-offs of their work.

  • The person: The depth and amount of reliable biographical coverage the person has received is a good indication of what biographical details Wikipedia should include on that individual.
  • Impact on society: The impact on society can be more about society or its own thing than about the person, however it is acceptable to describe that impact, in summary fashion, in the biography. Detailed descriptions of notable spin-offs/impacts should have their own article with a link to that article.

Important: Wikipedia articles that contain material about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with sensitivity and a strict adherence to our content policies, and the subjects of our articles must be approached impartially and conscientiously. Editing of articles on biographical subjects has an official policy — listed above. Please refer to it.

Above: —WikiLen 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second completely revised draft

Tomorrow, I will be replacing the content of the current "project page" with the content at User:WikiLen/Relevance. The new content is a refactoring of the current page as well as a synthesis of ideas between myself (WikiLen), User:Father Goose and User:Coppertwig. This is not yet a consensus but is a agreed upon process between myself and Father Goose. This is the second big step. The first was the posting of a "completely revised draft" by Father Goose on 13:47, 6 July 2007. All edits to date, of the current version have been considered or incorporated into this second major draft. —WikiLen 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third big step! 2.0 and your draft grew from the seed of 1.0. I've been watching your draft unfold and have been storing up my responses, to avoid commenting on material that was still changing. Anyhow, I'm happy to hear the next stage is at hand. Talk to you tomorrow.--Father Goose 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if it's not quite ready tomorrow, don't worry about taking more time. In fact, I'd recommend letting it sit for 24 hours after you think it's done so you can re-read it with fresh eyes. Transfer it over whenever you're satisfied.--Father Goose 06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or now, now's good too. Heh.--Father Goose 07:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, posted (I was ready). Sobering thing to completely replace an article... ready for the next phase. —WikiLen 07:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert! Muhahaha. But seriously, the next couple of days are a little busy for me. I'll present my critique when time permits.--Father Goose 08:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like your sense of humor... gave me a good laugh. —WikiLen 11:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

&

{{Read "What Wikipedia is not" for the types of "articles" which are not suitable for Wikipedia; in particular, wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. When it is established that the article, or its title, or initial draft is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, then the question of relevance concerning particular information which is added to that article is addressed, and it is addressed, in the first instance, by those editors adding information to the article, and those also with the article on a watchlist. That is, discerning the relevance of information to an article is what good editors do.[1] This leaves making the case for relevance up to editors in Edit summaries and on actual Talk pages; see WP:CRYSTAL on how to deal with hypothetical cases.

For "guiding principles" and "pitfalls to avoid" when in edit disputes — Relevancy and edit disputes.

For illuminated thinking on relevancy — Relevancy and editing skill.

Wikipedia:Relevance, as a guideline, is given less weight than the three core policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three before using this guideline.}}

? mdash Newbyguesses - Talk 12:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I especially like your sentence, "...discerning the relevance of information to an article is what good editors do." In general, I find the above provides too much information for an opening section. I think the stuff about what establishes an article would work the best in an essay accessible from this opening section. Your work above inspired this re-write of the opening section:
  • Moved mention of "What Wikipedia is not" to the italic top list of related articles.
  • Did not include stuff about what establishes an article.
  • Otherwise, used the sentences you provided above (or slightly morphed versions).
Great input... thanks. —WikiLen 14:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of WikiLen's draft

In retrospect, I'd like to open my critique of your draft with the points I do like.

  • "There is no external 'reliable source' to tell editors what is relevant."
  • That's true, and I'd be prepared to emphasize that in all future versions of the guideline.
  • "This persuasion is essentially an art."
  • Nice.
  • "A fact may be relevant but not notable."
  • I'd rephrase this as something like "A fact may be relevant to a subject but not intrinsic to its notability". Overall, I agree that it's a good idea to explicitly draw the contrast between WP:REL and WP:N.
  • "almanac-type lists"
  • Although I agree with this, even you acknowledge "These exceptions do not have consensus as official policy." If I haven't said it before, I'll say it now: I consider myself a fellow inclusionist (or, more specifically, an eventualist). I think our wishes for Wikipedia are similar, even if we differ on how to bring those wishes to fruition.
  • In the particular case of "In popular culture" articles, the precedent we would have to counteract is visible at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture; a majority of such articles listed there have been deleted.

--Father Goose 05:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've finally had a chance to study your work carefully. I apologize in advance; this will probably sound very harsh. However, there are several deep problems with what you have written that are likely to leave you disappointed as it receives more attention.

I'm afraid what you have crafted here is an editorial, not a guideline. It doesn't establish any new rules or standards -- in fact, it constantly stresses that it has no influence over matters of relevance, and that it legislates nothing. If I didn't know what your hopes for this draft was, I would presume that it was a rebuttal of a guideline, instead of a guideline.

It makes a number of statements that are highly inclusionist in nature: "Any editing "rule" can be ignored if it keeps relevant material from getting into an article"; "Most likely, the material is relevant to another article". "The relevance of material in any given Wikipedia article is gauged, not by some policy" even verges on undermining WP:NOT. These lines are not going to withstand scrutiny. There are several other opinions embedded within it as well, each of which diminish its likelihood of attaining consensus.

It's quite unfocused. It seems to mention every policy it can get its hands on, even if they have little bearing on the issue of relevance. It's hard to read, jumping from one point to the next, having a staccato structure dense with unnecessary lists, asides, and self-references. It says a lot of things it just doesn't need to say, sometimes over and over.

It's got quite a bit of non-neutral language. Every invocation of "the readers" has a "think of the children!" quality to it. You keep talking about "good editors", as though there's some group of "bad editors" out there who are The Enemy. The "Pitfalls to avoid" section is one big "tut-tut" -- it's patronzing to tell people "don't have an agenda". Either they don't have one -- in which case you haven't assumed good faith; or they do have one -- but such advice will still just antagonize them. There are existing policies that cover such behavior anyway.

Now, mind you, you do make a variety of good points that I would embrace. But overall, what you've penned here is an elaborate viewpoint -- not a guideline. Given the number of times you insist that "relevance is left up to the readers", I expect you will not be prepared to make this proposal actionable, as required by WP:POL. Your central stance on the issue compels this work to be an essay, not a guideline. In fact, as far as being a guideline is concerned, I fear what you have penned here is an unfortunate act of self-immolation.--Father Goose 04:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to make this proposal actionable. WP:POL On your concerns:
  • "will probably sound very harsh" — That's OK. I like the passion in your position.
  • "It's quite unfocused" — I do not find it so. And I expect the focus to be improved.
  • "Diminish its likelihood of attaining consensus" — Wouldn't my unwillingness to work towards consensus be the main factor in diminishing likelihood of success?
  • "You have crafted here is an editorial, not a guideline" — perhaps, lets find out.
  • "doesn't establish any new rules or standards" — yes it does. It establishes, implicitly, that relevance is to be free of wikilawyering. It also establishes that relevance is "about the subject of the article." Nothing more, that simple, not rocket science!
  • "seems to mention every policy it can get its hands on" — that is a fault?
  • "opinions embedded ... which diminish its likelihood of attaining consensus" — Yes, I expect those to me modified by the policy making process. I was not looking for the necessarily "right" opinion. Rather I was looking for the "bold" opinions that would get others thinking about what they really wanted as relevancy policy. And in my "boldness", I hope get lucky sometimes and hit it just right.
  • "having a staccato structure" — this is not a story. People rarely read a policy from top to bottom. They read looking for help on a specific point. I am not against having a smooth flow, just don't think "staccato structure" translates to meaning it fails to communicate with clarity and completeness.
  • "says a lot of things it just doesn't need to say" — repetition has value when the subject matter is difficult. I recognize there may be too much. I look forward to what others think on this.
  • "elaborate viewpoint" — so is "ignore all rules".
You are overlooking the ironic paradox this policy lives in. That is WP:IAR: "ignore all rules was our first rule to consider". "Ignore" because material is relevant despite what a rule says. Is this "ignoring" because a policy on relevancy says it is relevant — see the paradox? Who says "it's relevant"? That is the crux of the issue. Are we facing angst over fashioning rules on when we can break rules? —WikiLen 12:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) [no offense meant by the bold type :)][reply]
  • "...compels this work to be an essay" — That could work. Then the guideline could be an elegant single sentence:
When your edits serve Wikipedia's mission, we celebrate your creativity even if it breaks all rules.
  • "It's got quite a bit of non-neutral language" — Minor... can be easily fixed if such is the case.
  • "what you have penned here is an unfortunate act of self-immolation" — really now? I think a more accurate closing would be "what we have here now is a classic conflict between wikilawyering and wiki efficiency" (in an attempt to deal with a rule paradox that is at the heart of what drives Wikipedia). That is: a struggle between what is right and what is efficient. I think there is a limit to how far policies can go to nailing down what is the right way to edit. Going too far in legislating correctmess can make for an inefficient editing culture. My pulling back from correctness is more than you are comfortable with and your impulse towards legislating, even though moderate, is more than I am comfortable with (for a relevancy policy). We are fully informed on each others biases. I think it is time for each of us to experience our rude awakenings that are sure to happen when the greater community looks at what we have produced so far. I will submit this immediately to the next step in moving towards policy. I am not sure what that is. I am researching this —or— please inform me. Alternately, I encourage you to do the submission. —WikiLen 12:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My central point is that you don't have any instructions here in the imperative mood -- which is more or less how "actionable" is defined. Maybe you have one or two imperatives in your draft, but they are basically restatements of other policies. When your edits serve Wikipedia's mission, we celebrate your creativity even if it breaks all rules is a restatement of WP:IAR, in a non-actionable form.
You've got to fix this issue first and foremost, or, like I said, you've got an essay on your hands. The other issues can be fixed, but unless you're prepared to issue a command -- that hasn't been commanded elsewhere -- then what you have here is fine as-is, as a personal statement -- but it isn't a guideline. That's why I called it self-immolation. Your draft spends far too much time emphasizing its impotence.
"Only add material that is about the subject of the article" might work. However, then you should go into the nitty-gritty of what is, and isn't about the subject of the article. You and I have a shared view for the definition of "the subject", but I don't believe I've seen you state, in general yet concrete terms, what "isn't" about the subject of an article. I believe you will also have to try to identify "what is too peripherally about the subject", and exclude it.
That was the ground I tried to explicitly identify with my three questions -- while noting that applying them required at least a measure of individual interpretation. Individual interpretation is a necessity; I think we both agree on that. There may be no external standard for relevance, but I think that doesn't preclude an objective communal standard. Perfect objectivity isn't possible, but I think it's still possible to spell out a common standard for "what's too indirect". If we evade that question, we will have done absolutely nothing to make relevancy discussions "more efficient". If we inadvertently offer a definition which is unrealistically inclusive, we'll set the whole issue back, and you better believe that won't achieve consensus. If we offer a definition which is too exclusive, the same thing will happen. Tweak the definition if you think it's too exclusive -- but you shouldn't pretend you can avoid offering one. Work with me to provide the best possible one.--Father Goose 22:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much work has been put in here by Father Goose, and WikiLen, and I note the on-going dialogue. I shall only comment briefly then. The current material, WikiLen, has defects of style and focus, of course repairable, and does have the saving grace of provoking thought. I would have to say, it leans towards the essayistic, and Father Goose has noted particulars here. The previous draft Rel2, seems more on-topic, in that the current material reads somewhat as an epistle to editors, it is a bit "chatty" in tone.

The further process for this guideline proposal will be sorted between both editors - fortunately, common understandings seem evident. My own understanding of the full implications of these policy matters, which policy is mentioned first, then another and so on, lacks sophistication, so I review these, and style matters only. Happy to help in a minor way though, and confident to leave it up to you both to progress this process. Newbyguesses - Talk 14:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edits & comments

I note (WikiLen) that for 2 weeks — since 1 July — there have only been three people (myself, and Father Goose and Newbyguesses) participating at this talk page. Time to push for a broader consensus (not that the three of us have achieved one). Father Goose and I have layed out the issues — see above — in broad strokes. I don't fully trust my ability to do a good job at this point. Mostly because I am thinking one other editor is too small of a set of editors to clear out any bias cloud that Father Goose and I may be stuck in. We wouldn't be human if we weren't in one at this point considering how much work the two of us have done together (and separately). To get our numbers up I suggest:

  1. Put in a request for comment (on policies) — I plan do that.
  2. Start making changes in the WP:BRD manner — this is known to be good for getting other editors involved.
  3. Place requests at user talk pages for users who participated in discussion on this during May & June 07.

Now is not the time to hold back. I look forward to seeing edits happening. I will be using the WP:BRD (BOLD, revert, discuss) edit cycle. Such as: (1) you be bold (do an edit), I or Father Goose revert and then we all discuss or (2) Father Goose is bold and anyone else reverts and then we discuss or (3) any other editor arrangement for the cycle. Of course we only get into this cycle if the bold edit does not take. —WikiLen 18:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I do think Newbyguesses is being helpful in clearing the cloud — just need a larger group if we are to get the pulse of what the consensus needs to be. —WikiLen 18:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted this at the talk page of users going back through June (there are no May edits):
Father Goose and I (WikiLen) have developed competing versions for a possible guideline on relevancy. I note you have previous participated at this project. Your contributions would be timely now.
* Draft REL2 by Father Goose
* Draft REL3 by WikiLen
My draft is the current proposed guideline only because I made mine after Father Goose did his. This is not to suggest either version is favored. Thanks for your interest... —WikiLen 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review A

I went section-by-section, so it runs long. Please don't attempt to read it while feeling insecure.

For what it's worth, I've been avoiding WP:RELEVANCE, so I read it today with fairly fresh eyes. I've also not read this Talk page.

These are first impressions, with little perspective, excessive nitpicking and a dearth of helpful insights. Take it with a few grains of salt. I'm trying to temper it somewhat, but it took a long time to write this and I won't have time/energy for further re-considering and deep analysing this afternoon. Now I need a break from editing this.

Reply on the Talk page, not on the review page itself, which I'm still revising.

So far I've finished as far as Nutshell, so that's a good point to stop reading. ;) / edg ☺ ★ 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that what's on the project page right now is WikiLen's "3.0" version. This is my 2.0 version, which I will be tweaking further following the discussion of WikiLen's version. If you can spare the time, I would appreciate a separate review of the 2.0 version, since it is a radically different document which I believe does qualify as a "viable guideline".
I'm going to read your review now. The input you are offering is greatly appreciated.--Father Goose 22:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second Father Goose's comment — "input you are offering is greatly appreciated." —WikiLen 22:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hope my input is not entirely destructive. Use if it's helpful, dicard if it's harmful — I'm not too invested. I was expecting a "Public beta version", but maybe I came in too soon.
Glanced at 2.0. Some of Review A applies there, tho it may be harder to follow. I think I'll not look at 2.0 again — this is to lighten my load, but it helps if I don't know who wrote what.
I think I'm finished with Guiding principles now. / edg ☺ ★ 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay all my copyediting is done. Now to enjoy the brief period between accomplishment and regret. / edg ☺ ★ 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive work. Many fine points in what you say. thanks... —WikiLen 00:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review B

This is for version 2.1, by request. With this I wish to retire from reviewing WP:RELEVANCE proposals.

Neither proposal shows much potential for becoming a useful guideline. I don't see an existing problem that either of these proposals could solve. (Space-filler for wikilinks to WP:RELEVANCE should be fixed by more appropriate linking.)

My suggestion, should the (two, competing) editors wish to continue developing their essays, is to request deletion of Wikipedia:Relevance so that editors are not referred to either guideline. This way references to WP:RELEVANCE will be redlinked, and then redirected individually.

As userspace subpages, these articles can be developed individually either with the goal of later being sufficiently useful to be proposed, or simply to be kept as personal essays.

No more apologies from me. / edg ☺ ★ 04:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

edg's comment below is copied from Wikipedia:Relevance/Review A

I'm sorry this came out so negative. I honestly have no idea what help this article is believed to offer. General impressions: vague, wandering, long-winded, not sure what it wants to say, very few actionable suggestions. I feel like I've read a bunch of non-academic guesses about the metaphysics of information.

This seems to say very little, but there are some feelings here (beyond not knowing if anything can be done). I'm wondering if the writer is imagining something they cannot put into words. There seems to be a vision of what is desired, but somehow it has not made it explicitly into this article.

I'd say use more examples, but some of the examples given seem tossed off and hard to draw lessons from.

/ edg ☺ ★ 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted on "came out so negative." I understand it is your first pass. Also, it is good to see a gut reaction. If this is going to make it as a "guideline" I think it has to somehow transcend all the gut reactions editors may have on relevancy — yours included. —WikiLen 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note you say "I honestly have no idea what help this article is believed to offer" — gut reaction felt. You say the same thing as a positive with your statement, "there seems to be a vision of what is desired, but somehow it has not made it explicitly into this article." I will address the positive expression. In summary, (WikiLen)
  • Yes: I have a vision (and a mission)
  • Agreed: the vision "has not made it explicitly into this article" —WikiLen 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vision: Imagining something not easily put into words

My vision (WikiLen) on what to convey: Relevancy is obvious!

  • In the vast majority of cases relevancy is simple to discern — no need for a policy to address the obvious, except to say "don't lose site of the fact relevancy is basically obvious."
  • It is our attempt to understand relevancy that is complicated. Hence, dampen the attempt; amplify the simplicity.

Edg, you strike hard several times in your Review A on the point "sheds no light on anything not already obvious." That relevancy is obvious is the whole point — a point I have failed to get across to you. —WikiLen 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then is this your summary?

Content should be about the subject of the article.

If that really covers the whole thing, we have a nutshell. However, the article would need to develop a case for it — does this rule by itself lead us to good decisions about relevance? / edg ☺ ★ 01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like your suggestion for the nutshell statement. Yes, I think this leads to good decisions by editors. First, Wikipedia has thrived from its start with no policy or guideline on relevancy. That speaks volumes. I have seen the comment, in an Edit summary, "not about the topic of the article" work many times, especially when I point out where the information would belong (or put it there myself). Second, it is the edges that needs help, such as when people think indirectly relevant means directly relevant. —WikiLen 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found it difficult to convey this approach of leave the center alone, just deal with the boundaries. I guess it comes to this: Editors do not need to be told what is relevant they just need to be told how to not get confused over this; how to win over other editors who use bogus arguments for relevancy. And, of course, how to avoid using bogus arguments oneself. —WikiLen 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mission: Imagining something not easily accomplished

My mission is to bring together two camps:

  • Command & control camp — Just command what relevancy is and then let the policy exert control on editor's edits.
  • Lose the rules camp — If I think it is relevant and convince other editors of it, then it is relevant... end-of-subject!

Perhaps I dream too much... —WikiLen 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find Father Goose and edg speak to concerns of the "Command & control camp." I have a fondness for the "lose the rules camp." —WikiLen 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What point is there in making guidelines for the Lose the rules camp?
From Wikipedia:Relevance/Review_A#Guidelines

... the point of Ignore all rules is to let the system correct problems bold users introduce. A guideline should not ignore all rules — it should provide a leveling mechanism for the unstability that Ignore all rules introduces, so we may enjoy the benefits Ignore all rules brings us.

Yes, I just blockquoted myself.
In formulating new guidelines, existing rules should be questioned and debated. But a guideline that invalidates or conflicts with existing rules is broken. It will never be approved in that state.
I consider Father Goose an anarchist. / edg ☺ ★ 01:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens! I am against the "lose the rules camp" approach that WikiLen has advocated. Surely you have not mistaken his words for mine? This may be taxing your patience, but I beg you -- when you have a fresh mind -- to read 2.0 on its own. What is on Wikipedia:Relevance right now does not represent my views in the least. Although the two versions may seem superficially similar, that is becaue the Frankenstein (as you put it) that is 3.0 incorporated several body parts from the "viable guideline" that I wrote. I left WikiLen's 3.0 on this page to extend to him the courtesy that he showed me for several weeks, but please understand that whatever anarchy is present in it is not mine in the least. I fear the courtesy I have shown has resulted in a terrible confusion here.--Father Goose 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Edgarde, please read Father Goose' version. It carries your sensibilities. —WikiLen 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just kidding. Father Goose I didn't mean to dis your version. Mostly I just didn't want to take a side on this. Even if your version were more to my liking, it's still not helpful to take a side.
I'll read 2.0 next; lemme know if there's a link to the tweaked version, and gimme another day for the additional reading. Tired of WP:RELEVANCE right now. / edg ☺ ★ 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time; reading it with a clear mind is more important than reading it soon. I will implement what tweaks I can think of tonight and put a link to it on this page when they're done.--Father Goose 04:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding. / edg ☺ ★ 04:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding edg's comment, (WikiLen)
What point is there in making guidelines for the "Lose the rules camp"?
This proposal needs to address the concerns of this camp to achieve consensus status. —WikiLen 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding edg's comment, (WikiLen)
.. the point of Ignore all rules is to let the system correct problems bold users introduce. A guideline should not ignore all rules — it should provide a leveling mechanism for the unstability that Ignore all rules introduces, so we may enjoy the benefits Ignore all rules brings us.
Except, we have a special case here. The reason one ignores a rule via WP:IAR is because material is relevant despite what a rule says. To then say, well if you are going to be BOLD you have to be bold in the 'actionable' ways prescribed by the relevancy guideline is nonsense given this context. Possibly worse than nonsense. What it might create is a vicious culture conflict between editors being bold via WP:IAR and editors Wikilawyering against those bold edits with Wikipedia:Relevance. In short, to load this guideline with "actionable items" — your term — will, I fear, introduce inefficiencies. If not the inefficiencies of a culture conflict then surely inefficiencies of additional Wikilawyering — all over something that is most of the time obvious to everyone on the planet. i.e: to be relevant something must be about the subject of the article. —WikiLen 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, but I think I've said all I need to express that. Keep in mind, I'm not the one this has to get approved by, so my not arguing too strenuously doesn't mean a bar has been cleared. / edg ☺ ★ 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Noting User:wikiLen's latest post(s), addressing, in the first instance User:Edgarde, if I may -

To Reiterate; User:Father Goose took some time in producing a draft REL2, which existed on this page. It has been wholly replaced by REL3 which originated with User:WikiLen. The purpose of this was to allow comments and editing to the draft (REL3). As this occurs, Father Goose is pointing out that attention to REL2 is required. REL2, in the present opinion of this current editor, (U:NewbyG) does not suffer from a marked disposition to "inclusionism", nor "deletism" —

Users are invited to distinguish between REL2, (largely Fr Goose originated) and "REL3" (currently on the page, largely originated by U:WikiLen).

The concerned editors in May/June offered Fr Goose time to produce a draft, which was courteously done. Similarly, Fr Goose offered the same courtesy to WikiLen, who produced the current draft. In the interests of serving the page, courtesy ought be extended to remembering that REL2 was not superseded by REL3, both drafts remain very much in consideration. User:Edgarde, thanks for your input, and excuse my going on at length, I would suggest that reading REL2, if you have the time, would help to distinguish between the FR G draft, and the WikiL draft. It appears you may have misunderstood slightly, in perhaps attributing to FR G words he dissasociates from, we all understand how that happens, but those watching the talkpage for the last while are not unclear on this.

I am not sure if views concerning "anarchy" are an accurate assessment of any user's "position", however, the drafts are under consideration, not the "position" of editors. (FYI this current editor is also suffering from lack of available time to peruse every page, sentence and comma, but the process the two main editors are engaged in seems satisfactory, and the requests for input from other concerned editors also successful in gaining the attention of a thoughtful contributor(s) , first to bat being the esteemed User:Edgarde.) Watching with further interest, Newbyguesses - Talk 02:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I see my anarchist comment really kicked someone. Very very sorry for the loose jape. I've ticked several people off today by talking loosely to people I don't really know. I have things to learn I guess. / edg ☺ ★ 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

edg's comment below is copied from Wikipedia:Relevance/Review A

This should not be in the lead section: "Wikipedia:Relevance, as a guideline, is given less weight than the three core policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." (edg)

It belongs here by example. Virtually the same statement, in the same location, is in all three of the core policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. —WikiLen 03:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is pushing the theory too early. It think (for usability's sake) the order should be
  1. Directives
  2. Tools
  3. Reasons
  4. Philosophy.
This sequence makes the guideline more usable (i.e. more actionable and easier to understand).

Guideline sequence

Thus I would also suggest Relevancy and editing skill (currently major section #2) be moved to ahead of Relevancy and edit disputes (currently major section #1). This is on the observation/assumption that Relevancy and editing skill will have directives, and Relevancy and edit disputes is more principles and complications. These sections could use clearer names too. / edg ☺ ★ 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to some points — edg's comment first, in italics: (WikiLen)
  • "This is pushing the theory too early." — Then by the same logic you think Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view are also pushing the theory too early. I suggest getting them revised first to reflect your view. Shouldn't it get fixed in those policies first?
  • "'Relevancy and editing skill' will have directives" — I agree directives should come first. However, I don't find "directives" germane to editing skills. Being skillful is an art. How can you make directives about that? Edit disputes need the directives and for different reasons than you think. I suspect you are seeing the wrong problem to solve for edit disputes — thinking relevancy could solve problems between two editors with competing good ideas. A noble ambition but not possible. Consensus is the process for solving competing ideas problems. The edit dispute problem for WP:REL to solve is unglamorous: provide tools to fix things when an editor in a dispute uses a bogus argument. I don't know how much editing you do in articles, but I find bogus relevancy arguments coming up all the time. Tools here would mostly be lines from the guideline that an editor could quote, such as "do not put off-topic content into an article solely because its compelling nature argues it is relevant."
  • "This sequence makes the guideline more usable" — Shows promise. I would need to know what you mean by "tools". Also, you think "skill" is what needs directives and I find "disputes" is what needs directives.
Edgarde, I wonder if your impulse is too lofty; wanting Relevancy to solve grand disputes or maybe just wanting to avoid the struggle for consensus. Obviously not possible when one thinks about it. Personally, I find all there is, is a class of rather boring disputes to speed up and have not come up as often. —WikiLen 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this document cannot resolve disputes, it may be useless. Then the question is raised, what problem does this guideline solve? When someone says disputes can never be resolved or facts are always subjective or Wikipedia's rules are in reality unworkable, first of all I disagree with them, and second I wonder why they are here, let alone writing guidelines.
If one's goal is to create a guideline as a platform for one's views that all editors will be required to read, and to which other guidelines will need to be reconciled — which is the best reason I can imagine for forcing non-actionable argumentation to the top of the guideline — that's writing in pretty bad faith. WikiLen I trust that is not your intention.
The best reason to write a guideline is to solve a problem, which frankly I still don't see this document doing.
The sequence I'm suggesting (instructions, then tools/advice, then reasons, then philosophy) gives readers what they seek, then educates them further (starting with the practical, leading to the esoteric) for as long as they choose to continue reading.
The net slang term TL;NR (meaning "Too long, not read"), and the practice of "executive summaries" both exist because people lack the time and patience to read long documents completely. Give them what they need as quickly as possible.
(WikiLen)

"This is pushing the theory too early." — Then by the same logic you think Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view are also pushing the theory too early. I suggest getting them revised first to reflect your view. Shouldn't it get fixed in those policies first?

First of all, no. Second, I'm not interested in critiquing other guidelines here. If my advice is not helpful, you are free to ignore it — I'm not very invested and won't be hurt by this. If the goal is to create a prolix, ranting guideline, then my advice is contrary and destructive, and should be ignored. / edg ☺ ★ 23:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just find it hard to go against practice done at such highly respected guidelines/policies. I personally have no objection to moving mention of those policies to some other section of the article. —WikiLen 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "actionable"

Edg, please explain what the term "actionable" is about. Also, can you point to some places in Wikipedia that explain this? I haven't fount any. Thanks:) —WikiLen 07:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:POL: "...actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors)". What I wrote above, about "issue a command" is an elaboration on what this means, as best I understand it.--Father Goose 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Maybe I should write the "Actionable" essay (the one no one wants).
The degree to which something is "actionable" is:
  1. how easily one can find out what to do, and
  2. how effective the given advice is.
Let's say someone sees some text (or is considering adding text), and they think it has a problem involving "relevance". They should be able to come here, scan the document, and have their answer.
My sequence concerns (above section) assume the editor is reading from the top down, so the more actionable information is, the higher on the document it should be. My assumption (and it took me a long time to figure this out) is that Relevancy and editing skill is where the "Definition of relevance" will be. (If so, it should be retitled appropriately, hint hint).
If this document resolves disputes, it's actionable. Per WP:RELEVANCE, this can stay, but that has to go.
My sequence advice addresses #1 (ease of use). Effectiveness (#2) is not addressed, and is a serious deficiency with this guideline as written (uhm, at least in version 3.0). / edg ☺ ★ 23:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance 2.1

All right, version "2.1" is now posted at User:Father_Goose/Relevance. It incorporates several changes suggested by WikiLen, Newbyguesses, and edgarde, and a few more of my own. Edgarde, don't feel compelled to review it right away; if you manage to find time for it anytime in the next week, that would be just great.

I acknowledge that there are still several areas where it could be improved; the "Impact" subsection is more spare than I'd like, and perhaps some of the preamble material could be relocated to below "Establishing relevance", which is the meat of the thing. I also haven't yet tried to soften it in the ways I believe WikiLen would prefer -- although I was careful not to state anything in too absolutist a manner; guidelines should guide, not imprison.--Father Goose 09:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dueling banjos, er, proposals

I'm wondering what we should do about the "pride of place" issue -- namely, that WikiLen's proposal is on the project page at this time, while mine is, for the time being, in userspace. Although I consider it a somewhat ugly solution, should we relocate both to userspace, and turn the project page here into something like a disambiguation page, pointing to each of them? If a consensus emerges, whether for WikiLen's version, mine, or neither, then the "winner" (which might be the pre-proposal version) can be re-established here.--Father Goose 10:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace seems appropriate to me. The "disambiguation page" could be interesting. Would we need to figure out how to guide/force everyone to discuss at this talk page? —YES. Would three talk spaces be counter-productive for consensus? —YES. —WikiLen 14:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd have to say what is most injurious to consensus is the "content forking" that our two proposals brought about. But things are still at a pretty early stage, so I think it's positive overall for both "camps" to have their full say before everything gets chopped down and built back up. As long as the forks exist, I think it'll be easier to understand the conversations if separate talk pages are used -- just two, in our respective userspaces, unless someone wants to comment on the disambiguation page itself.
I'll create the disambig and move the current version here into User:WikiLen/Relevance; I hope this is not too presumptuous an act on my part. [Edit: Done.]
Separately, I'd like to work towards ending the "fork" situation as soon as possible, although this will require either bringing our views much closer together into a single guideline; retaining mine as a guideline and yours as an essay (which is what they presently are on a purely categorical level); or an endpoint consisting of an essay (yours) and a failed proposal (mine).--Father Goose 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much ado about nothing

I think that this is much ado about nothing. Several editors have made the point above that there is no need for this to be a separate guideline. It seems that the two proponents of these new rule have spent little time editing articles in mainspace (less than 1,000 edits between them) and perhaps have seen a few issolated situations where our current infrastructure is lacking. Please correct me if I'm wrong by providing example articles where we have problems with relevance. Generally, the editors working on the subject material are monitoring the content and with a few exceptions we don't have problems. --Kevin Murray 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely condescended, Kevin. I'm sorry to have offended your omniscience. Please let me know when I have your permission to make further contributions to Wikipedia. I'm glad to hear that all content issues are resolved.
Goose, you dodged the question of whether there is a true need here, by trying to sound offended. Why are you writting proposals for new rule with less than 500 edits in mainspace? Of course we welcome encyclopedic contributions from everyone, but doesn't it make sense to gain some real experience with the systems before trying to change them? --Kevin Murray 00:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse haughtiness with experience. For all your 1,900 mainspace edits, you don't seem to have learned that puffing out your chest, or being dismissive towards others, does nothing to advance your views. Do I, and others, believe there a true need here? Yes. If you in particular are unlikely to be convinced of that, does that mean it is not needed? No. If this proposal is without merit, then it won't be adopted. You have little to fear. But don't overstate your influence, or wisdom, and don't understate mine. Especially not on the basis of numbers. What exactly have you learned during your time on Wikipedia?--Father Goose 01:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to become unpleasant in the absence of having a good reason and justification for this project. Just as you have the right to propose things, others of us have the right to oppose perenial rule creep, and to protect the project to which we have devoted much time and energy. My opposition to needless rules is an effort to simplify and clarify for the writers who are the key to this project. I strive to recruit and nurture new contributors to the encyclopedia. However, if you've got an odd axe (or machete) to grind, that's another matter entirely. --Kevin Murray 01:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you do have the right to oppose instruction creep, and I respect that. I even support that principle. I didn't come up with this proposal arbitrarily; it arose from discussions at WT:TRIVIA, which were achieving little resolution specifically because of the absence of a common standard for relevance. "What is relevant" vs. "what is not" is an ongoing issue, and the absence of a common standard has resulted in more drama and confusion than is necessary.
Your prior arguments for its lack of necessity employed ad hominem attacks, namely that I lacked the experience needed to craft and promote policy based on a need that has been expressed by a number of people. I'm glad we have progressed beyond that form of discourse. If you remain unconvinced of the proposal's necessity, well, that is lamentable.--Father Goose 03:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel that a suggestion of lack of experience in the mainspace is either ad hominem nor an insult to your inherent abilities. There is a learning curve for those of all levels of competence and ability. I don't single-out any person in this criticism, and am a firm believer that access to varied areas of WP should be allowed in a progression based on time and level of contribution. Clearly you and others here demonstrate superior thinking and organizational abilities, but I maintain that with further experience you would also perceive this as a non-issue. Cheers and here’s to further collaboration together in happier situations! --Kevin Murray 04:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One learns by doing, and I'm doing. Attempting to constrain people on the basis of a number is not a glowing example of the respect that is key to this project. It was taken as an insult, and I have a sly suspicion that, on the receiving end, you would have taken it as an insult too. It's important to not employ beliefs as munitions.
All right, I've vented. To our future collaborations.--Father Goose 10:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The need for a "relevance" guideline is at least partly evidenced by these pages as well as discussion related to them at WT:TRIVIA, and discussion regarding the use of the word "relevance" itself at WP:TRIVIA.--Father Goose 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused; it seems that this is just an example of where some of the issues here are being addressed already. How is this a demonstration of need? --Kevin Murray 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The decision process between the two currently competing proposals should go forward fairly quickly, though not in haste. I would suggest it best that the pre-proposal version stand alone on the page in the meantime. No proposal is implicitly favoured, or deprecated, thereby. Sorry for my delayed input, other matters were being attended to. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there are already several links to WP:REL that mention the proposal(s) to be found there. Restoring the pre-proposal version with an added mention at the top of the two proposals would work fine for me.--Father Goose 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also question the need for a separate guideline on this. Trivia is covered in the MoS, and that should be sufficient. Dhaluza 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find this in MoS. Can you link please? / edg ☺ ★ 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too am unable to find such guidance, unless WP:TRIVIA is what Dhaluza had in mind. This proposal arose due to TRIVIA's failure to provide any standards for "relevance", despite using it as a criterion for deletion.--Father Goose 04:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah wait! WP:TOPIC delves ever so slightly into the issue of relevance -- but it only says "stay on topic", which is reasonable, if somewhat obvious, and it does not bring up trivia at all.--Father Goose 04:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a viable solution here would be to merge the best of WP:TRIVIA, WP:TOPIC, and WP:Relevance, but with concise actionable text. --Kevin Murray 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging other topics to create a space-filler article here creates a maintence hassle, and unnecessary reading.
I agree very strongly with Kevin Murray's initial statement. This guideline is not needed, and the proposed guidelines do not solve any problem I can think of. Presenting a useless article and linking it as if it were a possible guideline just wastes editors' time.
If no suitable redirect exists, request deletion. Once the links to this article are redlined, they will be unlinked or redirected appropriately. / edg ☺ ★ 05:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline is not needed

From the above section

The need for a "relevance" guideline is at least partly evidenced by these pages as well as discussion related to them at WT:TRIVIA, and discussion regarding the use of the word "relevance" itself at WP:TRIVIA.--Father Goose 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Then this guideline is not needed.

  • {{Trivia}} ("these pages" in the above-quoted comment) no longer links to Wikipedia:Relevance.
  • The infrequently-used {{Content}} template did link here, so I changed it not to; no point in directing people to read a non-guideline. I also changed one article where {{Content}} was substituted into the article body (instead of transcluded). No other articles or templates are currently linked to Wikipedia:Relevance.
  • As for WT:TRIVIA, I'm on that Talk page a lot and I don't see the demand for this guideline. Creating a guideline to make a point on a Talk page isn't necessary, and may be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

My repeated question What problem does this solve? has not been answered either here or in the proposed guidelines, which contain little or no actionable content.

When I pointed out how several sections in 3.0 belabor the obvious, I was told this was because "Relevance" should be obvious. That being the case, I've not seen evidence on this Talk page or in either proposal that a guideline is needed.

My suggestions on where to go from here are in the Review B announcement. / edg ☺ ★ 07:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{trivia}} never has linked to here -- but it should, if we can get a guideline to emerge from the work we're putting in here. I wouldn't link any template or guideline to a proposal still in development, so I agree with your yanking it out of {{content}} for now. There was a dispute (which still smolders) over {{trivia}} saying "content should be integrated or deleted", without specifying what should be deleted, and a nearly identical dispute at WP:TRIVIA. This guideline -- when it's improved further -- should lay out a reasonable baseline for "when to integrate" and "when to delete".
  • I agree with nearly all of the comments you made at Wikipedia:Relevance/Review B, and will implement them to the best of my ability. Additional work will be needed beyond that. I will put in that work. Given the dozens of hours I've put into this already, if I'm trying to make a WP:POINT, the joke's on me. Don't confuse "it's not ready" with "it's not needed".--Father Goose 09:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major refactoring and splitting of REL3

In the recognition that my proposal REL3 failed to get traction towards consensus (my mission). I am withdrawing the proposal and refactoring:

Please feel free to jump in and improve as inspired. If I disagree I will revert or make changes and start a discussion on your edit. I will soon post on "What problems relevance needs to address." —WikiLen 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finished the radical trimming/revising of REL4. This version might be closer to the sensibilities of the "no guideline needed" camp. My intent is to find consensus, not promote a "no guideline needed" agenda. I think consensus is in that direction. I am not the best at trimming down to just actionable items. I would appreciate edits by others to morph it into "actionable items" where appropriate. Don't get carried away... some non-actionable stuff is surely needed to establish context, especially for new users. Also, perhaps this REL4 version should be moved into the main article for a brief while to see if it gets traction. —WikiLen 23:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the new essays being added to Wikipedia:Relevance, especially in the section for recommended guidelines. I removed this once,[2] with the edit summary Let's not make this a Christmas tree for non-policy, unapproved guidelines and random editors' essays. I was then reverted,[3] restoring these essays.

The new essays have not gone through any sort of approval process, and have scarce claim to even having been reviewed. They should not have been restored to Wikipedia:Relevance. This is a disservice to editors. / edg ☺ ★ 00:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of "Christmas tree" edit

[Referring to this edit reverting edit by edg.]

User:Edgarde's Edit summary: Let's not make this a Christmas tree for non-policy, unapproved guidelines and random editors' essays. (edg)

Edgarde, this essay is just part of what we have been debating over — an event in this consensus process, not a "random essay." It is some of the content in REL3 moved out into an essay — a step other(s?) had recommended I do. Simple put, this page has been refactored. —WikiLen 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An orderly process is ensuing to obtain preference between the competing drafts. It should be kept off the projectpage, for the time being, until it gets sorted out. Sort it out on the talkpage, U:Newbyguesses - Talk 00:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My removing those links was also "an event in the consensus process".
Unapproved drafts should not be offered as recommended guidelines. User:JimmyEnthused linking his essay Why datapoints are useful from WP:TRIVIA cannot be preserved simply on the grounds it is "an event in the consensus process", even if other editors have said some of it has potential.
While the pre-proposal version is a bit outdated, it is better than what was just up. I'm okay with this for the time being. / edg ☺ ★ 00:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with the "pre-proposal version" also. And regarding, "an event in the consensus process": yes, your edit User_talk:Edgarde was also such an event in the consensus process — point well made. —WikiLen 01:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-proposal version is on the projectpage, though it is a little out-dated. There has been little support for REL3, it could be OK as an essay, but is not going to work as a guideline. REL2.2 should go up on the projectpage, that is the best chance to advance from a proposed guideline to the next step.
A useful guideline for "Relevance" is not a luxury, nor "instruction creep". REL2 may or may not make it there, but it is a decent attempt at addressing this issue.
There is no wish to cut discussion short, that of course continues on the talkpage, but REL3 had its run, and REL2 was not superseded or deprecated thereby. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both my proposal and WikiLen's are currently undergoing a major rewrite, so it would be best to wait a few days more for another evaluation of each by interested parties.
I added links to the proposals onto the pre-proposal version, as a "see also" section. There are several advertisements for the proposals that suggest they are to be found at WP:REL.--Father Goose 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems to solve

I (WikiLen) am not claiming any proposal successfully solves these yet. To solve:

  1. Rule-creep hassles problem: A relevancy "policy" that just links to other places will feed fuel to some editors, especially new ones such as myself, leaving an opening for: "Hey, there is a policy. It is scattered about. Let's move it all into one place — cool..." ;)
  2. Bogus problem: Editors need a small set of sentences/phrases, located in policy/guidelines, that they can then quote to wake up confused editors — editors using bogus claims for relevancy. Saves the experienced editor from needing to explain how it is bogus.
  3. New-user problem: New users need to be educated about relevancy. First, they naturally want to know about it and second, being so educated has efficiency benefits for the rest of us.

I personally, find the sentiment, "no problems to solve", has a certain elegance to it like WP:Ignore all rules. However, when I look carefully I find "yes", there are problems to solve, certainly minor and mundane but real nevertheless. —WikiLen 01:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikipedia may be getting along fine without a Relevancy guideline, provides no clue as to how things would be with such a guideline. Efficiencies could be worse or better depending on what's in it. However, doesn't the risk it would make things worse loom far larger than the possibility things would improve? I think "yes" — perhaps Father Goose and I have been too ambitious in our scope. What would a simple guideline say that succinctly addresses the above three rather ordinary "problems to solve." And, by the way, I know my version REL4 (archived here) has not succeeded at this — didn't clearly grasp the "problems to solve" until now. —WikiLen 04:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better not to have a "relevance" policy page. Few or no problems to solve, and the various proposed draft pages don't do much to solve them anyway; whether something is sufficiently relevant just has to be argued out on talk pages.
If there is to be such a policy, the current sections "keep article focused" and "the subject of an article" are pretty good. The section "establishing relevance" offers questions but not answers, which is not much help, especially not if it's to be a policy.
I strongly disagree with this command: "Always explain the effect that a fact has had on the subject." This suggests that for every fact mentioned in every article, additional space in the article has to be taken up explaining why the fact is relevant.
The section "fundamental information" merely replaces the loosely-defined word "relevance" with the loosely-defined word "fundamental".
I disagree with the following: "Facts that are needed to provide a fundamental description of the subject are always relevant. These facts explain what the subject is, what it does (or did), and what it is notable for." Things that the subject did are not always relevant, e.g. what a celebrity had for breakfast one day. Very famous human subjects may be notable for huge numbers of things; not all of these are relevant to an article about the subject.
I still get the feeling, particularly towards the end, that the draft policy was written with only articles about human subjects in mind, but not nearly as much as in earlier drafts.
Sorry for all the negative comments. I appreciate the work people have put into this and I see that it's an improvement over earlier drafts. --Coppertwig 17:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as criticism is specific -- as yours has been -- then it's helpful, and much appreciated.
Arguments over relevance do have to be carried out on talk pages, and this proposal is intended to strengthen that process. One thing to keep in mind is that often, that discussion doesn't take place at all. There is a formal process for deleting articles, where people are notified and discussion must take place first. But entire swaths of content can be deleted without so much as a peep, and after it's deleted, there's usually no sign it was there in the first place.
I don't advocate that every single addition or removal be discussed -- that is senseless, of course. But when the discussions do happen, I want to aid both sides by having a solid framework in place, something that states the basics (in a way that reflects consensus) about what belongs in an article and what doesn't. This guideline by no means trumps discussion -- it promotes it. When disputes arise, each side has to present their rationale for inclusion or deletion. Right now, those discussions typically devolve into WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and little is achieved. Other times I've seen WP:TRIVIA invoked to justify wholesale deletion, because its advice simplifies down to "integrate or delete" -- and let's face it, integration takes work. This guideline improves that situation, by explaining what context is necessary for meaningful integration, as well as when and how to move off-topic information.
This guideline also tries to lay down some criteria by which to evaluate whether material "offers a broader understanding of the subject". I think most editors would agree at least with the principle underlying this, even if the criteria may need further tweaking and explanation. I think they are a decent approximation of the internal reasoning editors have been using to date. But I readily accept that they need further criticism, field testing, and rewording to state things clearly and correctly, and to represent the consensus position as well as possible.
I don't think the "questions" should be turned into statements -- relevance comes from context, so what should be stressed is not "whether something is relevant", but "whether something can be made relevant" through the addition of context. The answer to that question must be provided by editors, not the guideline. But the guideline does stress that the question must be answered -- "why is this relevant?" -- and gives specific guidance on how to answer that question. I believe this helps to reduce the nebulosity and subjectivity inherent in evaluating relevance.
I can't eliminate all ambiguity from language, but the specific phrase "needed to provide a fundamental description of the subject" is not quite as open-ended as you claim. I also can't forestall all wikilawyering, although any obvious loopholes or omissions remaining in the present guideline can be identified and amended. I solicit all criticism and assistance people are willing to offer.
"Always explain the effect..." probably states the case too strongly. I'll try to fix that -- or if you're willing to fix it, all the better. Similarly, you're right about "not everything it did" is relevant... I'll ponder how to better word that.
The "Connections" and "Biographies" sections do address two "special cases". They could be removed from the guideline, but a great number of fights over "relevance" center on these types of cases, so I think some additional words on them are worthwhile. It's reasonable to shed additional light on areas where it is most needed.
I can't help but feel like perfection is being demanded of this proposal. It covers far-reaching and important territory, so I grant that it should be evaluated with a fairly conservative eye. If it's dead wrong, okay, torpedo it. But if it gets some things right and some things wrong, help me fix the wrong bits. My is aim to cast as much light as possible on an area of ongoing contention. The more people are willing to aid me in this work, the more clarity Wikipedia can offer.
Thanks very much for your input.--Father Goose 22:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked the proposal against your "Things that the subject did are not always relevant, e.g. what a celebrity had for breakfast one day" comment. A claim that something like that is relevant ignores the sentence that immediately proceeds "what the subject is or does" -- namely, "needed to provide a fundamental description". Any language in any guideline can be taken out of context and wikilawyered, but I don't think anybody trying to be reasonable would pretend that celebrity breakfasts are part of a fundamental description. (Maybe if the celebrity in question were the Pillsbury Dough Boy...)--Father Goose 02:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things can be WikiLawyered can also be subject to legitimate misunderstanding, so WikiLawyering should be considered as more an example than a sole concern.
Made these changes:
  1. Restored Impact instruction without specific requirement for explanation.[4] This way impact can be apparent from context, or needs to be made apparent, without requiring an explicit explanation — should be fine for an encyclopedia. Does this work? I still feel the term "Impact" is a bit vague.
  2. Changed Fundamental information to Definition, since I think this is the intended meaning.[5]
  3. Anticipating the term "Definition" to be misinterpreted, I added a warning against dictionary cruft,[6] which has been a problem in some articles.
  4. Sorted Establish relevance items by likely sequence with an article.[7] No implication of importance is intended.
Revert whatever does not help. / edg ☺ ★ 03:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Effect" might be a workable substitute for "impact", although I think "impact" conveys something more like "a measurable effect", which is better.--Father Goose 05:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now with kung-fu grip

User:Father Goose/Relevance (heavily revised)

I am in edgarde's debt for his incisive Review B. I've trimmed off all the fat I could find (there was a lot), increased its clarity as much as I could, and turned it into a set of instructions instead of a wish list.

The "Impact" section still needs clarification, but I think the rest of it is solid. The particular line "Changing the subject's form or history (in particular, any of its fundamental or distinguishing traits)" says what I want it to say but probably not in a way that makes sense to others. I would appreciate feedback or questions about that line to help me shape it better. Any comments on any other part of the proposal are also welcome.--Father Goose 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The updated version of this proposal, which has been extensively trimmed by User:Father Goose, has been restored to the project-page. The work put into this version facilitates the best chance for advancing this proposal. Thanking WikiLen, once again, for his efforts; and inviting further work on that draft to continue, in user-space. Having followed this discussion for some time, I believe that consensus currently is demonstrated for the slimmer version now on the page, which achieves greater clarity than other drafts offered to this date, Newbyguesses - Talk 08:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newbyguesses, what is your basis for finding "consensus currently is demonstrated for the slimmer version" (named version FG 3.x)? I don't see any. Shouldn't we establish that consensus on this talk page first before changing the project page? —WikiLen 16:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newbyguesses is (I would guess) being polite here. The consensus on this talk page is against version REL3. REL4 is still new, but there has been no rush of support for that version either.
There is no consensus for either version, but the general gist is if there must be an article on Relevance, parts of FG's version might be suitable. / edg ☺ ★ 04:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dispite the lack of consensus on what was posted (FG 3.x), I will leave it to others to revert, if struggles for consensus so dictate. A revert by me would correctly be perceived as biased and would not help a move towards consensus. —WikiLen 20:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the goals for the competing versions were to approach each other, with REL3/4 intended as a test bed for some more ambitious or advanced ideas — good for discusson this Talk page, but not suited to in vivo experimentation. / edg ☺ ★ 04:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three questions test

The section "Establishing relevance" with its three questions is, IMHO, what is challenging consensus for this version: (WikiLen)

  • The three questions are very technical and take effort of focus to use.
  • It is not field-tested and needs to be because of its complexity. (It may only be useful for Trivia, if at all.)
  • Assumes relevancy disputes are struggles of intellect when most likely they are struggles of emotion. i.e: struggles involving bogus or confused reasoning.

Perhaps "three questions" is a specialized approach that could be adopted by Trivia guidelines. —WikiLen 21:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is the part of the proposal that faces the most controversy. It's daring; it's an attempt to codify editorial practice which has not been explicitly stated until now. If it fails to capture that practice correctly, it will need to be changed until it does, and if it can never be brought into sync with editorial practice, it will have to be removed.
Field testing! Indeed, that's exactly what it needs. I'll need help with that. I want to test it against specific cases to see if it breaks, or if it is just too awkward to use to be practical.
Having rational tools at one's disposal in the midst of an emotional struggle is positive. First of all, one must assume good faith -- that editors are acting rationally, and are merely disagreeing. Having specific criteria to discuss gives editors a chance to think through their positions, and stands a chance of producing a rational outcome. Responding to emotional language with rational specifics is also better than saying "you're being emotional".
So the question remains -- are the three questions right, or can they be made right? Let's give them some serious stress-testing and see what emerges. I am not claiming that they provide definitive answers -- this is exactly why I presented them as questions instead. I want to see what kind of discussion they prompt, and to see if they can help bring about greater understanding amongst editors engaged in relevancy disputes.--Father Goose 02:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring of version REL4 complete

User:WikiLen/Relevance is heavily trimmed, revised and refactored from version REL3. Changes are inspired by input from numerous editors,—thanks!—including:

I split draft REL3 into three parts to make draft REL4:

  1. User:WikiLen/Relevance — draft REL4
  2. "What claims of relevancy are false" — an essay
  3. "Indirect relevance is sometimes OK" — an essay

Highlights of this draft:

  • Edited to focus on "actionable" items.
  • Summarizes the two essays I spun off and provides links to those essays.
  • The "questions three" concept designed by Father Goose has been cut (impact, fundamental information, and distinguishing traits). I will address my reasons for dropping this at a later opportunity.
  • The section on splitting off to new articles has been cut.

My goal remains to find consensus... —WikiLen 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version for this fork

There now exists a REL4.1 version of this fork. —WikiLen 21:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed demarcation for relevance

Submitted: for a fact to be relevant, it must be one of these things:

  • Definition – as in the current article.[8] Easiest to identify, always relevant.
  • Details – not defined for now, and not all details are relevant.
  • Context – this is included in WikiLen's current version, but only vaguely hinted in the current article.

Can anyone think of examples of relevant information that wouldn't fall clearly into one of these three?

Does this list exclude anything other than patent non sequitur?

This short list is over-inclusive, but perhaps this clearly identifies the hedges we need to trim. It is possible that so much of concern will fall under "Details" that this model may be ineffective. / edg ☺ ★ 05:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition isn't quite the right substitute for what had been "fundamental". It forces you to drag in that not-a-dictionary paragraph, which is a tangent. Furthermore, there's plenty of stuff in the lead that isn't definition. "Description" would work better.
I'm not sure context should be singled out as "okay"; earlier discussions between WikiLen and myself brought to light "mini-articles" in Gandhi and Bath school disaster which one could claim were useful for context. In truth, they just strayed too far from the subject. I think context should still hew closely to the "about the subject of the article" rule. And on some level, what isn't a detail?
I'd like to suggest evaluating things through the filter of "broadening one's understanding of the subject". Can you figure out generalizations that can help identify when material does, and doesn't, broaden understanding? I'd say "impact" latches on to that concept, and the other two -- description and distinctiveness -- fill in the gaps it leaves behind. Perhaps description and distinctivness should be folded together. But you see how tricky it is to come up with good criteria, and define them correctly as well?--Father Goose 05:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, I don't mind playing around with the ideas. There are probably better ones hiding somewhere.--Father Goose 05:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons I like definition is it requires a real problem to be addressed. The "definition" paragraph is an opportunity to address a real, relevance-oriented problem I've seen in several articles.
I still need to comtemplate the rest of your response. Thanks! / edg ☺ ★ 06:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll offer a parting shot thought before I go to sleep: I came up with the "three criteria" by going through a list of trivia (this one), deciding which I would personally keep and which I would toss, then trying to articulate to myself why I would keep or toss each. I then tried to combine my reasons into general criteria that adequately represented the "ins" and the "outs" along with "whys". I refined it further by studying at several other trivia sections and full articles on Wikipedia until I was satisfied it did a good job of separating the chaff from the wheat. The end result was a trio of criteria that were definitely not arbitrary.
"Impact", though not perfectly named or explained, represents an underlying principle reasonably well (how did this affect the subject?). I'm increasingly thinking I should have folded "fundamental" and "distinguishing" traits together, as distinguishing may fall under the notability subcriteron of fundamental anyway. Basic description and how did this affect might not be a bad one-two punch in the long run.--Father Goose 08:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good that you mention that. I was thinking fundamental and distinguishing were closely related, and may be part of the same thing.
I'm still using the term Definition instead of Basic description because
  • It's more specific; a "definition" is more limited in its function, and much non-fundamental, non-distinquishing information is ruled out by that term. Whereas Basic description is more vague and debatable. It's not important that this information actually be a definition; however, defining is the quality of information we might consider fundamental.
  • There are "definition"-related issues both brought up in WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and in real problems I've seen in articles, and these may relate to relevance. I'm guessing the issue I'm bringing up doesn't seem as hot to you as it does to me, but it both merits a mention and clarifies the above guideline.
The bang is small, but still it's a buck well-spent, IMO. I'll take a look at that Clinton article later. / edg ☺ ★ 08:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Defining traits", then. "Definition" is too closely bound with a "dictionary" meaning. Although I haven't witnessed the not-a-dictionary issues that you have encountered, I'm hoping they can be reduced to a sentence somewhere. I'd rather this guideline not become a list of special cases, although maybe, like the notability family, that will be unavoidable.--Father Goose 08:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version nomenclature

Version numbering is now broken and only makes sense to WikiLen (whose numbering incremented from 3.x to 4.1) & the Father Goose (whose number incremented from 2.2 to "FG 3.x", spanning existing numbers belonging to WikiLen). I had to scan several articles to figure out which version "3.x" referred to in comments above — it wasn't immediately obvious to me (and will not be for new editors joining this discussion) that FG meant "not in linear descent from 3.0".

I propose we say Father Goose's proposal for the current article (currently filed under Wikipedia:Relevance), and WikiLen's proposal for User:WikiLen/Relevance, regardless of where they are located. / edg ☺ ★ 06:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better still, I hope there will just be Wikipedia:Relevance from now on, with everyone contributing to that single version. The version numbers were useful shorthand for referring to specific major rewrites, but in the forked state, that became unworkable.--Father Goose 06:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I'd like to recommend Wikipedia:Relevance be renamed 27B stroke 6.--Father Goose 08:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

I've added these subsections

  • Avoid dictionary-style definitions (which became a problem in a few articles, notably Misandry and Sex tourism), which I'm satisfied with
  • Scope, which needs clarification (the very term scope is not familiar to some readers) and may need much more work.

I think these subsections contain more-or-less actionable advice and address real problems I have seen. (If you want the dreary case histories, ask me.)

I'm wondering if the existing proposals can be organized into my proposed demarcation, but that may be the fevered dream of a madman. / edg ☺ ★ 06:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not happening

Father Goose fork is here or sometimes at the project page.
WikiLen fork is here or sometimes at the project page.

This method of alternating which fork is in the project space to see if one gets traction is not working at this stage to achieve consensus. For example, it appears only the editors favoring the command & control approach for policy are doing the edits at the Father Goose fork. Furthermore, Father Goose's fork is currently suffering from rule creep — the wrong direction to go for consensus. All we are doing is polishing the two forks. There are hard issues to work on that only consensus can solve. —WikiLen 09:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears only the editors favoring the command & control approach for policy are doing the edits

This must refer to me. Can please I finish my work before it gets rejected outright on political grounds? / edg ☺ ★ 09:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard issues are being ignored

Obvious hard issues:

  • What to do about rule creep concerns?
  • What to do about guideline-not-needed concerns?
  • What to do about concerns that attempts to "establish relevance" won't help edit disputes?

To these I add:

  • Should rules that only help resolve relevance in Trivia or In-popular-culture be here or in Trivia policy?
  • Should this 'guideline' help defeat bogus-relevancy arguments? —WikiLen 09:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late additions:

  • Should we have a minimalist version that avoids contentious issues? perhaps in the tradition of WP:IAR? —WikiLen 20:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Relevancy emerges" a paradigm to employ for this guideline? —WikiLen 20:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we have instructions to prevent impassioned editors from hacking scope to create or destroy relevance? —WikiLen 20:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting issues to work on. —WikiLen 09:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about rule creep concerns?
What to do about guideline-not-needed concerns?

The best solution to rule-creep concerns is to not make this guideline. This advice has been given several times by various editors on this Talk page. Since we've abandoned that advice, the article should be concise and actionable. That's what I'm working toward at this time.

What to do about concerns that attempts to "establish relevance" won't help edit disputes?

I don't share your opinion that nothing can help establish relevance. And if disputes are not settled by this guideline, we should request page deletion.

Should rules that only help resolve relevance in Trivia or In-popular-culture be here or in Trivia policy?

It's not an either/or, but a guideline on relevance should speak to trivia, so let's try it here.

Should this 'guideline' help defeat bogus-relevancy arguments?

That would be a sensible goal for a guideline. Can you list particular arguments that are worrisome? I feel that Avoid dictionary-style definitions addresses one such concern (in addition to clarifying scope and heading off a possible misreading). / edg ☺ ★ 09:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To achieve consensus the "hard issues" need to be addressed one at a time. Let's get consensus to address these before we actually start jumping into them. There are so many — probably some I've missed. An order approach is needed. Your replies above would make a good starting off point. But anyway, it looks like we are on Plan B instead for the moment. —WikiLen 16:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "bogus-relevancy arguments": I agree, "Avoid dictionary-style definitions" does address this concern. See also this section from WikiLen fork and this essay, What claims of relevancy are false (linked to in the WikiLen fork). —WikiLen 16:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention below, the issue of Editors Too Impassioned To Have Perspective is not addressed.
I think Important and Compelling argument are arguments for inclusion rather than against, so precautions to zealous editors should probably take a less confusing form (than currently stated in the WikiLen fork, and its spinoff essays). Since these admonitions do not apply to all editors, they may be better served by a precautionary essay than within an ordered and logical (intended) guideline, so the spinoff essays may be the start of something good.
As an aside, the mention of "feng shui" and "vision boards" in your examples is very distracting. Users who don't know what those things are will wonder if they are missing something. Users who do know will consider feng shui both pretentious and cliched as a "random thing used for example". / edg ☺ ★ 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Needs a better example than "feng shui" and "vision boards." —WikiLen 20:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "the issue of Editors Too Impassioned To Have Perspective is not addressed": Got it, I think. I have added the "scope" issue to the list of issues. —WikiLen 20:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late additions

Strive for a minimalist version perhaps in the tradition of WP:IAR?

There exists no "minimalist tradition of WP:IAR" in writing guidelines. You've brought WP:IAR up several times and I don't believe anyone has ever agreed this was anything but counter-productive. A guideline should not ignore itself, or other guidelines. If you want to ignore all rules, go ahead, be free and freaky; but you logically opt out of co-authoring guidelines.
This article has been in revision since May, and no one has come up with a satisfying "minimalist" concept. Unless you are entirely satisfied with no rules ... tear down everything ... entropy is the highest order ... inertia, stalemate, accusation and counteraccusation, these are better than any guideline, you might want to let go of your minimalist ideal.

Is "Relevancy emerges" a paradigm to employ for this guideline?

Every version (other than reverting to empty versions) has contained an equivalent to There are no general rules for establishing relevance in all cases, so often it is determined by consensus on what is likely to be useful to readers. I don't see a need to dwell on this. However, you seem to use this issue to recommend a policy of (in effect) slow edit warring and obstruction. No idea what motivates this, but it seems highly counter-productive. I recall Father Goose calling this tendency "self-immolation".
Honestly, some of your "Hard issues" seem like pointless roadblocks. I don't see the points at all, and I feel like they have been brought up repeatly, and responded to already. / edg ☺ ★ 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need guidelines to prevent impassioned editors from hacking scope to create or destroy relevance?

That question is not a sentence. Are you proposing these are needed, or questioning the need? / edg ☺ ★ 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Relevancy need instructions to prevent impassioned editors from hacking scope to create or destroy relevance?

If scope is identified as a resource for determining relevance, then yes the guideline not to make an artificial scope is a good idea. I think I have explained this several times on this Talk page, plus added a hidden comment in the article so the reason for this instruction is understood to future editors. / edg ☺ ★ 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edgarde, I find this frustrating. You are in some contextual misunderstanding that I can't figure out. I am looking forward to clarification from you. FYI: I am just trying to list the issues behind the fact that there are two forks. We can debate these issues later. Also, when I list something it does not mean I am expressing a position on it or even think it is an important issue. It just means I am predicting it needs consensus work of some kind. —WikiLen 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there is obvously a misunderstanding with my reference to "minimalist" in the WP:IAR tradition — I will fix it. The tradition I see: short is elegant and effective. My intent by the reference was to keep alive consideration of your "minimal" version. The misunderstanding is my fault — thinking on how to fix it for future readers. —WikiLen 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "responded to already": Yes, I know you have already responded to many of these "hard issues", probably all of them. That I list them does not mean I think your resolution of them is flawed. I would be grateful if you would tell me of any I am missing. This includes issues we have already resolved at this talk page and simply need to be communicated—not lost—in the consensus work that lies ahead. —WikiLen 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to end the dancing forks

We all know (or should know) neither fork is going to get traction. I recommend the Father Goose fork continue in the project space until it stabilizes and then we revert back to the pre-proposal version. My fork is polished enough for consensus purposes—thanks to help from others—so we would then be ready to work towards consensus. A straw poll at that point might be useful. Or plan B: the Father Goose fork can just continue on until it is rejected and then I could post my fork, until it also gets rejected — no wait, mine is brilliant, if we give it a chance consensus will happen... :) —WikiLen 09:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Let's go with Plan B: work on Goose fork, then seek approval. / edg ☺ ★ 09:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I favor going to consensus mode now — was tying to dramatize a point through humor (failed) about us being too obsessed with thinking a particular version is "the one". I suspect the Father Goose fork is getting less stable. —WikiLen 18:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sarcasm doesn't work as well as WP:SARCASM says. So, in a straightforward way, what are you really proposing? I dunno what "consensus mode" means in the current context.

I suspect the Father Goose fork is getting less stable.

Dunno about that. The Father may revert a lot of my changes, in which case, it would be more stable than it currently appears. / edg ☺ ★ 19:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we revert back to the pre-proposal version and then discuss the hard issues, one at a time, using guidelines of Wikipedia:Consensus as we find appropriate. I suggest we also have a to-do list of these issues-in-contention, for the top of this page; addressing them one-by-one until each one has achieved consensus or until something pops and we realize we have a consensus. I think it especially important we address issues one at a time — not sure in what order.

Versions mine

The minimal

What's wrong with this version?

I can tell you what's right:

  • simple, easy to follow
  • imposes least reading on editors
  • I think everything included in this version can be agreed upon.

What's missing:

  • answers to several specific questions posed by Father Goose and WikiLen. However, I'm not confident with the solutions offered in either proposal (including the "three questions").

2 basic instructions:

  • Only add content about the subject of the article
  • Split articles (per WP:SUMMARY) when relevant sub-sections grow to the point of undue weight, or they simply get too long.

Abuse prevention: Avoid making an explicit statement of scope is included to prevent article lead from being bias-gamed with prohibitive scope statements. Subject description should (in conjunction with other Wikipedia rules) allow all relevant content, and prohibit irrelevant content.

There may be room to grow (especially in the oddly controversial field of Establishing relevance). / edg ☺ ★ 12:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find Edgarde's minimal version deserves serious consideration. Addressing how to do the lead section should be dropped — off-topic. I would keep the "Article length contraints" section in. The "Summary style" section seems to have the wrong heading. Maybe "Length of subtopics" is appropriate. The Rwandan genocide makes a better example than the Internet. I would revise the "Scope" section to be: (WikiLen)

Material added to an article should be about the subject of the article.

Information added to articles on very general subjects should address the entire subject, rather than meandering into related topics for which more specific articles exist (or should exist). Articles on very specific subjects will provide room for far greater detail.

Example

The Rwandan genocide is relevant to History of Africa, an enormous topic. Article length contraints limit the genocide to a single concise sentence in History of Africa. However, it is accorded several paragraphs in History of Rwanda, and a comprehensive treament under Rwandan genocide. In turn, several topics under Rwandan genocide have their own detailed articles.

This "minimal" version has a greater chance for consensus than the Father Goose fork and perhaps slightly less chance than the WikiLen fork (in my biased opinion). This minimalist approach seems bland and missing the mark compared to the WikiLen fork. In particular, the "Relevancy emerges" concept in the WikiLen fork may succeed at addressing the concerns of the "guideline-not-needed" camp; a concern not addressed by this "minimal" version. —WikiLen 15:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing how to do the lead section should be dropped — off-topic.

If this refers to my Scope instructions, this isn't how to do the lead section — it's how to read the lead section. The instruction to not create an explicit scope is to prevent impassioned editors from hacking scope to create or destroy relevance. I think this is needed.

The Rwandan genocide makes a better example than the Internet.

I think this example is too complicated for the article lead. Without the Article size contraints instruction, this progression or Rwanda examples emerges mystically, without explanation. I would recommend refining the Internet example, perhaps by adding one concrete example of something to exclude. My interest is waning, so I will leave that for now to another editor. / edg ☺ ★ 16:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short review of "the minimal" by Father Goose

It doesn't say much, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but what little it does say doesn't flow. Too many short paragraphs, ideas presented in the wrong order, and it's still got redundancies -- "overview of the subject/details not directly relevant to the primary topic should be moved" as found in my most recent version is better than "general subjects should address the entire subject/specific subjects will provide room for far greater detail", which is a paraphrase of an earlier draft of mine. Both appear in "the minimal" version, which is unnecessary.

As regards the "long version", I've been watching edgarde's changes over the past day, and I've seen some ideas and edits I like, although I think the proposal's structure has become disjointed. I'll do what I can to blend together the best ideas from my work and edgarde's, as soon as my brain comes back from siesta.--Father Goose 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't highly satisfied with the final product myself, especially the long version. Revise as it pleases. I think I've explained most of what I put in. I don't feel strongly that my changes need to be preserved. / edg ☺ ★ 06:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pondering the various changes you made in the long version. I agree with some of them; others I don't see as an improvement; still others take things in an interesting direction but are still not quite right. Rather than leave the page in an experimental state, I think I'll revert to my most recent version, which is less of a "rough draft" than yours, and take a few days figuring out how to blend together your material and mine.
I think I'm starting to see how to phrase the "three questions" better -- perhaps even to abandon them in place of easier-to-understand underlying principles.--Father Goose 08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details arranged by type of information

Basicly the length of this article is tied to the amount of examples included under Establishing relevance.

The big version I came up is basicly The minimal plus 4.5kb of Establishing sorted by type of information.[9]

Guidelines:

  • Definition (could be called defining information) — always worth having.
  • Detail – decided by editors, with help from relevant WikiProjects. No good overall guideline was found in either Proposal, or talk page.
  • Context – the "Three questions" seemed most relevant here, and may provide good limits; otherwise, instruction is to offlink as much as possible.
  • plus a few bonus guidelines, under the info type they seem most applicable.

Advantages:

  • clear guideline on definition, IMO
  • decent suggestions on other information types, and refers to appropriate guidance where available
  • flexibility: any good instruction can (consensus pending) be included in this article without needing to cover everything

Disadvantages:

  • probably not the last word
  • optimised for instruction creep
  • irrational nut behind the keyboard errors (i.e. pitfalls) are not addressed
  • failure to achieve desired conciseness. See The minimal.
  • also less likely to be approved than The minimal.

I also expanded Article length contraints. A minimal version can easily be made with this update by simply deleting the entire Establishing relevance section.

Okay I see people are waking up. I'm quitting for the time being. Other editors are encouraged to edit, revert and villify as needed. / edg ☺ ★ 16:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd prefer it tho if everyone got a chance to look at the long version before it was drastically revised. Maybe I'm overrating my contributions. / edg ☺ ★ 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The moon is made of green cheese

The moon's equatorial circumference is 10,921 km.

*laughs* You should be aware that that specific number was added by yours truly and is of uncertain veracity: Talk:Moon#Equatorial circumference. Wikipedia is an incestuous little place sometimes.

One thing I learned after my first draft was to avoid examples wherever possible. I'll probably tear this one out for that reason.--Father Goose 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Any attempt to legislate from on-high what does & doesn't go into that article is an academic exercise, The policy-by-example, that good editors have already engendered may be the limit of what can be "legislated".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Relevance&oldid=146485890"