Wikipedia talk:Relevance/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)


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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
Or now, now's good too. Heh.--Father Goose 07:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, posted (I was ready). Sobering thing to completely replace an article... ready for the next phase. —WikiLen 07:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
I like your sense of humor... gave me a good laugh. —WikiLen 11:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] &

{{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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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 :)]
  • "...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)
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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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)
I second Father Goose's comment — "input you are offering is greatly appreciated." —WikiLen 22:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
Okay all my copyediting is done. Now to enjoy the brief period between accomplishment and regret. / edg ☺ ★ 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Impressive work. Many fine points in what you say. thanks... —WikiLen 00:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
I agree. Edgarde, please read Father Goose' version. It carries your sensibilities. —WikiLen 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thanks for understanding. / edg ☺ ★ 04:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

(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)

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)

[edit] 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)
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).

[edit] 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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I can't find this in MoS. Can you link please? / edg ☺ ★ 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

  • {{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)

[edit] 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)

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)

I object to the new essays being added to Wikipedia:Relevance, especially in the section for recommended guidelines. I removed this once,[1] 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,[2] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)